In frustration, Mrs. Clinton's responses sound petty and personal. But can we not say the same about most candidates throughout history dealing with the opposition? After a long and arduous campaign, emotions are most likely high and harder to suppress as patterns emerge and repeat themselves. With that said, a word like "intervention" does have a stronger connotation than potentially intended by Mrs. Clinton; yet, this is our projection onto her use of the term. Stating that there is need for intervention may be a tamer call for information, intervening in her opponent's tactics to sway voters.

Is it hypocritical to accuse Mrs. Clinton of making such a drastic leap from political adversaries to racists while Vox makes the same leap in assuming this extreme logic from Mrs. Clinton?

Not only does Mrs. Clinton stop short of apologizing, she and her opponent also stop short of speaking openly about the dangerous ignorance of many supporters on both sides.

Trump's language here suggests that he is impressed with the strength of his own ruse.

This powerfully articulates why the feminist movement still needs new and fresh dialogue to restore an historically misunderstood mission in the US. Feminism is about the acceptance and embracing of choice and opportunities for women; it is as much about a woman's (or man's) right to choose a "traditional [female] gender role" as it is to choose a more traditionally "male" role. Moreoever, this strategy of pitting women against each other is petty and dangerous; I believe that it unfortunately remains a successful tactic due mostly to unchecked ignorance.

Judging from the sexist backlash and tidal wave of outright hate directed toward Hillary (and, for that matter, any other female public figure at odds with any portion of the populace), I would argue that it is a good amount of men (or a certain subsection) who are more vocally and viscerally angry at women.

As I'm rereading these vial slogans, my horror is renewed in the conversations that perpetuate such vitriol during election seasons (though not exclusive to them). Jokes suggesting rape, disease, and murder about a woman whose contributions to this country are clearly respected among her peers and her adversaries reveal a deeper level of fear and (once again) ignorance in our voting populace. It's hard not to sound bias or to take personal offense as a woman and an American.

As Corrigan's earlier commentary reminds us, historically speaking, the president campaign engine itself has existed comfortably in its own "gender [and I would argue, racial] solidarity."

That women are still denied opportunities to own property (whether it's 1995 or present day) reminds me of the same fact listed in The Declaration of Sentiments back in 1848: "He has taken from her all right in property, even to the wages she earns." The wages issue, as we know, remains unequal and wholly unresolved as well.

I find the choice to use "families" up until this point to be highly strategic; it identifies women as the catalyst for successes in the home and beyond ("communities and nations"). Throughout the speech, Clinton only references the word "man" a handful of times, generalizing their assumed inclusion within the family, keeping the focus on the women.

This rings true to Clinton's own demonstration of femininity, one that will be routinely questioned throughout her political career and campaign. That "there is no one formula" establishes the logic of creating equity of treatment across the (spectrum of) genders and in all contexts.

Is this self-aware call to action an establishment or demonstration of logos?

There seems to be an implied syllogism at play here: All women are humans. All humans deserve equal rights. Therefore women deserve equal rights.

Establishing pathos.

Establishing ethos.