I find it incredible that Hillary Clinton’s image can generate the same conversations now as it did then when she was the First Lady. There’s just that one big difference in the mix now: she wants to be our first female president. It’s difficult to agree that she has little control over her image in the public eye and the way she is portrayed in the media. Sure there will always be slip ups that she plays no part in, but I feel that given the amount of time she’s been in politics and the spotlight, it would be naive to assume she hasn’t accumulated at least some leverage to provide input on how people will see her. It only makes sense especially right now at such a crucial moment in her career. For some reason I have found it difficult to come across a good amount of anti-Hillary media when I’m surfing the web. Just about every major news outlet I follow on Facebook seems to favor her in every which way except for clearly stating so. The images I see that don’t put her in the best light are usually generated by users in the form of comments, memes, blog posts, etc. A lot of the positive coverage seems just as replayed and recycled as the article had suggested of news media back in the ’90s. So I guess we can say the narrative has been switched to play her up in the most favorable way possible and it’s pervasive across the internet. It’s constant and repetitive: this is what she stands for, this is what she’s doing for women’s rights, this is why she’s the favored candidate, this is why she’s more likely to win than her democratic opponent, and so on. It’s easy to see why people eventually buy into it, even more so now than possibly back then. The internet obviously amplifies this effect tenfold. Still, with the amount of scrutiny the candidates face today, there’s no doubt in my mind that she is fully aware her every move and word are being documented for the people of this country. Of course, she’s bound to step in the mud and no amount of control can stop the public from noticing. Who she surrounds herself with and who she chooses to advocate are also going to be scrutinized, either enhancing or diminishing her public image.  Which brings me to the forefront of her most recent debacles involving Madeleine Albright, Gloria Steinmen, and the issue of feminism.

The true nature of the generational gap between feminists wasn’t as apparent to most of us, I believe, until these two older women plastered it into our minds recently. “There’s a special place in hell for women who don’t help other women.” The feminists of my generation did not take kindly to these words. It’s sexist to suggest a woman is only voting for Hillary based off gender. It’s also sexist to renounce those of us who might choose a different candidate who ISN’T a woman and suggest we meet Satan in the afterlife. Gloria Steinmen put her foot in her mouth when she implied young women were flocking to Bernie Sanders because that’s where the boys were at. Again, the feminists in my generation were not obliged to take that lightly. Many are outright unapologetic about the fact that Hillary just isn’t the candidate for them. But in all fairness one can see why these two women are so passionate about supporting their female ally, these women broke glass ceilings and have waited ages for this one crucial milestone. Even Hillary’s poll numbers show she’s gotten most of her female support from older women. Feminism to them growing up was in a lot of ways much different than the feminism we’re growing up in today. So while I may not agree with their words, I can understand why they chose to express them that way.