By JANE GLENN HAAS
Women view Hillary Clinton more favorably than men do, but she still faces skepticism among some women, especially those who are older and those who are married, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll.
Winning the support of women, who made up 54 percent of voters in the last presidential election, is important to Hillary.
But what’s with this “leadership” thing?
Not to mention this “woman” thing?
Voters say she’s forceful, courageous and strong. They also say she’s a “phony” and “harsh and cold.”
Toughest on Hillary are other women.
Does she have what it takes to face down our enemies, win respect of world leaders, send troops to battle if necessary, keep the country safe from terrorists?
Or, because she’s a woman, should she be spending her time doing good works, like comforting the afflicted, visiting the sick, sheltering the orphaned children.
Honestly, do women have “the right stuff” to do a “man’s job?” Why do they want a “man’s job” anyway?
She was “right” to stay with Bill or she was “wrong.” She’s a “woman’s libber” or a “positive role model.”
Maybe, even, she’s a lesbian?
You think?
A year ago, there were whispers about Hillary being gay. There also were whispers about Condi Rice being gay. And at the same time, Law and Order, the television series, did an episode about a woman CEO who murdered a colleague because he found out she was gay and was going to out her.
The hidden message: Women who crave leadership are exhibiting masculine tendencies so they can’t be “real” women. They must be lesbian.
Great Britain, India, Israel, Germany – to name a few – have had women in top leadership positions but we can’t seem to make the leap.
Check out the “news” section of this web site for some current thinking on women in leadership roles in this country.
Not that our negative attitude toward women in politics is confined simply to presidential candidates.
Saturday, the Wall Street Journal had a cover story about Elizabeth Edwards, who has stage four breast cancer, which only has a 20 percent survival rate.
As she campaigns beside her husband, John, psychologists are watching to check the impact on her children. Instead of being away from home, should she be mothering these youngsters who may soon lose her. What kind of a mother is she, anyway?
Or is she strong and brave, the epitome of what a woman should be: Standing beside her man instead of trying to steal the show?
Who knows the answers to these questions better than you do?
Try to forget your politics – this is not a Democrat or Republican issue.
This is a woman’s issue.
Share your thoughts and we’ll make sure to share them with Hillary and Elizabeth.
July 22nd, 2007 - 8:13 pm
Hillary Clinton is an enigma to womanhood. She portends to be interested in furthering the cause for women, but portrays a masculine personna. Her lack of charisma turns away many women who would seek to be leaders. She gives us no reason to want to emulate her. She is very harsh and unemotional in her manner of speaking. Her opportunistic tendencies definitely surfaced when she chose to “stand by her man”. I would like to see a more feminine woman leader. I believe men would respect a woman such as Condoleeza Rice as a world leader before they would someone like Hillary.
July 22nd, 2007 - 9:52 pm
Amen. Very well said. My thoughts exactly.
July 23rd, 2007 - 12:31 pm
Well what can I say you’re already said it all. Women have been leading their countires everywhere but the U.S.
As a female who went through the police academy, I can tell you it’s still a man’s world.
In rhe academy one of my female friends had to go to the bathroom and as a woman, we have to pull our pants down….not unzip and go and then zip up as a man…well we only have so many seconds to go to the bathroom, she decided she’d save time and not undo her belt, so she sits down and goes and when she stands back up…..plop, plop, her gun falls in the toliet….we spent 2 ours that night cleaning and drying the gun.
Another of my friends was doing her training at the Sheriff’s Academy during their 2 mile run, she “felt” that feeling only a woman knows that oops, she’d started her period…she requested to be excused to go to the bathroom and was denied permission, so here she was running the track and bleeding all over herself…she was so embarrassed….only a woman could understand this…but shock of all shocks,…..a big thing was made out of this and the sheriff’s academy has relaxed a little over this
If you’re a smart, intellilgent woman in law enforcement they say: ” Wow, she has balls”
If you’re demanding about something being done correctly, then ” She must be on that time of the month”
Paper needs replacing in the bathroom, it’s the little woman’s job, hey they do the same thing at the copy machine, it’s a woman’s job….
As a female investigator I was told I was doing my job too well and to slow down as I was making my male counterparts look bad.
Excuses always made for the men who didn’t do their jobs, but not for the woman….We’re held to a higher standard, but are to keep our mouths shut.
NO praise is ever given to the woman on the team….During a search warrant we couldn’t get anyone to answer the door, so were going to call for a locksmith….I noticed the upstairs french doors were ajar, I pointed it out to the supv, he asked how we would get up there, I pointed to the phone crew who was having lunch and said we could ask to borrow their ladder…..we did it, but it was never mentioned that it was a woman’s idea…..
On and on I could go
In the olden days they wouldn’t let a woman make a decision if it was Her time of the month.
Well guess I should close for now, as I do have to work.
July 24th, 2007 - 7:47 pm
Some PEOPLE are not meant to Lead. - like the president we now have. Hillary has more courage and integrity and inteligence than the whole Bush family. Her leadership has nothing to do with being a woman but everything to do with strength and clarity of thought with vast experience in the political world. I admire her tremendously but fear for her if she is elected as there are a number of hateful, prejudicial people in the US and world who can make her stay very difficult if not dangerous. Go Hilary!!
Who are we to judge Elizabeth Edwards? She has great courage and should do whatever she wants to do with this stage of her life. I don’t think the US will elect Edwards as there is so much grief in the world and Elizabeth’s illness is a reminder - such tragedy to such a lovely family. I believe Hillary overshadows all the other candidates - fo both parties..
July 26th, 2007 - 9:12 am
Thanks for raising these issues. Women in leadership roles can be in damned if you do lead and damned if you don’t lead position.
I have read that some research shows that women in general exhibit better leadership qualities than men do. I rank highly in enteprising, communication and creative orientation in vocational interest tests, strengths which match up well to leadership roles.
Recently I took on a management role in an industry that is usually favorable for women (advertising) but still work on the issue of how strong my style needs to be. I appreciate the support here.
July 26th, 2007 - 9:37 am
Thanks for writing this very timely article. I agree that this is not a partisan issue and we, as women, should try to think about it carefully.
We must stop repeating the labels that political oponents create for these women and concentrate on what is really important for a woman or a man in leadership positions. Are physical attributes or sexual orientation more important than clarity of thought even during the most difficult times?
Someone mentions Hillary creating a masculine persona for herself. What is feminine; what is masculine? Some women are admired and considered feminine for trying to work on their marriage and “standing by their men” rather than abandoning it at the first trial. Hillary is crucified for doing that, and considered opportunitistic.
Political beliefs aside, I consider Hillary Clinton and Elizabeth Edwards amazingly strong and intelligent women. They have dealt with tremendous problems in front of everyone’s eyes, and they have done it with dignity and strength. They have been criticized for the very qualities that we admire in leaders: courage, ambition, understanding, ability to think clearly and to make decisions even under the worst of circumstances.
July 26th, 2007 - 10:08 am
Brava Jane! You have caputred the issue so well. Women leaders in the US walk a fine line — damned if they do and damned if they don’t demonstrate “toughness”. What we admire and demand in male leaders we castigate in women. That having been said I don’t think women need to emulate men to demonstrate leadership. Hillary and Elizabeth blend qualities of intelligence, compassion, determination and mission to serve our country which is we should admire, not denigrate.
July 26th, 2007 - 2:50 pm
I’m delighted Jane has articulated this issue in regard to Hillary. I’ve been a huge Hillary fan for a long time. That may be changing. Many women have been saying for decades that if they can just get their hands on power (claim their power), it will be used in a very different way than we’ve seen men using theirs. Women have said they’d use their power in a cohesive, collaborative, healing way, not in a way that creates further disconnect among people. So far, I see Hillary using her power in a way that fragments and disconnects. I see her communication style as unnecessarily abrupt and abrasive–to the extent that some of us can’t hear her message. What’s the saying? “If the only tool we have is a hammer then we treat all the world as if it’s a nail” or something like that. Then there’s the thinking about ethical and unethical use of power, ethical being use of power WITH others, and unethical being use of power OVER others. I vote for ethical use of power and I trust that Hillary will hold that belief at some point. Still, so far, I’m planning to vote for her. If she continues being so very caustic in her delivery, I’ll likely change my mind.
July 27th, 2007 - 4:02 pm
Hello, Jane -
I appreciate that you have provided air and space and respectfully suggest “Hillary or not” (and is Elizabeth Edwards “right”), elipse being a woman’s issue and that we do ourselves and the country a disservice by labeling it as such. If you can identify resistance to questions of women and leadership then you must be aware of how some people, perhaps too many people, view “women’s issues.” This is bigger than sex or gender or political affiliation; this is about competency.
First, though, I would like to state my conviction that Elizabeth’s Edwards decision is and should be maintained as just that - hers, (and obviously her spouse’s also.) Everyone of us who has been touched by a major life threatening health challenge wants and needs the option to be the one person whose choices take precedence. I have my opinion regarding Elizabeth Edwards, but it’s just that - an opinion. Beyond what I may think the only business I or anyone else has in her life is to extend good wishes for her and her family as they make this journey.
Now, regarding women and leadership, and Hillary Clinton: As a female of a certain age who experienced the “second wave” of feminism first hand and who now teaches young women who often have no idea how the advantages they do have, as well as the advantages they need to have, came to pass, I prefer to align myself with an idea put forth by theorist and professor Joseph Pleck: focus not on gender but on competency. If we refrain from viewing matters through the lens of gender and apply instead the lens of competency then we can know more clearly who the best “man” for the job may be. And, along with other concerns about the current state of affairs who can deny that the matter of competency is an urgent issue.
While there remain too many challenges for women to yet overcome because they are women; and while health care is clearly a matter than impacts women - and children - we need to move beyond characterizing larger concerns as “women’s issues” and as women move these concerns forward as human issues. Let us not lose sight of the fact the rising tide lifts all boats. When the world has become a better,safer place for women it will also be a better, safer place for everyone.
July 30th, 2007 - 1:33 pm
I think a woman could do a better job than a man for persident, depending on the women. Sex matters physiologically because most males are testosterone driven. Hopefully, a woman can see past agression, competition, and war like tendencies.
I think that most of our presidents are presidents for #1 the power and prestige or maybe they are control junkies, but I would hope a woman would be a peace maker first and talk instead of going to war. She would have to be tough, but brave and intelligent.
Yes, it is still a man’s world but it isn’t working.
August 2nd, 2007 - 4:30 pm
No, I do not think Hillary wouldmake a good President and not because she is a woman. Margaret Thatcher was a woman and she was great. I and against Hiilary becuse she never says the same things twice in a row so I do not know which to believe. She is fixated on the “Right Wing Conspiracy” and cannot seem to get off it. What about the Dems constantly picking on the Republicans? I do not think either one should “pick” on the other. I feel that generally the American public is intelligent enough to make their own decisions and if one watches and READS the news they should be well enough informed to make that decision. I have no idea if the stories about Hillary being lesbian are true or not, but it was on television that Bill Clinton did make the statement that she had had more women than he has. ??? Even if true, that should not be an issue — BUT she and Bill do not live together , it seems the only time they are together are for photo ops. I would be more interested in someone who has a stable marriage (if married) and much better moral integrity. I am still not comfortable with the Vince Foster thing, or the Ron Brown issue and a few others which most people seem to have forgotten. I also am not comfortable with the Rose Hill law firm things or the “lost files”. Too many unanswered questions. If everyone else has to be under a microscope, why does she not have to? None of the canditdates are perfect, and none of them seem to be telling the truth so where does the average citizen go for the real truth? None of them answer my questions, and also I am so sick of the Dems referring to me as “common poeple” I am not common — in my own way I am very special, as we all are. I resent the Dems referring to “us” as being too stupid to run our own lives and we have to have them baby sitting us. I am also definitelyt against a National Health Care program as they are trying to instigate — it does not work in any other country so why woudl it here? There are many other ways to give insurance to those who ar elow income than run by thje government. why not have a large insurance company such as John Hancock issue a grouip health insurance policy to eveyone in the U.S. that wants to join and let them run it — they are in the Health Care and Insurance business not the government. In the 60’s John Hancock came up with a better plan for Social Security which I thought was terrific, but of course the government said Noooooooo — after all they would have to give up that steady income of money that flows in from our S. S. deductiions on our paychecks. Cannot have that — they would lose their allowance for spending money. Enough of my rambling — Toni Roach
August 11th, 2007 - 2:13 pm
We unfortunately are indoctrinated into believing that women who “act like men” are ball-busting lesbian control-freaks trying to bring men under their control. Maybe in twenty years, if our younger generation rejects this nonsense, we can change things. But unfortunately, I find that most women over fifty, while they seem to be capable of raising a family, holding down a job, and running a household, are uncertain about their executive abilities and willing to back down when men challenge them. I recently read an article saying part of our problem is the fact that voting in this country is voluntary. In countries where it’s mandatory, women have an almost 50-50 representation in government. I would postulate that legislative corruption would almost disappear if earmarks were forbidden, legislative bills could have only one subject per bill, and lobbyists were confined to words instead of gifts. At that point, numerous men would find they can’t garner power and wealth by being in office and would move back into the private sector, and women would use their natural empathy and tendencies toward honesty to do a better and more humane job of running the country. It’s unfortunately true that more women than men run for politics in a more altruistic vein, willing to sacrifice time with their families to gain legislation to benefit the masses. I except Nancy Pelosi and Hillary Clinton - I think their years in politics have made them as interested in power as many male politicians, and they’ve ceased seeing the forest as they lay down their petty little fiefdom treehouses to assuage their massive egos. Personally, I would vote for any woman or man who I felt was sincerely trying to solve problems instead of build a retirement estate for themselves. I’m not sure how to finance that kind of legislator - most people are so fed up with politicians, we don’t even want to give them a dollar on our income tax returns. I don’t hate men - I love them - but finding anybody who’s willing to run the gauntlet of bad press, sifting through one’s past, “exposes”, and general negative press is difficult - who is sensitive and kind enough to govern, yet thick-skinned enough not to be destroyed by the elective process?
August 14th, 2007 - 10:49 am
I cannot say it any better than already said by Toni Roach and Jerri S. LeMontre.
Thank you, Ladies.
August 15th, 2007 - 11:26 am
I agree with Judy Gacunto’a first sentence after that I strongly disagree. Intergriy and Hillary C. should not even be on the same page never mind the same sentence. I think she is definetly an opportunist , a liar and a bitch if crossed. But, of course she’s learned to cover all that as the phony she is. I was ashamed to call myself a NYer after she was elected. I always prided myself on NYer’s being smart until that day.
As for Eilzabeth Edwards———there is a saying “never judge an indian until you’ve walked a mile in her moccins.” I can’t imagine what that woman is going thru an neither can anyone else, even if they have or have had breast cancer. Everyone life is their own and KNOWONE should judge them. I do know that the MOST important thing should be your children and being with them. I know because I suffer that mistake from my ignorant youth. Other than that I can not say more.
September 19th, 2007 - 2:03 pm
I remember when Geraldine Ferraro ran for vice-president. There was a great deal of anger that she would run. There was also a constant aim to discredit her. With today’s politics, unfortunately, that’s the name of the game.
But if we look under the anger about Hillary, is there a lot of fear? Is it possible that there’s a feeling of “How dare she?” I firmly believe she plays a “man’s game” in the Senate, and that’s one of the reasons she gets things done. Do I trust her as a person…well…no. But at this point, I don’t trust any of them.
I long for the day when it could be normal for a woman to run for president, or a black man, or a Hispanic. The day when we could focus on what the person has done in the past in their public sphere and make our decisions on that, rather than a litmus test that someone makes up to decide whether someone is too “something” or not enough “something.”
October 10th, 2007 - 2:26 pm
What a fabulous conversation!
What I have to say is not “the truth” and I have a sense that women don’t trust themselves in being leaders. As such, they tend to wish to keep the “status quo” as it is so that they themselves do not have to face their own demons of trusting themselves to ‘be’ leaders. Women, men, me, you… it’s the same; becoming comfortable with the way it is and therefore not wanting to ‘upset the apple cart” hence, wishing to maintain the way it is, has been and ‘hopefully’ always will be. You see, although change is inevitable, it also can be painful and we inherently know that.
Again, nothing I’m saying is the truth; I won’t pick it up as a cause on which I wil become fanatical about it. I have nothing to prove, I’m just an observer of our observations in life. Plus this is not all women (men, people), in fact, I attended a conference last weekend where women CEOs / Presidents offered presentations to a room full of small business owners, women. The presenters were all very powerful businesswomen and had excellent advice for the group, who came to the conference to advance themselves to the next level in their own businesses. That was the reason for the conference anyway.
One of the CEOs shared that in last week’s USAToday she was featured as a working mom of two boys. After the article was published, over 300 blog remarks were written - many by women - and not all were complementary, going so far as to say, “get out of the boardroom, you don’t belong there, we don’t want to hear about your kids!” Interestingly enough, the software company that she works for offers one of the most complete and inexpensive software products for thoroughly assessing and supporting small businesses and I highly recommend it for anyone facing the annual reassessment of their business plans.
After the second CEO shared a wonderful tried-to-true presentation of what mistakes to look out for when moving forward - ones that she had made in getting to where she was in the company - with the absolutely necessary step of marketing your product or service, one of the women in the conference stood up and shared, “I can see you are successful because you have that ‘guy-like’ way of presenting yourself, but for the rest of us…” as if to BE successful there has to be a guy-like quality about you as a woman. At the Awards Reception later, this supposed guy-like feminine woman came dressed to a tee with her equally successful looking husband. My point is, how much was the woman who stood up and said what she said speaking from her automatic beliefs of who a woman must be and how much was she ‘generating’ out of what’s possible?
Generating out of what’s possible. What would that mean for women? Are each of us / ANY of us willing to step into the unknown and take what we take as a leader or are we going to hide behind what we ‘think’ is going to happened based on misconceptions from the past?
As far as Hiliary, why not? Four years. Will you believe what little the press do or can (from their automatic ways of looking at her life) relate about her as a person? Especially in this world of getting sensationalist news out there as fast as possible so that the next newscaster won’t get to it first! I’ll bet you that today even Abraham Lincoln would have mud slung in his face and every single little oh-my-gosh!-human-mistake that he made would be slammed and people would come from where [we] normally come from is which let’s talk about “what’s wrong here.”
Well, let’s look at ‘what’s possible’ for us as women. Hiliary is similar to any other candidate and would do the job she would do for four years. If it’s worth re-electing her, then maybe eight years. Who are we kidding that we have to or even will have the ‘perfect’ person take on the instantly-greying position of President? How is that possible?
Personally, I think it’s time for women to break through and become who we could become (women’s Suffrage gave us the opportunity, now it is up to us to step into that opportunity). Again, not ‘the truth’ let’s support those who are out there, being slammed, defamed, spat upon by those who really don’t know but have formed opinions based on others opinions to mask their own fears of stepping up. Let’s allow those who wish to break up the transparent cage that we allow ourselves to be trapped inside of to protect ourselves from our own fears of being the leaders we already are.
P.S. Do you remember that the TV show that Gina Davis produced and starred in last year (can’t remember the name) was one of the most successful with awards after awards but was yanked off? It showed a woman who brought to the presidency the ability to govern both the position and her family sucessfully. Hmmm…
December 2nd, 2007 - 10:23 am
A co-worker of mine stated “I will never vote for a woman to be President”. When I stated Queen Victoria ruled the known world. It was not enough. She replied “It is not in a woman’s nature to go to war. Once you’ve given birth and know the miracle of life, you can never send anyone off the be killed”. That is why married women view Hillary as “cold and harsh” or a lesbian. My reply “A mother bear will defend her cubs at all cost” A woman president would defend her “cubs” (USA) at any cost. But she would make different decisions regarding war. We would only go to war to defend this country–not to free another. It wouldn’t be to show our military strength. Freeing another country would be by generous caring information (not propaganda as it is now) and supplies. (I personally think the world will be won with chocolate.
Twice I’ve met women who as young children (one in Vietnam and one in Afganistan ) who were given chocolate by our military men and “didn’t want anything from them”. Both made up their mind that America must be a wonderful place and where they wanted to live when they grew up. I am so proud of our military. ) Marguerite
January 7th, 2008 - 9:41 pm
very interesting.
i’m adding in RSS Reader
February 14th, 2008 - 7:54 am
This question is of interest today, but I have My own question, why is this Only an important topic Today, right before an election? I guess it is never too late to care huh?
If we had a woman president do you think that will help improve our current situation in the workplace, at home, with divorce, and in retirement? Do you think that she will try to improve the disparity of our financial situation, and the financial losses we lose over our lifetime. For data see
http://jimstroud.com/2007/09/06/have-we-really-come-a-long-way-baby/
Eighty-nine of the 244 women who have served in Congress are current Members—73 in the House and 16 in the Senate. There are Many women today who are and Have been Presidents, Prime Ministers and Governors of Many countries - including China, Phillipines, Bolivia, Europe, Haiti, Sri Lanka… Unfortunately not much changes regarding the opportunities for women expanded, even with them in power.
Based upon history, is a woman going to change the status quo? could she? will she make much of a difference today? and Mainly Would she have the support and most importantly the backing from the sisters? (this bothers me, as it seems we my sisters, have become apathetic lot regarding our lot. Some really think that the concrete ceiling is dissapearing. - Please see link above)
I don’t think Clinton is the “woman” for the job, and a few individuals above expressed why. It isn’t because she is a woman, it is just because of Who this woman is.
Today, we should be especially concerned about whom we vote for as we face financial and class hardship, due to political greed and corruption. We need to hear the truth today. For a long time we have heard lies and rhetoric from the current government regarding the state of the economy, and today they say we are not in recession? even though salaries dropped 4 times in the last 5 years? Even though we have twice as less jobs last year than the year before, but that many more people Entering the workforce. And Inflation is the highest since 17 years.
Today, my vote Needs to Count — I want my polititician to tell the truth, to care about my class - the middle class, and push to make sure we don’t become extint to that 2 Percent of our population who holds 90 Percent of Our National Economy and are in a Lessor tax bracket than more than 70 Percent of the country.
I don’t care if that the next president is a woman or man, but I do care that they say what they mean, and what they mean can be accomplished in 4 years. It is realistic, and wasn’t just bravado to get my vote.
Yes, it is proven a woman can do this job, or any political job. History has proven it, but, the problem may lay not only in society but in the person themselves.
Karen Mattonen
March 7th, 2008 - 7:41 am
What is a “man’s job,” anyway? It does not seem to me that there is a lot of difference in the way a woman does a job because she is a woman vs. the way a man does a job because he is male. It all comes down to the inherant and developed qualities and abilities the person has and then uses to do whatever ‘the job’ is. I, myself, have been trying to recognize what all of my native talents and abilities are, especially as I am approaching my 6th decade. Because of culture, there are some things I am discovering lately that are undeveloped simply because they have not been encouraged. Cultural apparatus supports the development or not of many traits and/or abilities in men and women. It takes courage, intelligence, perseverence and time to discover and follow one’s own path rather than continue on the forced march of our own culture. Sometimes, it is a long time before one realizes the trek one’s been on is just plain
boring. I have always admired women who saw their own way and went there in spite of discouragement. It can be maddening to others to watch, too. Jealousy and fear may be the foundation of so much criticism of Hillary Clinton. I must admit, I have not understood it.
Another comment I want to make: why does it seem that calling Hillary a ‘lesbian’ is the ultimate insult? If she is, was, will be, so what? What in the world has that to do with her ability to lead effectively? And another thing: why do we expect so much more out of her as a politician than we would a male politician? In my own skepticism, I truly believe that ALL successful politicians have far more in common with each other than they do with me. The needed and successfully developed characteristics to get to where they are, whether male or female, are not necessarily consistent with leading a private, integrity- filled life. If I were to run and stay in political office, I wonder how I would change. Would I be able to hold onto my dearest values? I am not saying a politician should not be held accountable, only that we, as an electorate, need DESPARATELY to not be led astray by the rhetoric that comes down to us from our political system. I think the rhetoric is meant to cloud our vision and divert us from what is really going on. And we are content to let it do so. That way, we can keep criticizing and not struggle with the very real and complicated issues politicians struggle with. Ever tried reading a bill that comes before Congress? We could go on, but now I must go and grapple with my daily portion of life. It is challenging enough for me.
March 7th, 2008 - 7:45 am
complete
March 25th, 2008 - 7:35 am
Although I am fully aware there are still many people out there who base their decision on sex or race, I do not. In other words, much as I would like to see a woman as president, to vote for HIllary Clinton just because she is a woman - even though I am more drawn to Barack Obama - makes no sense to me. Any more than it would make sense for all black people to vote for Obama, if they truly preferred Hillary Clinton. I do think Hillary Clinton is the strongest and most viable female candidate we have seen so far running for president, and if she wins, I have no doubt that she will be fully capable of ALL aspects of the job. A woman is capable of both succeeding - and failing - as all presidents do. And the first woman who does get elected as president will be under a microscope the whole time she is in office, proving her self the whole time, expected to be superwoman.