If gender is the only thing that matters when hoping for the first female president, then Hillary Clinton can check that box.
But if a role model is actually what’s desired, then Clinton is not that candidate. The message a Hillary presidency sends is that women can achieve anything they want — as long as they marry the right man.
I suppose some might try to make a similar case against Rand Paul this cycle — we all know it was a rallying point against George W. Bush — but there’s one key difference: Paul isn’t running to be the historic first of anything. The first Paul in the White House doesn’t count.
But Clinton is running as someone who can shatter glass ceilings, yet she only shattered those ceilings with the help of her husband Bill. I’ve written previously about how Hillary was made partner at a prestigious law firm only after Bill became the governor of Arkansas. Her election to the U.S. Senate, her 2008 run for president and appointment to secretary of state were only made possible by Bill’s election as president.
If people really want a female president just to have a female president, there are better role models than Hillary. Actually, nearly every other well-known woman in politics got there on her own (we can quibble about donors and community help). For example, we don’t know the name Carly Fiorina because of her husband. The same goes for Elizabeth Warren. Both achieved what they have because of their own efforts, not their husband’s.
With Hillary set to announce her second bid for president soon, women, especially feminists, must reflect on whether she is the one we think represents our gender.
