Try as I might I cannot get excited about a Hillary Clinton presidency. If the results in the Iowa caucuses are anything to go by, neither can half of all likely Democratic voters.
From this distance, Clinton looks good, especially to those, like me, who sit on the centre left of politics. Her resume is replete with advocacy for children and women. Her experience and performance as a legislator and a cabinet secretary is impressive. She’s fierce, tough and cool under pressure. If I was asked to write a description of my ideal first female US president I’d probably describe a person who sounds a lot like Hillary Clinton.
Yet Clinton lacks something. Many somethings, in fact.
Firstly, she lacks a raison d’etre for her campaign. I know she says she wants to be “a champion for everyday Americans.” That’s well and good, but geez, find me a Democratic contender who doesn’t. Does the United States need Clinton as president? I’m not convinced it does.
Her candidacy seems motivated in equal parts by “it’s her turn” and “it’s time for a woman.”
Does Clinton need to be president to satisfy herself? She sometimes seems to have “Head Girl syndrome”: when the smart, competitive female keeps succeeding at the next challenge without ever really working out what the motivating purpose of the ambition is. (Yes, I realise that the comments section will shortly be filled with people noting the irony of this statement coming from me. I’m comfortable with my political purpose and how often I articulated it. But, hey, go for your life if you want.)
Clinton also lacks authenticity . The best way to explain is to point the obvious authenticity of her peers and rivals. Bernie Sanders is a crotchety old socialist who isn’t even a member of the Democratic party. Conventional wisdom says there should have been daylight between Sanders and Clinton in Iowa. But Clinton’s “victory” over Sanders was so narrow it relied a coin toss.
Sanders’s decision to be himself is attracting pretty significant support. He, alongside and Republican candidate Ted Cruz and Jeremy Corbyn in the UK, are challenging the traditional definition of “electable”: it’s less about managed messaging and more about “being real”.
Vice President Joe Biden is another example of a politician who oozes authenticity, despite the fact he has previously admitted to plagiarism. Biden’s honesty, his raw emotion, and candid, plain-speaking style draws people to him. His intelligence combined with his humility allows his audience to know he’s one of the smartest people in the room and not be off-put by it.
Had Biden thrown his hat in the ring, the combination of his authenticity and experience might have turned Clinton’s caucus “victory” into another embarrassing Iowa electoral setback.
Clinton’s lack of purpose and the lack of authenticity are related. In the US, widening inequality creates suspicion that the elites of politics and business are in cahoots to keep working Americans from getting a bigger share of the pie.
Clinton’s wealth and questionable financial decisions undercut her claim to be the advocate for everyday Americans.
Clinton lacks charisma and a common touch. Very few people are as richly endowed with the magnetic personality traits possessed by Bill Clinton or Barack Obama. In many ways it’s Hillary Clinton’s great misfortune to be in such close proximity to both: it magnifies her wooden style.
Clinton also lacks an ability to unify the nation. She is and always has been a polarising figure in America. Eight years ago this troubled me more. American politics has grown so divisive — and the fault can be apportioned to any number of places, including the Tea Party, Fox News and the aftermath of the global financial crisis — that it’s hard to imagine any of the current crop of candidates bringing the nation to a common purpose. Obama notably failed, so I can hardly judge Clinton harshly on this score.
Yes, I’ve said little about policy. Here’s the rub: when it comes to policy, Clinton is the candidate most aligned to my political worldview. There’s much to admire in her positions on the economy, minimum wage, parental leave, university education, healthcare and climate change. These policies would take the country in a direction many, including this former American, would like to see it go. She’d likely be a better foreign policy president than Barack “don’t do stupid stuff” Obama.
Her stance on gun control is welcome. Before the sisterhood tears up my membership card for harshly judging a woman on her personal ambition and style, let me make this point: these things matter, especially in the US presidency, an office that combines the duties of chief minister with head of state, a position that is both commander in chief and pastoral counsellor.
Bill Clinton and Barack Obama and Ronald Reagan — each flawed in other ways — nonetheless magnificently straddled the dualities in the role: ambition and vision for the nation and an ability to connect emotionally and spiritually with its citizens. I want that in any president, regardless of gender. But because I want the first female president to succeed, I want it even more so in whoever she is.
— Guardian News & Media Ltd
Kristina Keneally is a Guardian Australia columnist. She was the 42nd Premier of New South Wales and the first woman to hold the office.
