I will be voting for Hillary. I will be doing so without an ounce of trepidation. I hear the news of her dishonesty; corrupt politicking in the name of 'friendship' or diplomacy; and endless review of email improprieties. While I have not worked in Government, so I cannot fully understand the operating context of Hillary's career and related decisions, I have worked in large, publicly-traded multi-national corporations and I find the parallels quite empathy-building.
First, the Woman Card: No one, but another woman, can understand the trade-offs, the scrutiny, and the ever-so-subtle sexism that women experience in a professional environment unless they are a) female or b) so "woke" they see it in the moment and for what it is (vs realizing it after-the-fact or having it explained for them). Daily, subtle gestures and comments remind us of where our place is. They become so expected and so familiar that often we stop noticing or taking exception. The behavior fills our day and we are fully immersed in it like a water tank in which we are submerged again and again. We get used to the immersion and begin to feel as if it is 'normal'. And then it is us, women, who have realizations as afterthought. So, standing up for our selves, standing up for one another, or just standing up can appear to be an act of aggression for which we get singled out and labeled with that very word "aggressive".
I heard a recent discussion distinguishing the word "assertive" and "aggressive" - the former being "leaning in with empathy"; the latter, just "leaning in" (with self-interest in mind). But who is the referee in this semantic debate? Of course the term "lean in" was coined by a woman who has now come to understand the privileged context from which she spoke. Double irony. First, operate in an environment in which you have the opportunity to 'lean in'; then, make sure that environment will tolerate you 'leaning in'. In other words, make sure you do not need your job so much that you can suffer getting cut off at the neck - if you stick it out.
Aggressive and assertive have a new sister - she is called 'disruptive'. While this is the favored word today, one cannot be disruptive without being assertive or/and aggressive. Semantics.
I previously had a boss who was affiliated with a particular religious group in which abortion is seen as immoral (and certainly not to be left up to an individual woman to choose). After learning that I had attended a Pro-Choice march in Washington he first initiated a closed-door confrontation about the morality of my actions and beliefs. He then proceeded to pepper every discussion with comments (teaching moments) about 'higher moral standards' related to apparel supply chain. Righteous words shared in a professional context...how could I accuse him of over-stepping boundaries when it was all work related discussion? His message was clear: my character would be called into question with every professional decision because my foundational moral compass was off. Loud and clear.
So, part of me will vote for Hilary simply because she is a woman. Men have had a long run at being in charge. While I do not think one president, in place for potentially one term, will disrupt that which needs disrupting in our fair democracy (e.g. Obama), I will play my card that Hilary may trump even the best alternatives. But my vote is really for Hilary, the woman, the person, AND the politician. By contrast, I would not be voting for Carly Fiorina, though she is surely a woman. This leads to my second point...
Second, The Path to Power: Anyone who has held a position of power - in any institution - will have gotten to that place not via a straight line, but by way of curvy and sometimes jagged lines comprised of negotiations, trade-offs, and pivots. There is no such thing as a direct and linear path from vision-to-action-to-reality unless we are speaking of a dictatorship - which I am not. Managing groups of people means managing divergent views, egos, and agendas. Allies and enemies are created concurrently; egos are challenged and soothed simultaneously; short-term impact is parlayed with long-term relevance. For me, what distinguishes an individual in how they build and use their power is authenticity. Authenticity is measured not just in hard facts and demonstrable action, but also in how they 'show up'. Do they show up at all? Do they show up at the right time? Do they show up demonstrating knowledge and understanding of the circumstances and situation before them?
Hillary's path to power has been long, sustained and composed of significant and significantly different roles. I applaud her path. But I err on the side of favoring interesting career paths. The roles she has held have been substantive and unique in their own right. She has held positions of power in the periphery to build substantive credibility for "the big one". In this process she will have erred, she will have exercized lapses in judgement, she will have made enemies, she will have had some failures. Perfection is not achievable, even in the eyes of a single supporter. In the eyes of this single supporter, Hillary has navigated the mine field of power with grace, tenacity, and as much authenticity as her being a woman would allow. She has shown up, garnered the votes, tolerated the scrutiny, persevered through judgement, and stands willing and wanting to yet again be held accountable for the impact she may have.