This sensational video with elevator music and an obvious appeal to emotions or morality seems more like a corny infomercial than a political clip.

I agree with the facts in the video and appreciate all the great things Hillary Clinton has done in her life, but it is somewhat frustrating that she will receive a jump in the poles as a result of her well-respected husband recapping her biography. I am a huge Bill Clinton fan and would love to see more of him in her campaign, but what bothers me is the manner in which this video was produced. The forced emotional impact of the video, in Bill Clinton’s vocal intonations, his unflinching eye contact, and the background music, seemed to force upon me feelings which I do not necessarily feel from the video.

Hillary Clinton’s life does reveal a caring, compassionate side of her personality, but she is not as heroic as the video portrayed her to be. Yes, the wonderful Bill Clinton is narrating an amazing lady’s life, but isn’t it just a little over dramatized in the video?

A recent news article describes Chelsea as being “absent totally from her mother’s efforts.”

What happened to the traditional family unit at the forefront of campaigns? This absence seems odd and unprecedented. Hillary Clinton is a woman and mother. This is another area where she should acknowledge her gender more directly. It is understandable that Chelsea would want to live a normal life, but it seems questionable that she would almost never want to make an appearance on behalf of her mother.

A writer for In These Times feels that Clinton is not only dressing like a man, but acting like one in order to forge ahead in this male dominated field. She is disappointed that Clinton has acted like every other “poll-driven opportunistic politician.” This writer wants a woman to run for president and bring her femininity with her. She wants someone to bring humanity to government and the country. Not a candidate who refuses to talk about her gender. This writer brings the point even farther to say John Edwards and Barack Obama are bringing the humanity to politics which is traditionally seen as coming from females.

I think Hillary Clinton needs to discuss her gender and what it means to her and society that she is a woman candidate. She claims she doesn’t discuss this because she is not running as a woman, but as a candidate and equal to every one else. This statement seems a back door out of the issue. The public wants to hear Clinton’s views on female presidency and whether or not she thinks this is relevant, she must discuss what the voters are asking. If she can’t do this now, then what will happen with other, more pressing issues later on down the road? Clinton should not downplay the fact that she could be the first female president. This is a huge step in women achieving equality and should be celebrated, not ignored. She is making history and refusing to acknowledge it. Women need to hear this acknowledgement.

http://www.myspace.com/hillaryclinton

I am speechless.

I think it is maintained by her campaign, but I am not quite sure. The site seems very informative, but odd in this informal, juvenile context. The site is a great way to reach out to the younger, computer savy generation, but for me at least, will take some getting used to.

Why must a woman wear pants when running for a position of power? Yes, I know pencil skirts with a suit jacket are commonbut minus the straight-leg, no style skirt, these are similar to male pant suits as well. The professional, female options are another example of women adapting to the man-normative style. We see it in jeans and casual style gear, yet the similarities are more noticeable in these work outfits. I am not saying that Clinton should make her speeches in party gowns or sport cleavage, but it would be nice to see more than just pearls declaring she is in fact, a woman.

Freedom for a woman to dress the way she chooses in the workplace would not mean her having to wear pearls and lace, but when every female politician dresses exactly the same, and it is a close as possible to how their male counterparts dress, I wonder if some of them might like to show off more of their feminine side. Furthermore, I agree with Versace that this move should not be seen as a regression, but simply a comfortable equality for women that lets them dress the way they want. I am however, not the person to be talking. I would like to hear how all the female politicians feel about their work attire, or if they even think about it.

I would like to believe that Clinton’s qualifications and ideas will take precedent in the public’s mind over her gender. If so, she has the greatest chance of being elected as she inhibits the classic white, centrist position in the party. On the other hand, Barack Obama adds a spice of diversity to the mix which has not been seen before on such a popular scale. The two front-runners in the primaries are unprecedented and turn old patterns on their heads. As much as we try to fit them in to old molds, there is no telling what results will be come election day. All I hope for however, is that the public puts ideas and facts before race and gender.

Criticizing the opposing party is no new tactic in politics, yet it seems more prominent in this scenario and others this year because the democrats have taken great care not to overly criticize each other.

I wonder if this is because the two leading candidates are both minorities and would be “firsts” if elected. Is there a need to build alliances so early because both Clinton and Obama are heading in to unknown territory?

While this is a welcome change from previous elections, I wonder how sincere these newfound manners are.

The fact that these candidates who have held their tongues in opinions on each other are so quick to criticize the Bush administration and the war in Iraq makes me question the motives hidden behind their polite manners.They all vocalize their disapproval of the Bush administration, often using him to make them appear a stronger alliance. I do believe there is much to criticize about Bush, but when Hillary Clinton says things like he is responsible for “one of the most shameful events in American history” it does not seem to be consistent with the way she discusses other topics. It is important to know where candidates disagree with the Bush administration, but I do hope that Clinton limits the sensational descriptions when discussing her opinions

For the reasons discussed above, I believe the restraint Clinton has shown in her campaign when it comes to criticising or discussing other candidates will break down if she should win the primary and move on to campaign for the elections in 2008.