Hillary & Hillary

I saw Hillary Clinton once, in February 2007. I played my alto saxophone and joined thirty other high school students on a Saturday morning as we played the national anthem as she campaigned for the New Hampshire primary scheduled 11 months later. At the time, my political views were still being shaped, but I was captivated by the unwavering confidence she brought to the packed high school gym, her intelligence, and thorough answers to every issue and question asked. I worked in politics for a summer when I was 19 and learned that the field can be painful, deceptive, rewarding and powerful.

It's been no secret lately among those who know me well that I like Hillary Clinton. Along with many of my friends, I've enjoyed discussing her latest interviews, appearances and what it all might mean for our shared future. Among my closest family, my Hillary-fever might be slightly less welcome, but still kindly tolerated.

Today ended 10 spectacular days spent with my brother. Each brought excessive amounts of laughter and enjoyment. When I told him about my interest in a presidential campaign for Hillary though, he pointed out the possibility of a Bush -- Clinton -- Bush -- Obama -- Clinton thirty-year presidential history, revealing his fear of an American presidency heavily dominated by two ultra-powerful families resembling an American monarchy with an unsettling trend for how the position could be achieved. I thought and responded about our democracy, of the hope that the most qualified candidate would be awarded the job, but also the heavy influence of the media and the disturbing trend of $1 billion presidential campaigns begun in 2012 with no sign of turning back to anything less.

After finishing my undergraduate thesis this past spring, (a book on racial relations in homogeneously white Vermont) I thought of what a candidate's appearance and experiences shaped by their race or sex bring not only to their community, but to their own campaign. Racism and sexism are huge influences in American society, but shouldn't be so in politics as either an advantage or disadvantage.

With her recent media attention and the continual will-she-or-won't-she dissection, it seems that two Hillary's have emerged: the one that's already known, the former nonconformist First Lady and later Senator from New York, who's both loved and loathed, clearly brilliant but not publicly fitting the expectations of her sex in a male-dominated field, and the second Hillary, the possible 2016 presidential candidate, who embodies every dream and desire of many. This second Hillary has been said to be the most qualified for the job beginning in January 2017. I want to believe that statement, that she'd be perfect for the job, yet there seems to be something else that's underneath the rug. It's as if we've seen this all before; the heavy influence of American media encouraging all to believe that the next candidate will bring improvements and changes never seen before, leading to unmet expectations and disappointment. It seems that candidates and presidents are declared unsalvageable once citizens expect the sky and receive a treetop.