Dear Laine Sterbenz, the author of "I'm A Women And I'm Not With Her",

I've been trying to find a way for the last twenty minutes or so to write a response to your article that wasn't rigged of pure emotion, anger and outrage. My intention is not to berate your opinion, but I guess I am trying to find a better understanding.

You referred to Hillary as an unfit and undeserving candidate. You attacked her character when you called her dishonest and said she was unworthy of being listed in our history books as our first female president. You stated that although she was qualified politically for the position her character flaws outweigh that qualification.

I am baffled.

I do not understand how a women who has spent a vast majority of her life dedicated to public service is unfit and undeserving. Let's just talk about the few things that Hillary Clinton accomplished, she spent years working with children and families while she held a job at Children's Defense Fund. She helped create CHIP, Children's Health Insurance Program, which to this very day is still in effect and providing healthcare more than 8.4 million children. She fought for women's right in places overseas and took a stance that many other people wouldn't. That's just to name a few, not even noting the significant things she did for the people of New York after suffering from September 11th. But you did agree she was politically qualified right? So that's not the nature of my such strong disagreement with you.

My strong disagreement with you comes from everything else you said later in the article. I quote you saying

"This is about you not being able to take on the presidential duty of being someone our nation is able to look up to. Starting with staying with a husband that cheated on you to now lying about your private email server, you do not deserve to be looked up to by the women or men of this country".

You attacked this women's family. You condemned her for staying with her husband because he cheated on her. You victim blamed this women because she was able to forgive her husband's mistake and work through what I can imagine to be the toughest thing in their lives. I hope for certain that you are not insinuating that a women is less of a women, or weak for making a personal decision on whether or not to leave a marriage in the case of infidelity. I also hope that you are not ignoring the fact that the presidential candidate you voted for, now president elect, has a record of infidelity. In a much noted fashion, his first marriage ended due to his affair with a women who would later become his second wife, who by the way won't be our First Lady because he eventually divorced and remarried for a third time. Not that any of that truly matters but I just had to make it a point because I would love to know your clear position on why you included the fact that she stayed with "a husband that cheated".

Now to address your views on her emails, which seem to be the biggest reason you feel as though she is "undeserving" to be president. Let's first start by addressing the fact that by law it is okay for government officials to use personal email accounts as long as they are turned over to the government, that is stated by the 1950 Federal Records Act. When asked for a record of her email Clinton complied. But while were just making things clear even the current Federal Records Act which was recently signed as of November 2014, any government official which violates this act (which according to the FBI, Hillary did not) the only penalties that a government official can face is administrative, not criminal. But since you feel so deeply threatened that your safety was at stake of those emails, how do you feel now that the emails have been handed over and continue to be hacked and leaked to the media? I mean you shouldn't be happy those emails leaked, shouldn't you feel like our government isn't protecting your safety enough since that was the argument you made towards Hillary.

What is that of total shock to me however, how you just seem to shrug off Donald Trump's mistakes. You wrote

"Although he (Donald Trump) may be blunt and talk about women in degrading ways, at least he didn't defend a rapist and ruin a woman's life. Not to mention the other victims that rapist now has the ability to attack, I hope that 1975 case was worth it to you because it ruined others' lives."

How does one even respond to this? Well first lets talk about your phrasing in this particular sentence. "He may be blunt and talk about women in degrading ways, at least he didn't defend a rapist and ruin a women's life". Those words echo through my head "at least". So it's totally fine for him to degrade Women, African-Americans, Muslims, Mexicans just as long as he didn't "defend a rapist". You are literally attacking this women's character and trying to insinuate that she has no regard for women because she did her job. You are also ignoring the fact that Hillary defended this client due to a judge's request. Hey, I'm with you, I take a stand against rape, but you cannot try to dismantle someone's character for literally doing their job. Also your final outcome of the trial was untrue, the defendant, Clinton's client, was not found not guilty, he actually was founded guilty and took a plea deal.

Now onto Donald Trump, who by the way is in the middle of a rape case up until a few days ago. Who also has maybe around 11 accusers of sexual assault and or harassment. None of that should be ignored either, and I'm sure that you'll argue that they didn't come forward until his run for the presidency which is probably the reason they never came forward before. If it wasn't a run for presidency it would have been "well he has a lot of money" or "he's an easy target" but why should their stories be ignored? They shouldn't. You're such an advocate for women that why you came down on Hillary so hard about the rape case so how do you explain his comments and jokes about having sex with women under 17, how will you explain the use of him calling women bimbos, fat, pigs, animals, and of course the most infamous comment of all "grab them by *explicit*". I mean if you ask me that's definitely not someone who sets a good example or is worthy of being looked up too. What's also astonishing to me is just a few short months ago you wrote another article entitled "Stop Stereotyping and Start Thinking" where you addressed the various stereotypes often noted in our society, but then you turn around and vote for the very person who's presidential campaign was based off of those very stereotypes. A person who offers no unity and refers to people of color as "the Blacks", "the African Americans", "the Latinos", "the Mexicans" should so how excluded we are from his vision. But this is the person you feel will be a good example in office.

Nothing personal, I just think if you wanted to vote for Donald Trump you didn't have to use Hillary as an excuse to do so.

A link to the article that this in response to: https://www.theodysseyonline.com/dear-hilary-clinton