Did Hillary really make history at June 6th?

[Zanna]

Now, I've seen some articles (especially a particular one by the NYTimes) effectively deifying Clinton for her success, naming her a pioneer for women's history in the USA, for coming as close to presidency as she is now. Objectively speaking, she deserves a warm round of applause for her success. It's not easy for anyone, man or woman to come so far as to be a canditate for presidency for the USA.

But I think the media reaction is a little over the top.
While for american history this might be a new high-score, women have made history by assuming presidency for several decades now, starting with Margaret Thatcher in the UK. A person who was received with much more contempt by the media as a leader, and had been attacked as to her person since before she made any of her controvertial political decisions, as a different article by the Telegraph nicely illustrates..

Clinton is venerated as a pioneer at a time where reverse sexism is at its peak (and this is comming from a woman, mind you).

 

[Lagboltz]

Her accomplishment certainly isn't a sudden surprise. Yes, deification at this point seems anticlimactic. I almost think that the accolades for her "history making milestone" is demeaning in that it focuses on her as a woman, and not a leader. It's easy to be a woman , but not not so easy to be a good leader. We will see how she does on that if she wins.

 

[yiostheoy]

Not sure why this bothers you. It is merely a footnote to history.

The more significant issue is that there are 2 major candidates for the POTUS office.

One has extensive experience in government, the other has none.

One is very diplomatic, the other is rash and brash.

They both went to prestigious universities but one also has a law degree.

You would not need to see their genders to choose a favorite in this case nor even the lesser of two weevils.