If anyone thinks that female candidates automatically get the female vote, they’re off the mark – at least in Clinton’s case.
In February, the satirical US newspaper The Onion published an article titled “Female Presidential Candidate Who Was United States Senator, Secretary Of State Told To Be More Inspiring”. That headline succinctly captures the sociopolitical Möbius strip that Hillary Clinton entered when she threw her hat into the ring (or three rings, as the case may be).
This is not the first presidential race in America in which political discourse has been drowned out by chest-thumping rhetoric, nor is it the first in which voter sentiment has trumped logic. What is a first is that the US has a potential female leader (something that many other nations, firstworld and developing, experienced years or decades ago). But this specific female candidate has sparked distrust and even vitriol among independent and Democratic female voters, which in turn has sent US national discourse down the rabbit hole.
That is not to say that one should agree with or vote for Clinton for any reason, much less for her gender. But it is important to notice that the language being reserved for one of the most politically qualified candidates in recent history is so contradictory, and based so little upon her credentials, that it can only be attributed to personal likeability, or a lack thereof.
If you want to read it all, purchase the entire issue in pdf for just three euro
If anyone thinks that female candidates automatically get the female vote, they’re off the mark – at least in Clinton’s case.
In February, the satirical US newspaper The Onion published an article titled “Female Presidential Candidate Who Was United States Senator, Secretary Of State Told To Be More Inspiring”. That headline succinctly captures the sociopolitical Möbius strip that Hillary Clinton entered when she threw her hat into the ring (or three rings, as the case may be).
