First, she is the first front-runner and presumptive nominee of a national party who is a woman. Second, she says that the reason she should be elected is that she is a woman.But Clinton is a woman and therefore we should vote for her, if I understand the argument. Like Obama, perhaps she can get enough "identity groups" to vote for her because of what she is not - a straight white male. The ploy may work.
She is not running on her record as secretary of State. Her time in that role was startlingly devoid of success.
She is not running on her record as a senator. (snip) There is little in the way of real results to which one can point.
She is certainly not running on a record of ethical leadership. Her activities at the State Department set a new low for obfuscation.
She does claim to be running to defend Middle America from the avarice of Wall Street. (snip) But her charges ring a bit hollow in the face of the way the Clinton Foundation has been funded and used.
She is not running because she is comfortable with scrutiny from the media on her past activities or her future plans.
She is not running because she wants to take courageous stances on the issues of the day. After weeks of avoiding the trade debate that is currently roiling Congress, she now has taken a position on both sides of the issue.
She is not running on the issue of foreign policy. She has not told us what she wants to do in Iraq or how she would deal with ISIS and the fundamentalist terrorist threat.
However, conventional wisdom says rich, boring old white women are not icons for most identity groups which voted for Barry. The exception is educated unmarried women who may feel some sisterhood.
