The Left’s enthusiastic embrace of these tropes and rhetoric props up the narrative that, for a woman to have reached the upper echelons of power in her field, she could only have done so through depravity and deception.
This aura of avoidance adds to a perception that she’s dishonest and secretive. Whether or not she’s hiding something, avoiding the press provides another reason to think that she is hiding something.
Hillary Clinton is a generationally talented politician — albeit across a different set of dimensions than men tend to be talented politicians.
I think that it is important and fascinating that many of the reasons Hillary Clinton has achieved what she has achieved are the exact same reasons why many people dislike her.
I think that it is undeniable that the way Hillary Clinton has built a career path to the presidency is significantly different from the trajectory that most past presidents took to the presidency.
Is such a path truly a “feminine”/gendered way to become president? Females are hardly the only people in history to primarily acquire political power through working relationships instead of inheritance, combat prowess, etc.; but females have tended towards the relationship path to power because other paths were not available to them. Does that necessarily mean that viewing the relationship path to power negatively is sexist?
Regardless of whether or not the relationship path to power is gendered, should it be seen as suspicious (for the potential corruption/abuse, for the lack of transparency, or for some other reason), or applauded (for the way it works to unite people behind common goals instead of bullying/herding them in a common direction, or for some other reason)?