Disclaimer:
This article is by no means, being written as a personal attack on Ms. Clinton, rather an analysis of her political image and that of her predecessors. Please note that I tried to refrain from all bias to the best of my ability.
On Jan. 8, 1975, Ella T. Grasso was sworn in as governor of Connecticut. Serving as the former Connecticut Secretary of State for over a decade, in addition to winning a seat in the United States House of Representatives, Grasso appeared to be extremely experienced -- maybe even over-experienced for the governor job and was elected for not one, but two terms by an impressive margin. What makes Grasso so unique is not merely the fact that she is a woman, but that she was a woman who had a passion for politics and was inspired to thrive by her own doing.
Of course, there were quite a few elected female officials prior to Grasso: congresswomen, governors, mayors. Even Lurleen Wallace, first wife of the bigoted Alabama Governor George Wallace was elected in 1966 following the end of her husband's term -- but that's the thing, she succeeded her husband. And each female governor before 1974 had too, running for office as a political pawn for their husband, winning with the help of his influence. Ella Grasso, however, did not. She remains a pivotal figure in politics as the first woman to be elected as a governor in her own right.
I am mentioning this handful of female politicians simply for comparison. Unless you have been living under a rock for the past year, you are aware of Hillary Clinton being the 2016 Democratic presidential nominee -- and the controversies surrounding her. From the 2012 Benghazi attacks which prompted her to step down as secretary of state to the classified emails and cringe-worthy WikiLeaks exposure, Clinton does not seem to be the poster-girl for honesty. The lack of trust the American people have in her is alarming but none of that matters -- because she has already won the election.
There's been an old adage floating around in recent years that the Democrats could run a dog for president and still win without trying because Americans, who are now proven to be vastly more liberal than conservative, would elect anyone to prevent a mean old Republican from taking office -- ooh, scary! Scandal or not, Clinton has the presidency in the bag. She does not have to do a thing because of the radical reputation Republicans have, not to mention the self-destructive Donald Trump.
Madeleine Albright said that there is a "special place" in Hell for all women who do not support Clinton. Hardheaded lifelong "feminists" believe, to an extent, that Hillary Clinton is a solution to centuries of gender inequality, a walking miracle who will turn the tide of a real or imaginary "war on women." But this is nothing new, America is ready for a woman -- just not her. As much as an ambitious young woman like myself wants to be proud of Hillary and admire her and support her, I cannot, in good conscience because of how problematic she truly is. A woman's empowerment has nothing to do with the gender of the political candidate she chooses.
An independent trailblazer who as Bill perfectly put it at the Democratic National Convention, was never satisfied with the "status quo," Clinton does not seem to be living up to her legacy. The fact that her husband was a previous president is an issue enough. The Founding Fathers never intended to let America creep into an oligarchy. And, if it must be, power should be distributed vertically, not horizontally. The thought of a husband and wife capturing the highest elected office in the United States is just as unsettling as the scandals they committed in that office. As much as personal downfalls should stay out of politics, Bill did corrupt the Oval Office and tarnish his presidency. If Hillary was such an independent, inspiring woman, then why would she feel the urge to stay with her adulterous husband after he lied to the entire nation about an illicit affair which undermined every fabric of their marriage?
Aside from this, Clinton seems to have a history of cyberspace mishaps as is revealed time and time again. From the thousands of classified emails carelessly sent on unverified servers to the hacked DNC messages which crashed the careers of quite a few Democratic officials, a questionable side of the lovable left is rising without a doubt. Sellout Senator Sanders even continues to blindly follow the DNC after WikiLeaks revealed that the Clinton camp basically sabotaged his campaign since day one. So much for your [democratic] socialist revolution, right? We can only hope that Bernie's kids are all right and throw their support behind the real "Green" woman who deserves their vote (and when I say green, I refer to Green Party candidate Jill Stein, not the flawed HRC who is bought by the green of Wall Street). Sanders bit the hand that fed him, betraying his fan base by endorsing Clinton, the epitome of what he originally sought to defeat and destroy, adding insult to injury.
The truth is that conservatives are moving further to the right and liberals are moving further to the left. Clinton on the other hand, embodies most principles of a typical war-mongering moderate with socially conservative values that arguably were only swapped recently to appeal to a wider demographic of liberals. The future of the Democratic Party is not Hillary Clinton, nor was it ever. There is no doubt that Sanders was more of a Jacksonian Democrat than Clinton ever was. The Democratic Party was originally established for the people whereas Clinton is in it for herself. You may be with her, but is she with you?
