A WOMAN FOR PRESIDENT? IT'S TIME - JUST NOT THAT WOMAN !!!

On social media, revealing one’s support for Hillary Clinton has joined the combustible ranks of discussing abortion rights, gun control, immigration, and racism. Why do so many people ‘hate’ Hillary Clinton? What did she actually do in order to garner such extreme negative reactions and be viewed as an untrustworthy crook? It would be easy to assume that the same ‘angry white men’ who disdained having a Black man as our President are as misogynistic as they are racist. The problem with such a simplistic answer is that many women dislike and distrust Hillary Clinton as much as men. Numerous sensible women I know say, ‘I don’t care how qualified she is; I just don’t like her.” Facebook seems to have an I Hate Hillary Club of members who truly believe she is an indicted criminal. A large part of the voting public display visceral hate-filled reactions at the mention of her name. When challenged as to why they hate her, the response is simply “I just don’t trust her.”

Hillary Clinton is literally the most experienced and qualified candidate to ever run for President, whether we like her or not. Her early activism, years of public service on behalf of children, legal career, White House experience as First Lady, elected office as New York Senator and appointment as Secretary of State are unparalleled in history. So why isn’t that enough to make her the obvious choice? Probably because there is nothing she exposes to the public that endears us to her; she is a human doer displaying few emotions while achieving her goals. Think Martha Stewart; the woman who tenaciously grows her own potatoes and spices and gathers her own hens’ eggs to make potato salad, but is the last person we would want to sit under a tree and enjoy a picnic with. We admire what she accomplishes, but her persona is coolly detached and we cannot relate to her seemingly humorless perfectionism. Hillary Clinton always believed that accomplishing intended results was a far more important measure of a person’s capabilities than winning popularity contests. That answers why Hillary is, admittedly, not a politician, and Bill Clinton is the consummate pol and well-liked no matter what he does. Hillary wants to be judged on the merits of her abilities and achievements, instead of her charisma and likability. Women say they want the same.

Unfortunately, today’s instant media world insists on the camera adoring its subject and capturing an impassioned, charismatic communicator who connects with the public. Never discount Donald Trump’s experience on ‘The Apprentice’ in rendering him media savvy in delivering effective sound bites. Trump is like the Johnny Cochran of politicians who can fast talk the jury into believing his claims, without any real evidence to back it up. Trump calculates that slapping negative labels on opponents and repeating them over and over again can permanently influence the public’s perceptions of that person. Meanwhile, the very successful prosecutor, Marcia Clark (like Hillary), believed in the system and plodded away diligently as a dedicated public servant, never considering that jocularity would trump justice. The verdict came in with a victor, but who really won in the long run? Trump clearly understands that making encounters entertaining is now at the heart of the art of winning. Remember, the TV industry picks game show contestants based on this criteria. Trump is ‘the host with the most’ who dares you to turn away from focusing on him at his own party. He is the Kim Kardashian of politics in justifying any shock value as essential to maintaining being the center of attention. Meanwhile, Hillary gathers the most interesting people, the finest wine, food, and musicians, attends to every need, but remains circumspect at her own party. She likes working to give the perfect party for others to enjoy, but really doesn’t like interacting at cocktail parties herself. So, is simply being an entertaining personality enough to lead our country? Are we headed towards picking unqualified movie stars to govern over experienced public servants? Can qualifications and experience influence today's voters, or are likability and charisma the only measures?

No one has been vetted more fully for office than Hillary Clinton. After years and millions have been spent investigating Whitewater, Benghazi, and Clinton’s emails while Secretary of State, nothing has been uncovered of any criminal activity by Hillary Clinton. That is a fact, not an opinion. The FBI Director made an historic pronouncement of every result of their three years of investigating and scrutinizing Hillary’s emails and found no intent by Hillary Clinton to hide anything. In fact, in her 40 years in the public eye nothing of consequence has ever been discovered morally questionable about Hillary Clinton. Few complaints were ever made about her service as the Senator from New York or as Secretary of State. Only after the Benghazi incident occurred and an investigation ensued were her emails investigated. The fact that Colin Powell also used a private email server does not factor into the indictment against Hillary Clinton. So why have so many attempted to disqualify Hillary Clinton by searching for criminal activity? Why do so many people not trust her? Being found ‘extremely careless’ does not justify the chant “Lock Her Up!” as introduced at the GOP Convention.

Even after 50+ years of women’s liberation, feminism, and women’s equality in the workplace, there remains a stigma about smart, strong women who have as much Y chromosome as they do X. Such women are a threat to men and women alike. Is a woman's desire to actively strive for power still an anomaly? What a conundrum; if you show emotion you are considered ‘hysterical’ and if you don’t, you are considered suspect. Women are definitely judged differently than men in politics. When Muskie cries, he is weak, the fact that Hillary rarely emotes means she is cold, calculating and unfit. If Hillary were speaking the same words and tones as Trump, we would consider her shrill and repulsive. The good news about Hillary Clinton as a leader is that she has developed a hard shell; the bad news about Hillary Clinton as a candidate is that she has developed a hard shell. I believe everything she says is deliberate, calculated, and measured. There is no spontaneity. So, is that a good thing or a bad thing in a leader? When I was growing up, I always hated the Tracy Flick type girl in my classroom – the goody two shoes who was the teacher’s pet, sat in the front, made straight A’s and always did her homework, did service work voluntarily, and always ran for student council. She was a hard girl to like because she wasn’t fun. She was never vulnerable or spontaneous and appeared to be made of Teflon. I just couldn’t relate to all of that self-discipline and Little Miss Perfect. But if that girl in my class was running against Donald Trump today, I would vote for her in a minute to command our country – whether I liked her or not.