Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Hillary Clinton, it seems, will finally announce tomorrow that she is running for the White House in 2016.
Her chosen method, it appears, will not be before a crowd of the adoring faithful but via social media. After all, a candidate who will be close to 69 should she win – older than any incoming president bar Ronald Reagan – must show she is in touch with the trends of the day.
And therein lies a central problem of Mrs Clinton’s bid. Her ability and her qualifications, as the former First Lady, US senator and Secretary of State, are not in doubt. It is also high time that America followed almost every other developed country and chose a woman as its leader. But the entire enterprise leaves many people, and not a few within her own Democratic Party, slightly uneasy.
US presidential elections are about the future, not the past – and Hillary Clinton is identified with the past. Admittedly, that past is the relatively happy and prosperous Bill Clinton era. But the “dynasty” problem, the sense that she is somehow automatically entitled to the highest office in the land, remains.
More seriously, despite two decades close to the summit of public life, it is not clear what she stands for. The right sees her as a champion of statism and big government. Many on the left believe she is too close to Wall Street, and less concerned than she should be about the crucial issue of America’s growing social inequality.
Yet she still has no serious competition for the nomination. Rarely, in an open election such as next year’s, has a party put its eggs so unequivocally in a single basket. Mrs Clinton, as 2008 showed, is not the greatest campaigner. Other Democrats must come forward to challenge her in the primaries – at the least to help to hone her skills as a candidate, ahead of what will be a no-holds-barred battle with Republicans in the election that follows.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments