Thanks Lauren Besser for writing this. It’s important. And I partly agree with you philosophically, though not pragmatically. Is the game rigged against women? I don’t know. Elizabeth Warren seems to have got along just fine without abandoning humanism. Tulsi Gabbard, while still relatively early in her career, appears to be playing the game on her own terms, and is even a military veteran, which flips the entire thing on its head.
There is little in Hillary’s record that is consistent. There is little in Hillary’s record that invokes trust. There is little in Hillary’s record that shows her coming down on the right side of humanism, instead of the wrong side of capitalism. There is little in Hillary Clinton that is, therefore, ultimately presidential.
I do understand the point you’re making, and I have to admit that I do agree with your heartache. What a profound message it would send to American girls and women for a woman to be elected President! But what an horrific message it would send were it to be this woman, a woman whom I do not hate, but certainly do not trust. Pioneers get the arrows, as they say, and perhaps this, ultimately, is Hillary’s purpose — to break the trail so that others may follow with more ease, grace and integrity.
PS: you may appreciate an outsiders perspective on the presidential nominee process I published earlier today https://medium.com/@uncompromise/an-open-letter-to-america-1cb34c3c3e13#.c2bvueuhw