For women, perceptions are truths. Forget first impressions - women are impressing all the time. It's not what actually exists - it's what appears to be true, even for a fleeting moment. And it's holistic - any piece in disarray destroys the totality. It's not "you look good, but..." It's "did you see that ..." That's why women use mirrors. One slip-up and it's game over.

That's why there's such cognitive dissonance this campaign cycle. You've got a guy who goes out with Einstein hair and another with a mini orangutan toupee, yet it's taken for granted that looks don't matter. Except for Hillary's pantsuits, a matter of public discussions for years. 8 years ago WaPo penned a summer piece on Hillary cleavage. 24 years ago, Hillary had to ditch her hairband and take to baking cookies. Appearance is everything. For women.

The appearance of impropriety has backed the ridicule over Hillary's speeches to Goldman Sachs, with the demand to release transcripts - for that amount of money, she must have said something juicy (even though in the age of smartphones, who would say anything controversial on purpose? There is no "off the record" anymore). Meanwhile, Hillary's opponents have released 1 year of tax records between them. We know Hillary's relationship with the Clinton Foundation and any money that's changed hands, along with probably 20 years of tax records, including all those speeches, free and paid. Meanwhile The Donald has failed businesses and bankruptcies and fake university... but which candidate is considered by some as inauthentic and scheming? Bernie's wife ran a college into the ground and Bernie got caught tapping into his neighbor's electricity - but which candidate is  dishonest and which one is a paramount of Washington virtue?

Women have to show they're team players. It was Hillary's job in 2008 to tame her disappointed team and ask nothing in return, and it's her job in 2016 to tame Sanders' disappointed team and ask nothing in return (instead, giving him half the platform slots).

Hillary's up by 3 million votes, she had a blowout in 4 of 5 states on the east coast 3 weeks ago, and stands to win most of.the 5 coming up to formally put it away. But because she split last week's 2 contests, she's not putting it away for some invisible but pressing standard. By appearances she's losing, because in places she's losing. Donald noted he'd never heard his wife fart - one little slip-up like that and women are "off the plantation". 

What will success look like when it comes? Much like the illusion we've seen to date. Someone compared Jeb Bush to Hillary recently, as if a guy who can't excite much less win a primary is comparable to a woman who carried dozens of states twice, over 13 million votes this year. We saw Reagan, W and Obama take helm with 1 1/2 governorships and a half Senate seat between, but people keep asking if Hillary's qualified after being party activist, private lawyer, board member, strategic 1st lady, Senator, Secretary of State, and active founder of a billion dollar charitable foundation. If a man has money he's successful. If a woman has money, she's either a golddigger, corrupt, an heiress or married to a rich guy. Not much upside to that equation.

We look at personal foibles, and find that women are supposed to be nice to their husbands' mistresses, or folks will think them to harsh and divisive, whereas men can take as many lovers as bequeathed. We expect trophy wives, not trophy husbands. I always thought Jackie O an anomaly, but apparently she's the ideal White House Stepford Wife. As long as things look as expected in the Oval Office, we've stayed on track, no matter who's sleeping with who on the Presidential Yacht. Our nuclear family may have a bit of fission at work, but it's holding together.

So Hillary's big task through November is to build a campaign that looks like what people think of as "success" by all appearances, at all costs - handle everyone's expectations of how a woman should behave and appear. It's a bit like pleasing everyone, but that's what women are supposed to do - the impossible.