After much testing of the water, Hillary Clinton has, finally, inevitably and officially entered what is an everyday more and more open horse race for the Presidency by choosing to come out of the gate straddling the fence. Following her Roosevelt Island rallying of the troops, when asked to weigh in on the increasingly contentious Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement, she selfassuredly, and all calculatingly noncommittal, neither condemned the proposal nor gave it her support.

Ducking the opportunity to actually lead on the issue, she stood firmly on cautious middle ground insisting: “I kind of fall into the group that says ‘what’s in it?’”

That she might really have no more knowledge of TPP’s nuts and bolts than any other outsider is about as likely as her having been only a casual observer of the crafting and passage of NAFTA, or having no idea, when she sat on its board of directors, that Wal- Mart was to price point American jobs overseas.

She did, however, confidently declare that no one, as President, could be a greater champion for American workers than she herself, and that she would drive an even harder bargain than Obama has with our trading partners, suddenly all in the loop for someone claiming they aren’t privy to any particulars.

What’s without doubt is that our former Madam Secretary, New York senator and former two-time First Lady, is very adept and ever resilient in negotiating the ups and downs of the political landscape. She is the ultimate insider, with steely eyes on the ultimate political prize that should have been hers but for the apparent political advantage, once upon a recent time, of race over gender. Hillary Clinton is a political force to be reckoned with, yet her foremost strategy is, seemingly, to still bet on gender being the new black. In the Roosevelt Island speech gender was the unabashed card being played.

A woman’s place in the Oval Office, as Commander in Chief rather than secretary, even if cabinet level, or even as a “Two for the price of one” policy shaping spouse, is undeniably long overdue. Clinton makes no bones that: “I’m not stopping now,” re-staking her long standing claim upon being elected America’s first female president.

I may be way, way, off in my recollection of Barack Obama’s historic run at the White House, but, though it was the singular distinction in play, I can’t remember race being his calling card. Certainly, it provided great advantage for someone expounding “Hope and Change,” but he let its undeniably overarching importance speak for itself, or be advanced by others.

That Hilary Clinton is a woman running for the highest office in the land should be every bit as positive a consideration as was Barack Obama being African American, but not all-importantly so, just as his race didn’t provide a free pass on his political or personal record. Or, hopefully not, though it likely garnered him an automatic no vote from many. For Obama, racial consideration was a very mixed blessing.

The ongoing struggle for gender equality is very real. But, it’s hard to imagine gender as being an equally double-edged sword in determining the Presidency going towards 2016. Hard, because, unlike “Black Lives Matter,” we still like to believe we’ve come a long way on surmounting the marginalization of women. “You’ve Come A Long Way, Baby” still has a long ways to go to become more than a cleverly manipulative cultural denial.

Did Obama win, and then gain reelection, simply so the ultimate symbolic racial equality achievement might be realized? Hard to say, but if the Dems had run someone of Ben Carson’s skillset does anyone think the outcome would have been the same?

As a transformative “person of color,” Obama didn’t actually bring all that much more to the Oval Office than his white predecessors. His policies have been disappointingly race neutral in the estimation of many who expected a swift and thorough reckoning on racial injustice from the top down.

Maybe Hillary might well take heed of Obama’s discretion to leave historical precedence, and that potential eye poking, to others in seeking the highest office. Maybe the electorate should take heed of how Obama’s centrist politics were greatly obscured by projecting wishful expectations because of the trappings of long awaited change.

Obama’s candidacy was, then and in hindsight, consistent with his record. Hillary’s candidacy is all about a rewriting of her record to fit a fresh populist appearance to what has always been a Clintonesque parsing of their corporate allegiance. In the end, a candidate should be judged on their constancy of character rather than their newly branded persona. Hillary Clinton seems to be, when all politically correct spin is spun, mostly about Hillary Clinton becoming president.

It’s regrettable that the Democratic establishment can’t get behind a less scandal burdened challenger. Elizabeth Warren, for instance, doesn’t need to distance herself from any accommodation of Wall St. or a history at variance with truly being an advocate for economic change favoring equality for the middle class, the underclass, women, minorities and so many still disenfranchised men.

———

Gary Anderson lives in Bath.