As a woman, Hillary’s sex/gender was never an issue for me. I flat out simply cannot trust her. Her stated positions shift depending on the people in her audience. Her rhetoric, as confirmed by her own speeches, is just that: rhetoric (the public and private positions). She tells one audience that she’s a champion of Progressive values, and “plead[s] guilty” to being Moderate and Centrist to another audience, and elsewhere talks about her “Conservative values.” This is why I don’t like her, and you actually hit the nail on the head in referring to her as not “genuine” (although I would have said “not authentic”). And I lived in Arkansas during the time her husband was Governor for all but the first six months of his first term and the last six or seven months of his final term, so I’ve been aware of her for a few years longer than most of you.
But my dislike and distrust of her are only part of the picture of why I have never been able to vote for or support her. That’s all about personality. More relevantly, I disagree with her positions — not her statements so much, since she says this and not-this and her statements are inauthentic, but her actual positions, discerned through her record. And no, not just her record during her brief time in the Senate, but her record going back through her time as First Lady of America, through her time as First Lady of Arkansas, back to her time in the Rose Law Firm, and also forward through her time as Secretary of State and her two presidential campaigns. She is not a Progressive. She’s not even a Liberal (and yes, there are differences between Liberals and Progressives). She’s certainly not a Leftist.
Her foreign policy is one of intervention and imperialism, what some call a “Neoconservative” foreign policy, complete with the typical Neoconservative’s unconditional support of Israel. There’s nothing Progressive or Liberal about that. She’s a warhawk. She was pushing for a “No Fly Zone” over Syria, rattling a saber at Russia. Nobody sane wants the USA to go to war with Russia.
Her economic viewpoint is well-known as Neoliberal. This is the philosophy which promotes deregulation, which not only permits, but even encourages corporations to move their factories to third world countries and turn them into sweatshops, which opposes any pro-labor policies, which buys into the idea of corporation-owners as “job creators,” which embraces the failed Hooverist and later Reaganomic idea of “trickle down economics,” in short, which is a Far Right Wing economic philosophy.
There is no way any Progressive Leftist could, in good conscience, support her, although some did vote for her, purely out of a desire to stop Trump.
My dad used to say he voted for the person, and not the party. I think he was being honest, based on what I know of his voting history. He would not have voted for Hillary Clinton based on her inauthentic personality. In fact, he didn’t vote for her in 2008, because he, too, did not like or trust her. His politics were quite different from mine (he was a life-long Republican, and I have been all over the political spectrum in my own life, but for most of my life, I’ve been a Progressive Left-libertarian and a supporter of Democrats or Greens), and so I don’t think he would have voted for her regardless of his like or dislike of her personality, but that dislike was certainly a factor in his not voting for her in 2008. He passed away almost three years ago, and so did not get a chance to vote in this election.
My perspective is different, not just in terms of my social, political, and economic views, but also in my decision-making when it comes to choosing a candidate to support. See, where Dad would vote for the person and not the party, I have voted for candidates from several parties (usually Democratic or Green), and even for candidates whom I did not personally like, but thought would do the job needed. So party is not really much of a consideration for me; I’ve seen parties change in my lifetime: the Republicans who used to be “Conservative” before Reagan are now “Reactionary” and “Far Right Wing Extremists” (and some are Would-Be Theocrats), and the Democrats who used to be “Liberal” and “Centrist” before Clinton are now condescending pseudo-Liberals and Right Wingers. There are of course exceptions in both of those parties, but to a large extent, they have changed as I describe. Person is also of little concern to me; I voted for one guy, for example, whom I know personally and dislike immensely, on a personal level, but I knew that he would do the job which needed to be done if he were elected. No, to me, what matters are positions and policies. I could never in good conscience vote for Hillary Clinton, after her stumping for Bill’s crime bill and his “workfare” program, her opposition to same-sex marriage, her voting for the war in Iraq and the U.S.A. P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act, her role in the overthrow of the legitimate government of Libya, her collusion with the DNC to promote her and undermine Senator Sanders (in violation of the DNC’s own charter), and so, so many other things which showed, in spite of her ephemeral, elastic, and inconstant statements of position, what her positions really are.
“Not genuine.” There you have Hillary’s personality in a nutshell. Or, as I would say, “inauthentic.” But that quality also, I believe, is applicable to her positions. She can be bought, and bought she was, initially sometime around 1992, when Bill and she came on the national stage and then began to transform the Democratic Party from a party of Liberal Centrists to a party of Neoconservative Neoliberals. Elizabeth Warren even outed her for being bought, when she came to Warren for information and advice, learned from her, and followed what she had learned, and then later voted contrary to that earlier position after receiving financial contributions from corporations which opposed that position. Who were her largest campaign contributors during her 2016 candidacy? And do you honestly believe that she would not have continued the same Neoconservative foreign policy which they prefer, and the same Neoliberal economic policies which empower and enrich them?
Hillary’s positions are not Progressive or even Liberal, and they are certainly not Leftist, nor is she much of a civil libertarian when the chips fall.
Anne Hathaway? I like her, and I don’t see any lack of authenticity in her. But then again, I only know her as an actress in various roles; I don’t read gossip rags or pay much attention to celebrity “news.” She’s a good actress. As a person? I don’t know and I’m not much concerned; as long as she continues to be a good actress and doesn’t publicly do anything heinous, I’ll continue to like her.