Equally frustrating for many were more coded forms of sexism where Clinton was held to standards that would never apply to her male counterparts. One such notable example was the frenzied paranoia about the dynastic implications of a presidency by a second member of the Clinton family, when political dynasties have existed at all levels of American government. Jeb Bush was once considered an inevitable candidate; the presidential aspirations of all three Kennedys were treated indulgently by the Democratic populace. This newfound resistance to the idea of a political dynasty that just happens to coincide with the possibility that a woman might become the most powerful person in the world has left many Clinton supporters sceptical and resentful, as did the unprecedented hubbub calling for her to prematurely withdraw from the race, when many recent campaigns with less support have gone all the way to the convention.

Even her most loyal supporters would acknowledge that Hillary Clinton’s chequered past includes some poor decisions. What drew many voters to Clinton nevertheless was her grasp of a wide range of important policy issues and her genuine passion for progressive causes such as universal healthcare. It is also important to note that scattered displays of arrogance, ruthlessness and the ability to tell the occasional tall tale did not, by any means, make Clinton an unusual contender in the presidential race. In fact, we would expect no less from the typical presidential candidate. The over-the-top attempts to cast her as a modern-day Lady Macbeth reveal a widespread failure to accept a female public figure who is not afraid to wear her ambition brazenly on the sleeve of her no-nonsense pant suit. Double standards continue to flourish among the many who feign openness to the idea of a woman occupying the highest political office in the US but are privately put off by the fact she could not find a way to get there by sipping on iced tea with other nice ladies who lunch.

... contd.