I am a female and I don’t support Hillary Clinton.
Don’t get me wrong, this doesn’t make me a Bernie Sanders supporter either. In fact, I am not entirely against Clinton, especially because the other candidates are no praiseworthy diplomats themselves. Under consideration of lesser evils, I would categorize her as one of the most moderate among the presidential candidates. She holds relatively stable standings in both the Conservative and Liberal parties, her bipartisan fiscal views and, most importantly, her strong ties to corporations. Her ideas for debt-free college and her slight lean towards traditional capitalism are ideologies most moderates leaning-leftward are attracted to.
But what is most concerning is that none of this tends to matter when Clinton’s most emphasized aspect is that she is a female. She has come closest to becoming the first female United States President. The fact that a female politician has come so near to landing the presidency at all, let alone twice, in the span of eight years further strengthens her position as a female politician, especially in this race. This is not only one of her most easily accessible qualities that supporters use to justify her taking the presidency, but it also creates feelings of obligation for other women to stand by her in the race without consideration of her shortcomings.
But let’s make one thing clear: history will be made no matter which candidate takes the presidency this upcoming four-year cycle. Whether that page in the textbook is something to frame is an entirely different story, but it will be a four years to remember nonetheless. Each front-runner has the potential to mark a new chapter in American presidency history: Hillary being the first female president, Bernie the first Jewish president, Cruz the first Latino president, and Trump the last president.
Just like Obama, Clinton’s more latent positive qualities and concerning negative aspects are being overshadowed by the constant desire to create change in the nation through a historical presidency. She is a well-educated, objectively qualified candidate with seemingly realistic policies, but also with negative baggage. Her lies about her presence during the Benghazi phone-call, her vote regarding the Iraq War, her position in the Irish Peace process and her private-email server scandal prove that she is a truly is a politician before anything else.
Her integrity is no more intact than the majority of her competitors in the race, and her femininity certainly should not be a factor in excusing her exposed wrongdoings. This is what perpetuates the sexist stereotypes that typically separate male and female candidates and allows for ignorant politicians to step up to power and create turmoil during their time in office.
It is uncertain whether Clinton is truly an ideal presidential candidate; regardless, the expectation for me and other females to support her entirely because of the female connection is naive and counterproductive for American politics.
So yes, I am a female, and I am a centrist leaning leftward. But if I do end up voting for Clinton, it will not be because of our XX connection, but because she proves herself to be no worse than her fellow front-runners.
After all, this is politics.
