Steinem, who became notable within the feminist movement in the 1960s and 70s, went on Bill Maher’s talk show to discuss her support of Clinton. When asked by Maher about why she thought more women seemed to be drawn towards Bernie Sanders’s campaign, Steinem responded that female Sanders’s supporters were there to attract the attention of young men.

“When you’re young, you’re thinking: ‘Where are the boys? The boys are with Bernie,’” said Steinem.

After Internet backlash, Steinem issued a statement regarding what she said on Maher’s talk show. She emphasized that she was not trying to assert that women are not involved in politics.

In a similar controversy, Albright recently took the stage at a Clinton rally and encouraged the women in the audience to examine their political leanings. She blatantly said that it was every woman’s duty to support Clinton in her presidential run, ending the short speech with a now famous quote.

“There is a special place in Hell for women who don’t help other women,” Albright said.

Both women have received negative responses for their comments about the role of women in politics. Steinem’s comments seem supportive of the gendered expectation that women are not as involved in politics as men. Statements like this keep the conversation about women centered on how women are perceived to be shallow and uninterested. She issued a statement through Facebook in which she attempted to explain the actual meaning behind her quote.

This exchange brings to light the faults within the current political landscape and how women are viewed through the mass media lens. Politics, specifically presidential elections, have always focused mainly on men. Women have been seen as accessories for campaigning. Wives are shown off at campaign rallies and in television advertisements.

Albright’s opening speech for Clinton raises another important issue. She has been called a feminist icon, but she put forth a non-feminist ideal. Feminism is not simply about supporting women. Feminism is about equal rights for all sexes and not shaming women for making conscious decisions about how they want to lead their lives. There is absolutely no reason to shame women who do not support Clinton. It is no woman’s duty to support a woman simply because she is a woman. It is a woman’s duty as a citizen search for the most-qualified candidate and to make an informed decision based on the available information.

During Clinton’s time as Secretary of State, the media was notorious for focusing solely on Clinton’s appearance and clothing choices. She was once reported to look “tired and withdrawn” when she decided not to wear make up on a trip to Dhaka, Bangladesh. Attention like this has not only affected Clinton, but also Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachmann. The media is the main source of sexist remarks regarding the appearance of women on the political stage, especially when this attention is not paid to men. It becomes even more obvious when a candidate such as Clinton comes into the spotlight of the presidential election.

I do not want to start this piece and act like this isn’t personal to me. Hillary Clinton is someone I have looked up to for years and “shattering the glass ceiling” has always been apart of her campaign, as well as my lifestyle. Placing her in the role of “just a First Lady” is completely pigeon-holing one of the best politicians in America today.

To call Hillary Clinton a seasoned professional would be an understatement. She was named one of the 100 most powerful lawyers in America by the National Law Journal in 1988 and 1991, spent eight years as First Lady of the United States, served as a US senator for New York and served as US Secretary of State.  Because of her experience as a United States senator and a cabinet secretary, she has becoming proficient in compromising and to have an open political dialogue. With Hillary, we know what we are getting: experience.

Despite having been in the realm of politics for many years, by no means is Hillary Clinton disconnected from the middle class as some dissenters like to say. In voting for a president, the economic means of the candidate does not carry much weight. What matters is if he or she has the moral compass to understand that economic mobility is prohibited by classism, the desire to help others advance from their current station in life and the legislative plan to assist the industries that keep America working.

One of Hillary’s greatest advantages is her foreign policy experience. As Secretary of State, Clinton visited 112 countries and attended 306 diplomatic meetings, making her the most widely traveled Secretary of State in history. She is far more familiar than any of her Democratic or Republican challengers with world leaders and their political agendas. Furthermore, Clinton views human rights to be critical for US security interests, which is a more evolved perspective that views our national security as more than simply a military power.

Many of Clinton’s dissenters claim that her “flip-flopping” on certain issues makes her unpredicatable and hard to trust. However, Clinton addresses her changes in opinion as merely her adjusting her views based on the information she receives.

“I am not someone who stakes out a position and holds it regardless of the evidence or regardless of the way that I perceive what’s happening in the world around me,” Clinton said in an interview with Meet the Press.

I believe a president that is able to adjust her policy and stance based on new information coming in, rather than staying steadfast in her ways, will promote a much-needed compromise in American politics.

With the first debates for the Democratic party approaching, I am eagerly waiting for the dialogue between Hillary Clinton and candidate Bernie Sanders, senator from Vermont. Both have been tip-toeing around one another for throughout their campaigns, a very different strategy from the Republican party. I think they are more similar than most individuals would like to admit, however Hillary Clinton has quite a ways to go if she wishes to align herself closer to Sander’s progressive mantra.

Hillary Clinton should pay attention to Bernie Sanders. After all, he has the advantage of placing himself outside of the political elite. Because of Bernie’s numbers, there is no doubt in my mind Hillary will curve even more to the left if given the Democratic nomination. After all, like I said earlier, Hillary has the mindset to evolve her policies into what she believes will best enhance life for the average American.

Hillary Clinton is the most appropriate candidate for the Democratic party. With her experience, name recognition and undoubted political expertise, she would be able to lead the executive branch with finesse.
That darn bumper sticker in the parking lot of a restaurant has compelled me to pay close attention to Hillary Clinton throughout my life, and I couldn’t think of a more professional, intelligent candidate to keep an eye on.

The current goal of the majority of protesters is to reach a nationwide average minimum wage of $15 per hour. Many states would have to double their wage regulations to achieve this goal. This effort, known as “Fight for 15,” is largely the product of an ally to the cause, the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), which serves to unite workers in commonly exploited sectors, such as fast food or retail. With millions of dollars at their disposal, the SEIU seeks to expose companies particularly notorious for low wages. SEIU aims to cultivate socially conscious consumers who are more likely to boycott businesses. McDonald’s is their greatest target.

2016 presidential candidates, including Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders, are already allying themselves with the protesting workers. They have stated on multiple occasions that full-time workers deserve a livable wage. One commonly cited reason for the political interest in the issue is that $153 billion per year goes to operating state and federal public assistance programs for working families. For example, a quarter of the Colorado workforce earns less than $12 an hour, and taxpayers in that state pay up to $304 million a year to cover healthcare costs. In the end, however, many see the issue as one that should be discussed between individual companies and their workers, and the $15 minimum wage would serve merely as a guideline to begin negotiations for individual circumstances and situations.