I stood a mere 15 feet from Hillary Rodham Clinton, Democratic presidential candidate, in her First Lady days as she gave a speech. I don’t recall much of what she said, but that might have been due to her demeanor – ice cold. I was stunned.
Since then Clinton has changed her image. But when her aides say that she is planning on being more spontaneous, I see a problem. The New York Times published a Clinton campaign leak “of Clinton’s scheduled plan to mimic spontaneity:”
“There will be no more flip jokes about her private email server. There will be no rope lines to wall off crowds, which added to an impression of aloofness. And there will be new efforts to bring spontaneity to a candidacy that sometimes seems wooden and overly cautious.”
A woman president appeals to me. Women across the world have led their countries, from Golda Meir of Israel to Angela Merkel of Germany. What is there about these two women that made them electable leaders?
Meir is quoted, saying this:
“It’s no accident many accuse me of conducting public affairs with my heart instead of my head. Well, what if I do? Those who don’t know how to weep with their whole heart don’t know how to laugh either.”
According to der Spiegel, Merkel said that Soviet soldiers stole her bicycle when she was a girl:
“I don’t carry any early childhood trauma around with me, if that’s what you’re hinting at. The story of the bicycles – and there were three of them which were stolen from me – I’ve dealt with it well.”
So what is hampering Clinton’s presidential campaign? She is a brilliant political strategist; yet during her last run, she faced the same problem. At one point, she was criticized about her aloofness; so she cried. But I believe that is exactly why people think she is dishonest – she holds the real Hillary close and presents a polished mask, which is the sum of what the polls prefer.
Why is she this way? I don’t know for certain; but it seems to be that her mother, Dorothy Howell Rodham, probably had a huge impact on Clinton. The New York Times indicated that Rodham had a “Dickensian” childhood, one like the Dickens’ child characters, who were forced into cruel situations.
According to the LA Times, Rodham was raised in a violent home, and her parents moved frequently. After her parents divorced, Rodham’s father got custody but sent her on a three-day train trip from Chicago to Los Angeles to live with his parents when she was only eight – her fellow traveler was her three-year-old sister.
The grandparents were no better than her parents. When they caught her trick-or-treating one Halloween, an activity they forbade; they confined her to her room for a full year except for school. She couldn’t even eat with the family or play outside.
Rodham left home when she was only 14 and supported herself. An article in the The New York Times reports that Rodham said:
“I’d hoped so hard that my mother would love me that I had to take the chance and find out. When she didn’t, I had nowhere else to go.”
I don’t know what Clinton’s mother was like when she was an adult, but her childhood was cold and forlorn. I don’t think she treated her daughter as she was treated, but I do suspect that Rodham’s coping methods shaped who she was. Then I have to wonder how much of that became integrated into the core of this woman who would be president. A person can’t shake off who she really is during her campaign.
I hope I’m wrong and a more believable Clinton emerges.
