Skip to main content
opinion

Hillary Clinton's biggest drawback in her presidential campaign is not her gender or her age. It's the sense that people have that she's a cold fish. No matter how hard she works at it, she lacks the aw-shucks charm of Bill, or the passionate rhetoric of the early Barack Obama.

It's not her fault, really. In private (we are constantly assured), she's all warm and huggy – a regular old girl. In public, she is as bland and earnest as her pantsuits.

So cue the warm and huggy stuff. Hillary's campaign will be all about empathy. Her aim will be to persuade women, gays, Latinos, blacks, younger voters – even the occasional straight white male – that she understands their aspirations and struggles. "The deck is still stacked in favour of those at the top," she says in her campaign video. "Everyday Americans need a champion. And I want to be that champion."

Of course, with her deep connections to Saudi sheiks and Silicon Valley squillionaires, you might mistake her for the kind of person the deck is stacked in favour of. But never mind. It's the image that counts!

Ms. Clinton's only claim to underdog status is that she's a woman. The last time she ran for president, she played this down because she thought it was a liability. This time, she's going to milk it for all it's worth. So don't expect to hear a lot about foreign policy for now. (All things considered, that may be just as well.) Instead, you will be hearing a lot about the joys of being a grandmother.

"In just a few months, Charlotte had already helped me see the world in new ways," she marvels in a newly released addition to her political memoirs. She says Chelsea's baby has helped her realize that all children in America should have the same shot at success that her granddaughter will have. A noble sentiment indeed! And so they will – just as soon as they too are descended from a line of political elites and hedge-fund managers.

In a show of family solidarity, Chelsea is also stumping for her mother. She does this in the new issue of Elle, where she is on the cover. Talk about empowered! This is Chelsea as you've never seen her – blow-dried and airbrushed to perfection, with her long, luscious locks (what happened to the friz?) streaming in an imaginary wind. According to the credits, she is wearing a Gucci dress, a Mateo New York bracelet, and a Cartier bracelet, among other baubles. "There is something innately regal about Chelsea – a kind of grace," gushes Elle's editor-in-chief.

Perhaps Elle is not the most ideal venue in which to claim that your mother is a champion of everyday women, especially when you've been photographed dripping in bling. But never mind. In the interview, Chelsea explains there are two reasons why her mom deserves to be president. First, because it would be a major breakthrough for women everywhere. Second, because the world would be a better place if women were in charge. Women, she says, have been able "to build more consensus so that decisions have longer-term effects, whether in economic investments or in building social capital."

The idea that women lead differently than men – and also better – is much in vogue these days. They're more caring and compassionate. They believe in compromise and consensus, not conflict and power struggles. These skills are said to be crucial in a world that's becoming networked, not hierarchical. Women are supposed to be naturally better at soft power (diplomacy, negotiation, relationship-building), when soft power is what our age needs most. In other words: Hillary would make sure those old boys get along!

Are women innately better at this stuff than men? Personally, I have yet to see it. What's amusing is that after decades of denying that there are any innate differences at all between the sexes, modern feminists are now asserting the same type of gender essentialism that they used to deplore when men did it. We've come full circle!

Personally, I believe that voting for a person because of gender, race, religion or any other tribal marker is just wrong. You vote for a woman when she's the best man for the job. Margaret Thatcher and Angela Merkel never would have dreamed of playing the gender card. The idea would have insulted them profoundly. Mrs. Thatcher would have fallen over laughing at the idea of leading like a woman, whatever that means. Neither of them rose to power on her husband's coattails either.

Personally, I'd love to see a woman as president of the United States – just not Hillary Clinton. She's a generic 20th-century Democrat with the greatest fundraising power in presidential history, but not a fresh idea in her head. Americans can do better. Can't they?

Interact with The Globe