President Obama pledged to heal America’s racial divisions, but wading into local police matters and weaponizing the Department of Justice and FBI seemingly only deepened that chasm.

A September 2015 Rasmussen Reports survey found only 20% of likely voters believed Obama has brought “Americans of different races together” while 47% said the president “has driven those of different races further apart instead.”

The Great Healer has become the Great Divider.

Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton’s campaign is putting an overt emphasis on trying to gain the support of primarily women, who accounted for 53% of voters in 2012, according to the Roper Center.

Hillary seems to only be talking about women’s issues and essentially ignoring what concerns men.

Case in point: The Clinton campaign just release four new ads and they all feature the apparent plight of women by attacking CEO pay, hedge fund manager income, the burden of obtaining a college education and the gender disparity in pay.

While ignoring the fact that all of the people showcased in her ads have lived under Barack Obama’s economy for the last 7 years, Hillary laments the story of “Mindy,” a cardiac nurse:

“Mindy will work 179 shifts to earn what the top CEO makes in a single day. Join the fight for higher incomes. Join the fight for Mindy,” Hillary says in the ad. She doesn’t say what new law or regulation she would impose to lessen the apparent inequality.

She also highlights the story of “Cheryl,” whom she says is a kindergarten teacher.

“The top 25 hedge fund managers make more than all the kindergarten teachers in America combined,” Hillary says in soft, soothing tones. “Join the fight for higher incomes. Join the fight for Cheryl.”

“Cheryl,” of course, is likely a unionized teacher — assuming she’s not actually a paid actor. Shouldn’t “Cheryl’s” relatively small income rest at the feet of the union that negotiated the contract? The very same union, incidentally, that endorsed her campaign for president? Alas, we’re getting into the weeds of common sense and reason — a place Hillary Clinton chooses not to tread.

In another, Hillary says, “It took ‘Alexis’ four years to earn her college degree. But it will take her 25 years to pay off her student loans.”

Shocking, to be sure. Where is Hillary’s plan to rein in the cost of higher education? That would go against the interests of the 99.5% of liberal arts professors who donate to Democrats.

Campus Reform reported earlier this week:

According to FEC third quarter reports released October 16, 47 professors at the top 50 liberal arts colleges in the country, as ranked by U.S. News & World Report, have given to presidential campaigns. Of those 47 professors, Hamilton College History Professor Robert Paquette was the sole donor to a Republican candidate, giving $150 to Carly Fiorina’s campaign.

The remaining 99.51 percent went to Democrat candidates Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders. The 46 other professors collectively donated $20,875 to Hillary Clinton and $8,417 to Bernie Sanders. Professors donating to Clinton have given an average of $1,043.75. Those giving to Sanders donated an average of $323.73.

Nevertheless, Hillary says in the ad, “Join the fight to make college affordable,” by again providing zero details about how she would actually do that.

In the final ad, Clinton wrings her hands over “Sara.”

“On average, women need to work an extra two hours each day to earn the same paycheck as their male coworkers. Join the fight for equal pay. Join the fight for Sara and women everywhere,” she says.

Perhaps this campaign emphasis is why Hillary has a higher unfavorability rating among men. The Huffington Post reported in September 53.8% of men hold a dim view of the candidate while 41% hold a favorable opinion of her.

Given her campaign’s emphasis, is Hillary going to further divide Americans among gender like Obama has done by race?