Hillary rises again

Note: This post has been updated to include in Item 2. Secretary Clinton's role in laying the groundwork for the Iran nuclear treaty.
 
Scanning the online news coverage of Hillary Clinton’s campaign launch has given me pause. Of course, several of the favorite sexist critiques of her from back when have emerged once again:

1. Hillary is too ambitious: Has any male candidate for the presidency ever been accused of being too ambitious? I can’t think of one. And obviously, it would take considerable ambition to run for the presidency, would it not?

2. Secretary of State Clinton did not accomplish anything: Our current Secretary of State John Kerry points out, the G.W. Bush Administration successfully alienated most of the countries around the globe. During her tenure, Secretary Clinton traveled hundreds of miles to visit foreign leaders and re-establish positive relationships.  For those who continue to label her a hawk while ignoring  her many peace-making efforts, Kerry also noted that Secretary Clinton helped lay the groundwork for the Iran nuclear treaty.

3. Hillary is too polarizing: Her critics overlook her outstanding record for working across the aisle as a U.S. Senator from New York, and they also seem to ignore how polarizing G.W. Bush was throughout his administration and well, take a look at Barack Obama’s record…

4. Hillary is inauthentic: What does that mean? She’s a mature woman who continues to fill different roles, including political leader, wife, mother, and grandmother. Kudos to Hillary for her years of public service while simultaneously keeping her marriage and family together and maintaining several long-term friendships. Like all political leaders, her positions on some issues have evolved over the years, and she recognizes the necessity to appeal to various constituencies. Has any prominent male political leader been repeatedly accused of being inauthentic? For example, George W. Bush, the “compassionate conservative,” or Barack Obama who lunged to the right immediately after receiving the Democratic nomination in 2008?

5. And another thing: I’ve noticed since the 2008 Democratic primary that leading female journalists, including Maureen Dowd, Arianna Huffington, and lately, Ruth Marcus, appear compelled to denigrate Hillary, most likely to show their male colleagues that they aren’t biased in favor of a female presidential candidate. Leading male journalists don’t seem to have any compunctions about supporting their favorite male political leaders.

6. Lastly, Hillary is accused of having a testy relationship with the media; however, the media is never held accountable for its part in this relationship. I would ask her critics if Hillary is to blame for the media’s relentless sexist attacks against her over the years?

What Hillary’s critics have been most troubled by over the years is that this accomplished woman continues undaunted as she successfully maintains both her personal and professional life. And despite their attacks, Hillary rises yet again!