Opinion by Sarah LeBlanc
There’s a lot of controversy surrounding the 2016 presidential campaign, especially about whether former New York senator and Democrat Hillary Clinton will choose to be in the spotlight as a presidential candidate.
After the 2008 campaign, Hillary’s run as secretary of state under President Barack Obama proved that she has the foreign policy experience people typically look for in a candidate. While I am all for her running and putting her mark on this country, there are some concessions to be made about why her abstention from political office might be a better idea at this point.
First off, her health is not in the condition it should be to handle a job of such high pressure and high stakes. She suffered a blood clot in her brain and was unwell enough to disappear from public view for around a month. While many people don’t want to face it, deteriorating or unstable health is not something that should be overlooked in a presidential candidate.
Second, if she wants to be a strong candidate, she is going to have to let go of her past and emphasize what she can do for the future of this country. With Bill Clinton as her husband, many people may be inclined to see her as continuing his legacy. She needs to show them that she is her own woman with her own capabilities and strengths. If she chooses to run, she can hold the office on her own and is experienced enough to do it without people second-guessing her knowledge or abilities.
One thing Hillary would have going for her is the historic nature of her campaign. After the two-term election of the first African-American president, it is clear America is willing to look at qualifications over genetic makeup. If she decides to run, Hillary will put up a good fight, and not just because she’s a woman, but because she can fight on equal ground with the men and has already established herself as a strong and capable member of the Obama Administration. If she chooses to stand alone from that administration, there is no doubt that she can do it.
Hillary’s decision to run in the 2016 presidential campaign is currently up in the air. If she does decide to run, she has all the criteria to be a strong competitive candidate. There are already PACs in her name, such as “Ready for Hillary.” She has economic, political and foreign experience in government and would no doubt be more than qualified for the position as president of the United States.
But many people ask, “If not Hillary, who?” Well, folks, that’s a question I can’t answer at the moment. However, I am sure that if Hillary opts out of this election, we are not done with strong women rising above that metaphorical glass ceiling to put their mark on this world. And while I would be happy to see Hillary in office, I’m not sure if she’s ready to be pushed into the spotlight again.
LeBlanc is a first-year journalism major and can be reached at sarah.leblanc@drake.edu
I don’t claim to know anything about Hillary’s health, but I think she’s eminently qualified to be President of the United States. She smart, experienced, passionate and strong.
What is wrong with the headline writer of this article? Are you on glue or something? Did you even READ Ms. LeBlanc’s article?
From the article: “If [Hilary] does decide to run, she has all the criteria to be a strong competitive candidate. … She has economic, political and foreign experience in government and would no doubt be more than qualified for the position as president of the United States.”
Yet, the headline reads, “Hilary Clinton unprepared for the Oval Office.” That’s 180 degrees off from what Ms. LeBlanc wrote.
Either the headline writer is grossly biased or grossly stupid.