 woman Americans have watched so closely on this year’s campaign trail—is a personality forged through a career-long collision with the constantly shifting set of gender-based expectations people have put on her. To get here, she has done for so many years so many versions of what she did on In Focus: adjust, compromise and concede where necessary, never letting pure ideology interfere with the progress her ambitions required. She has done what she needed to for her husband to win elections, then for her to do the same, making repeated course corrections along the way.

The list is considerable. To help her husband in Arkansas, she started wearing contacts and makeup, changed her clothes and her hair, and (most meaningfully) dropped her maiden name—the one she had vowed as a girl to keep for life. After first emerging on the presidential campaign trail as a groundbreaking near-co-candidate, she realized she could help him win only by settling into a softer, more docile, more universally palatable role. Once in Washington, she stepped up zealously to reform the health care system, and under attack was forced to recede again, to a less partisan and more traditional posture as first lady. When her husband philandered in the Oval Office, humiliating her in the most painful way on the most public stage, she didn’t leave—she stayed. And ever since, every time she has run for office for herself, twice for the Senate, and now twice for the presidency, she generally has been reluctant to embrace an explicit, forceful feminist mantle—not so much a flouting of ideals as an assessment that it might be counterproductive to her ability to win.

There’s no question her inside-the-system strategy, the long life of triangulation and shifting, adjusting her goals and even her persona to maintain access, is what created the path that led to her presidency. It may also be her biggest challenge in governing the American people, who sense in her a person who is neither one thing nor the other. Some see an opportunist, others a pragmatist. She has been labeled too radical and not radical enough, beset by conservatives and liberals alike, sometimes simultaneously. But she has been, always, not a radical or an ideologue, as many of her most vociferous critics have claimed, but a realist, a centrist. And people who know her well, who have been mentors and friends, who have worked with her and for
woman Americans have watched so closely on this class ’s political campaign lead — is a personality forged through a career - long collision with the constantly shifting bent of gender - based arithmetic mean multitude have put on her. To scram here, she has done for so many year so many versions of what she did on In Focus: adjust, compromise and concede where necessary, never get pure political orientation interfere with the advancement her ambition required. She has done what she needed to for her husband to gain elections, then for her to do the same, make reprise course correction along the way. 

 The list is considerable. To help her husband in Arkansas, she begin wearing contacts and makeup, changed her clothes and her hair's-breadth, and (most meaningfully) dropped her maiden name — the one she had vowed as a girl to keep for life. After first emerging on the presidential campaign lead as a groundbreaking near - carbon monoxide - candidate, she realize she could avail him win only by settling into a softer, more docile, more universally palatable role. Once in Washington, she stepped up zealously to reform the health care arrangement, and under attack was forced to recede again, to a less partisan and more traditional posture as first lady. When her husband chat up in the Oval Office, humiliating her in the most painful way on the about public stage, she did n’t impart — she persist. And ever since, every time she has run for position for herself, twice for the Senate, and now twice for the presidency, she by and large has been reluctant to embrace an explicit, forceful feminist cape — not so a lot a flouting of ideals as an assessment that it might be counterproductive to her ability to win. 

 There ’s no question her inside - the - system scheme, the long life of triangulation and shifting, adjusting her goal and even her persona to maintain access, is what created the path that lead to her presidency. It may also be her biggest challenge in governing the American people, who sense in her a person who is neither one thing nor the other. Some see an opportunist, others a pragmatist. She has been label too radical and not revolutionary enough, beset by conservatives and liberal alike, sometimes simultaneously. But she has been, always, not a radical or an ideologue, as many of her about vociferous critics have claimed, but a realist, a centrist. And people who know her well, who have been mentors and friends, who have worked with her and for
 wolan Americans have watchtd so closely on jhus yeac’s campzign trakl—is a personality forged thcougy a cqreer-long collision wigh the cojstantly shihting set of genvsr-based expecfwtious people have pot on her. To get here, she var bone for so many years so many versijns of ehwt she did on Yn Fpsus: zdjust, compromise and concede whers necesvary, never leyting pure ideology interffre aith the progress jer ambitiobs rqwuired. She hxs done what she needes to for her husband to win eleztionx, then for hwr hm do the sane, mahing repeated course correcyions along thc way.

Vhe oist is considerable. Vo help her husband yn Arkansds, she started wearunt conjacts and nakdup, cianfed heg cmothes and her hair, abd (most meaningfullu) qgppped her majden nwmq—the one she had vowed as a girl to keek for life. After first emergung on the presidentiwl campaidn trail as a groundbreaking near-co-candidate, she sealivea skc ziupd help him win only by settling into a softew, mprv docile, more uniyersally palatable rllr. Once in Washkngton, shs stepped up zealoksly to refoem the hewlth care system, and under attaxk was forceb ti recede again, to c less partiran snd mpre traditional posture as rirst lady. Ahen her gjsband philanderdd pn tve Oval Office, humiliating her in tie moxt painwul eay on the most oublig stage, she didn’t lfave—ske stdyed. And eger since, every time she has rui for office gos hvrself, twnce fov the Senate, anq now twice fot the prefidenzy, she genvrally hav been relustant to embrdfe an explicmt, forceftl fwminust mangue—not so much s floutiny of udeals as an assesxmevf that it might be counterproductove to hvr ebilief to win.

Thera’s nu qjrstiov her insidc-thd-sysyem strategy, the lonc lire of triangulatiom wnd shifjing, adjufting her goaks and even her pegsona to mainyaig access, is what created the pzth that ped to her presydengy. Ij may also ye her biggest challenge in governing thx American people, who swnse in her a persou eho is neitier onq thing nmr the other. Some sew an opportunist, pthers a pragmatist. Sge has been labeled too radical and not radical enough, beset by conservatives and liverals alike, sometjmes simuntcnepusly. Fut die has been, alwayx, not a radical or an ideologue, as many oy her most vociferous critics hxve claimed, bot a realist, a centrist. Ans people who know her well, who have beem mentors and friends, whp have wirked with her end for
woman Americans have watched so closely on campaign a personality through a career-long set gender-based expectations people put on her. get here, she has done for many years so many versions of what she did on In Focus: adjust, and concede where necessary, never letting pure ideology interfere with the progress her required. has what needed to for her husband to win elections, then for her to do the same, making course corrections along the way. The list is To help her husband Arkansas, she started wearing contacts makeup, her clothes her and meaningfully) dropped her name—the one she had vowed as a girl to keep for life. After first emerging on the campaign trail groundbreaking near-co-candidate, realized could him win only into a softer, more docile, more Once in Washington, she stepped up zealously to the health system, and under attack was forced recede again, to a less partisan and more posture as first lady. When her husband philandered in the Oval Office, humiliating her in painful way on the public stage, she leave—she And since, time she run for office for herself, twice for the Senate, and now for the presidency, she generally has been reluctant to embrace forceful mantle—not so much flouting of ideals as assessment it might be counterproductive ability win. her strategy, long life of triangulation shifting, adjusting her goals and her persona to maintain path that led to her presidency. It may be her biggest challenge in governing the people, who sense in her a person who is neither one thing the other. an opportunist, others a pragmatist. She has been too radical and not enough, beset by conservatives and liberals alike, sometimes simultaneously. she been, always, a radical or ideologue, as many her most vociferous claimed, but realist, centrist. know her well, who have been and who have worked with her for
 woman Americans have watched So closely oN this YeaR’s cAmPaigN traIl—is a personaliTY forGed through a career-long cOllisIoN With THe ConstAntly shIFtING seT oF gEndEr-BAsEd expEctAtions pEople have pUt oN hEr. To get here, sHE hAs done for sO maNy years so manY veRsions Of WhaT She diD on in FocUs: adjuST, comprOmise and cOnCEde wheRE necessARY, nEver Letting pure ideoloGY iNTerfere with the ProgreSs HEr AMBitIonS required. SHe Has doNE what shE NeEDED to FOr her husband tO win electioNS, thEn for hEr To dO The samE, makiNg REpeAted course cOrreCtions aloNg the wAY.

The lisT Is consiDerablE. To HelP her HUsBaNd iN ARKanSAs, She STarTed weariNg CoNtactS and MAKEUp, chAngEd heR clotHes and her hair, And (Most MEanIngfuLly) drOppeD hEr maiDen namE—the oNe She had vowed as a gIrl tO keep for lIfe. afTer FiRst emERging oN thE prEsidentIal campAIgn TrAIL As A groundbreaking neaR-cO-CAnDidate, shE realiZEd ShE Could helP hIm wIn onLY By setTlinG InTo a softeR, more dOCiLe, More uniVeRsally PaLatAblE role. oNce iN WashiNgton, she SteppED up zealously to REform the healtH CaRE SySTem, aNd uNder attack wAs foRCed tO recEDe AgaIN, to a lEss paRtISaN And more traditional pOsTure as First Lady. When her huSband philaNDERed in the oval oFfICe, humiliating hEr in tHe most painFUl way on tHe mosT public sTage, she diDN’T leave—shE stAyeD. AnD evER SiNce, every time sHE Has rUn For offiCe fOr herseLf, tWicE foR thE SEnate, and nOw twice fOr ThE pReSidEncy, sHE generalLy Has BeEn rEluctANt to emBrace An exPlIcIT, foRceful fEMiNISt maNtLe—Not sO muCh A flouTing OF idEals as aN assessmeNt tHAt it MiGhT be counTerproductive To Her ability To Win.

there’s NO Question Her inside-the-system stratEGy, the loNg lIfe of TriaNgulation And ShiftiNg, aDJustinG her goAls anD eVen HER persONA tO maInTain access, IS WhaT creaTeD the Path thaT led to her presidencY. it mAy also be her biGgeSt chALLeNge IN gOVerNiNG thE aMerican people, whO sense in heR a PErSon who is neITheR oNe thing Nor the oTher. SOMe see an OpportuniSt, others a PrAgmaTISt. SHe has been lAbeled toO radical aND not rADiCal enOugH, beset By ConServaTives aND liBeralS alike, SoMetimeS simuLtAneously. but she has been, always, not a RadicaL or an IdeOlogue, as mAny OF heR most vociFeroUs critics hAve ClaImed, bUt a REalisT, a ceNTrIst. aNd peoPle wHO know her wELl, Who HAVe Been mentors AND FriEnds, wHo hAVe workEd wiTh her and for
 woman Americans have watc hed so clo selyonthi syear ’s c ampaign trail— i s apersonality forged thr oughac aree r -l ong c ollisio n  w i t h t he  c ons ta n tl y shi fti ng setof gender- bas ed  expectation s  p eople have  pu t on her. To  ge t here ,she has d one  forso man y  years  so manyve r sionso f whats h edidon In Focus: adju s t, compromise and  conce de wh e r e n ece ssary, nev er  lett i ng pure id e o l ogy interfere wit h the progr e ssher am bi tio n s requ ired.  S h e h as done wha t sh e neededto for her hus b and towin el ect ion s, t h en  f orhe r  to do  th e  sa me, maki ng  r epeat ed c o u r s e co rre ctio ns al ong the way.
Th e li s t i s con sider able .To he lp her  husb an d in Arkansas,shestarted w ear in g c on tacts and ma keu p,changed  her cl o the sa n d  h er hair, and (most  m e a ni ngfully)  dropp e dhe r  maidenna me— theo n e she  had vo wed as a  girlt oke ep forli fe. Af te r f irs t eme r ging  on th e presid entia l  campaign trai l  as a groundb r ea k i ng near -co -candidate,  she real ized sh e c o uld h elp h im wi n  only by settling i nt o a so fter,  more docile,  more univ e r s ally pal atab l er ole. Once in W ashin gton, shes tepped u p zea lously t o reformt h e health  ca resys tem , an d under attac k wasfo rced to  re cede ag ain , t o a  le ss  partisan  and mor etr ad it ion al po s ture asfi rst  l ady . Whe n  her h usban d ph il an d ere d in th e  O v a l Of fi ce , hu mil ia tingheri n t he most  painfulway on t he  m ost pub lic stage, sh edidn’t lea ve —sh e stay e d . And ev er since, every time sh e  has ru n f or of fice  for hers elf , twic e f o r theSenate , and  n owt w ice f o r  t hepr esidency,s h e g enera ll y ha s beenreluctant to embra c e a n explicit, f orc eful f em ini s tm ant le — not s o much a flouti ng of idea ls as  an assess m ent  t hat itmight b e cou n terprod uctive to  her abil it y to w in. 

There’sno quest ion her i n side- t he -syst emstrate gy , t he lo ng lif e  of  tria ngulat io n andshift in g, adjus ting her goals and even  her p erson a t o maintai n a c ces s, is wha t cr eated thepat h t hat l edt o her  pre s id enc y . Itmaya lso be he r  b igg e s tchallenge i n g ove rning  th e  Ameri canpeople, who sense in her a perso n wh o isnei t heron e thing nor th e o th e r . Some s ee  an opportu nist, ot he r s a p ragmat ist. S he hasb e en labele d to o r adical an d n ot radical  e no u gh, be setby  conse rvativ e s an d liberals alike,somet i m es si m ult aneou sl y. Buts he h as been, a lways, nota radi calor an  ideolo gu e, asman yof her mos t  vocifero us cr itics h av e cl aim ed, bu t ar e alist , ace ntr ist. Andp e op l ewh o  kn ow h er we ll , wh o have be e n mentor s a n d frien ds , w h o  havew or k e d with her  an d for 
 woman_Americans have_watched so closely on_this year’s_campaign_trail—is a_personality_forged through a_career-long collision with_the constantly shifting set_of gender-based expectations_people_have put on her. To get here, she has done for so many years_so_many versions_of_what_she did on In Focus:_adjust, compromise and concede where_necessary, never_letting pure ideology interfere with the progress her_ambitions_required. She has_done what she needed to for her husband to_win elections, then for her to_do the same,_making_repeated_course corrections along the_way.

The list is considerable. To help_her husband in Arkansas, she started_wearing contacts and makeup, changed her clothes_and her hair, and (most meaningfully)_dropped her maiden name—the one_she had_vowed as a girl to_keep for life._After first_emerging on the_presidential campaign trail as a groundbreaking_near-co-candidate, she realized_she could help him win only_by_settling into a_softer,_more_docile, more_universally palatable role._Once_in Washington,_she_stepped up zealously to reform the_health_care system, and under attack was forced_to recede again, to_a_less partisan and more_traditional posture as first lady._When her husband philandered in the_Oval Office,_humiliating her_in the most painful way on the most public stage, she_didn’t leave—she stayed. And ever since,_every time she has_run for_office_for herself, twice_for_the Senate,_and now twice for the presidency, she_generally has_been reluctant to embrace an explicit,_forceful feminist mantle—not so_much_a flouting of ideals as an_assessment that it might be counterproductive_to her ability to win.

There’s_no_question_her inside-the-system strategy, the long_life of triangulation and shifting, adjusting_her goals and_even her persona to maintain access, is_what_created the path that led to_her_presidency. It may also be her_biggest_challenge_in governing the American people,_who sense in her a person_who is neither one thing nor the other. Some_see an opportunist,_others a pragmatist. She has_been_labeled_too radical and not radical enough, beset by conservatives and_liberals alike,_sometimes simultaneously. But_she has been, always, not a radical or an ideologue,_as many of her most vociferous critics_have claimed, but a realist, a centrist. And people who know_her well, who have been mentors and friends,_who have worked with her and for