this article, as well as this very VERY long article on Hillary Clinton and her campaign, but one that brought a pretty interesting perspective.  it is true – some of the reasons that makes me highly suspect about her ability to lead are indeed how poorly her speeches go, as well as her defensiveness, her inconsistencies, and her lack of transparency and seeming lack of connection to the people who she is trying to represent.  and yet, after reading this article, i also realize they might have a point.  why else are the superdelegates overwhelmingly in Hillary’s corner (at least at the moment?) why else are so many people supporting her despite all of these things?  perhaps it’s true that in “real life” and not in “Hillary Clinton” mode, she is very different.  and i think the unconscious gender bias in what constitutes good leadership does play a role.  things like making personal connections, compromises with interpersonal relationships, pushing through and working with people despite being in seemingly opposite camps… all the things that are not visible to the public, are things that studies have shown are more common in female leadership styles.  reflecting on myself, i have exactly the same problems. i’m a pretty bad speaker, especially when put on the spot, and i tend to do things behind the scenes and under the radar, to the point where people who work with me know how much i am putting into a project, but the larger community, organization, or school has no idea i even exist, other than perhaps an odd e-mail or two.  and so perhaps we’ve been too quick to judge based on what a traditional (male) politician is judged on when looking at Hillary.  I don’t know.

The other main point in the article that was interesting was this quote: “There is an Indiana Jones–style, “It had to be snakes” inevitability about the fact that Donald Trump is Clinton’s Republican rival. Of course Hillary Clinton is going to have to run against a man who seems both to embody and have attracted the support of everything male, white, and angry about the ascension of women and black people in America. Trump is the antithesis of Clinton’s pragmatism, her careful nature, her capacious understanding of American civic and government institutions and how to maneuver within them. Of course a woman who wants to land in the Oval Office is going to have to get past an aggressive reality-TV star who has literally talked about his penis in a debate.

What the nomination of Trump, the enthusiasm for Bernie Sanders, and the nomination of Clinton — who is very clearly running as a successor to Barack Obama — tell us is that this election is a kind of civil war. It’s a referendum on the country’s feelings about inclusion, about women, people of color, and their increasing influence, and how it edges out the white men who have long had an exclusive grip on power.

This would have been less clear if Clinton had been running against Marco Rubio, or against Jeb Bush, men who would have hidden the Republicans’ backward-looking policies — around voting rights, reproductive rights, opposition to minimum-wage increases — behind rhetoric about empowered women and diversity. Trump does away with any pretext. He calls women pieces of ass and rates them on scales of one to ten; he encourages violence, fails to firmly disavow David Duke, promises walls to keep out immigrants and to ban Muslims from entering the country.

Ironically, this could give Clinton the thing she has had such a hard time mustering on her own: righteous symbolism. She doesn’t have to talk about herself, she just needs to be herself, in order to make the point that she represents inclusion, equality, progress. In Trump, she finds her foil: America’s repressive past. ”

It certainly is interesting how extremely dichotomous the American voters are going this season.  (I am also pretty disgusted that CA Republicans overwhelmingly voted for Trump -.-||) I really hope America chooses the obvious choice, regardless of who the Democratic nominee ends up being.

Advertisements