If Hillary Clinton is voted in as the first female U.S. president, it would be a success for everyone, not just women. Or is she just the lesser of two evils in comparison with Donald Trump? A pro and contra.
Pro
This woman is fascinating. She is a real Weeble.* She belongs to America. She is America. Hillary Clinton has achieved a lot in her life, from her legal career to her support of her husband’s presidency, which, as is also the case for Michelle Obama, can be considered a collaborative vice presidency.
However, she has also been dealt some significant blows. She overcame the difficult crisis of her husband’s affairs, staying by his side. And she started her own political career, which has led her to unforeseen heights.
In her first presidential election, she was up against the God-like Barack Obama: first woman versus first black president. Even back then she came across as colorless and rigid when compared to the sashaying, swinging, erotic man.
She had to admit defeat and lost the election. She just didn’t have that special charm. However, life went on, her political life included, and she became the U.S. secretary of state.
And now, a new attempt. This is referred to as “resilience,” the mental strength to turn failures into strengths. People who dismiss this as stubborn or power-hungry are simplifying things.
At the end of her term in office as secretary of state, she was referred to as “stateswoman” in an essay. A stateswoman, the first (female) servant of the state. One who was strict and concise, whom even the men in Peking and Moscow respected and will respect.
It is not surprising that youth were enthusiastic about Socialist joker Sanders and not about her at the beginning of the election campaign. However, this is not a time for games and experiments.
Donald Trump, according to feminist philosopher Judith Butler, represents a form of American fascism. You should be for Clinton in the White House, because then you can be against them.
The suspicious left speaks of the “establishment” and refers to her experience in the administration and contacts in “Wall Street.” The pure doctrine is turning into empty words.
The woman in pantsuits is an old hand, just like Angela Merkel. Is the likeness surprising? Her life has been dedicated to feminism. She does not need to make speeches on the topic.
Michelle Obama is, incidentally, doing this in the most brilliant way. She even surpassed herself by calling Clinton her “girl.” Clinton’s seniority is romanticized in the image of a buddy.
She is not an old, but a mature woman. And, looking at her face, she looks extraordinarily youthful considering she just turned 69 years old. And now for the dumbest argument: that Clinton is the “lesser of two evils,” a necessity to prevent Trump from becoming president.
She is a candidate that deserves to be taken seriously, and she has squared up well. She has learned a lot. Maybe it will be possible for her to appease this agitated society. Hillary Clinton’s likely victory at the polls is a significant chance for Americans to reflect upon themselves and reform. The world’s liveliest democracy is in need of this.
Andrea Seibel
Contra
On Nov. 8, Hillary Clinton will be elected president of the United States. At least that is what the polls say. Then, after the upheaval of narcissist Donald Trump’s candidacy, everything will be fine again. At least that is what many observers think.
Indeed, there is a lot to be said for the Democratic candidate: She brings characteristics, such as intelligence and experience, into the arena, which are completely lacking in her opponent. Furthermore, the expectations Americans have for the presumably first female president have been stomped down so much in the dirtiest election campaign in history that it is difficult not to exceed them.
However, Clinton will not win the election because people think she is convincing or trustworthy. She would owe her victory to her campaign’s successful undermining of her opponent, who readily proves that he is not fit for the post.
Nonetheless, the probably 40 percent who will have voted for Trump are not going to simply disappear when Clinton moves into the White House on Jan. 20. They will continue to be the ferment of a brewing society, which, at the moment, cannot agree upon a single lowest denominator.
The Republicans in Congress are already sharpening their knives and have announced inquiries into her email affair and into the link between her family trust and her time as secretary of state.
They are possibly still going to have a majority in the Senate and probably even in the House of Representatives. They will lose a few seats – and probably all the seats currently held by moderate delegates. The relative strength of the hardliners is thus increasing.
The Grand Old Party will thus barricade itself in a corral. They will adopt Trump’s image of “crooked Hillary” to cover up the division between the Trump supporters (Chris Christie), the Trump opposition (John Kasich) and the wavering opportunists (Ted Cruz).
In addition to these enemies, she has skeptics in her own camp. The euphoria of an election victory will not let people forget that the supporters of “Democratic Socialist” Bernie Sanders voted for the establishment’s candidate Clinton with gritted teeth. They will continue to demand a clear left-wing course of action: stripping the power of the big banks, rejecting free trade and a large-scale redistribution of wealth.
As president, Clinton, however, would have to move more to the right, into the center, to open up a bridge of compromise with the Republicans. But this is likely to be an exception. Therefore, it is likely the U.S. will face a legislative period in which the pragmatic president is walled in between left- and right-wing ideologies.
Ansgar Graw
*Editor’s note: A Weeble is a children’s toy that keeps returning to an upright position after being knocked over.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.