Let’s Talk About It: Hillary
EmailWell, I certainly seem to have struck a nerve with that post on Senator Hillary Clinton’s presidential candidacy.
Some of you took the opportunity to voice your opinions of her fitness–or unfitness–for office, depending on your point of view. Thanks, but that’s not a discussion for me.
What really struck me was the range of opinions on the issue I raised: Does the fact that Senator Clinton’s rise to national prominence came in part because of her marriage to Bill Clinton matter at all as Americans consider her candidacy for president?
Some of you felt that her rise to power has depended too much on the marriage she made, clouding our perceptions of her real strengths and weaknesses. Here’s how End the Oligarchy put it:
"If you look at Hilary’s advantages, they’re all tied to her marriage. Money, through the network and connections of her husband, near universal name recognition because of her time as first lady, and seeming inevitability because of the Democrats’ strong regard for President Clinton’s record in the White House. Sure, she’s smart, hardworking, tough, but none of those things would make her much more than a successful lawyer, let alone a Senator or a legitimate stakeholder in the run for the White House. She lacks charisma, she’s not a particularly warm or eloquent speaker, she’s diligent, but she’s not an amazing legislator. I can’t think of anything she’s accomplished offhand."
A lot of people disagreed with End the Oligarchy.
My wife, for one. When she read the post, she had a straightforward response:"How do we know that Bill would have been president if he hadn’t married Hillary?" She’s right, of course. A marriage is a partnership, a journey with incalculable consequences for each person in every aspect of life. Bill Clinton would probably be the first to acknowledge this truth. That it took my wife telling me in order for me to grasp it says something. I’d prefer not to speculate about what.
Others echoed my wife’s point, in more pointed fashion. Joan wrote earlier today:
"I love how men take all the credit for their successes and half the credit for their wives. Whether the topic is parenting or politics, they seem to manage to take time out of their busy schedules to co-opt the "little woman’s" curtain call.
Here’s an article you’ll never see written by a man: ‘How HIllary Got Bill to the White House.’"
OK. I get it. But I still think dynastic politics aren’t healthy for democracies.
RSS
Twitter
Facebook
Hello Terry…no reflection on anything you’ve written here…
Will it be possible, as we head into the new presidential election cycle, for the media to focus on the solutions/ideas that a candidate brings forth VS the playground antics of “he’s got funny hair” to “did you see that sweater she had on”? Also, what can we, as voters, do to try to help bring this along? Is it even a possibility? I hope so; cause, this is quite tiresome and boring.
Thank you for your time and consideration…also, for any insight. Blessings and peace.
Posted by: rebecca | January 25, 2007, 1:03 am 1:03 am
I am all for Hillary Clinton, I hope she wins in the primary elections and that she will ask Barak Obama to be her VP. What a team they would make!!!!!! They have my vote.
Posted by: Martha | January 25, 2007, 1:17 am 1:17 am
Much of what you say about Hillary Clinton–network of connections, universal name recognition–could be said about the rise to power of most other political notables. Just a few examples that come to mind: Ronald Reagon had a chance to be president because he was well-known to every American as a hero-type movie actor. Later affiliations with General Electric, and his weekly appearances on television didn’t hurt either–nor did his eventual espousal of political causes, e.g., the Panama Canal develpments. His network of powerful connections and the universal (in the US anyway) name recognition he enjoyed were essential to his rise to power. Similarly, our current president’s candidacy would never have happened if his father had not been President within recent memory, and his family’s powerful financial and political connections are well-known. For that matter, it is highly unlikely that Arnold Schwarzennegger would have gotten to any position of political power in this country had it not been for his strongman image in the movies–a potent influence in popular culture–,the name recognition that resulted from that, and his marital connection to the Kennedy family. In other words, it seems unfair to single out Hillary Clinton because her initial appearance on the national stage was as a result of her husband’s presidency. I want to hear what all of the candidates have to say in terms of solutions to our country’s many problems, but I do believe Hillary Clinton is a very strong candidate. That she is a woman is irrelevant.
Posted by: Angela | January 25, 2007, 2:19 am 2:19 am
Terry Heres A Story http://Www.EconomyInCrisis.org Remember The Election Is Still Two Years Away! By The Way Not Just A Story But Is THE Story! This Is What Keeps Informed Americans Awake At Night! Nightline Is News Right?!?
Posted by: mah | January 25, 2007, 2:33 am 2:33 am
Terry:
No reflection on you, but I think your wife should be running the Push Back blog.
Posted by: Mary | January 25, 2007, 3:37 am 3:37 am
The current trend of celebrity-based candidacies is a troubling development in modern politics. Hillary is a beneficiary of such a trend, and while I rather like Hillary I do not wish to promote this trend by supporting her candidacy. I believe we should try to see the ‘larger picture’ and prevent our democracy from degenerating into a celebrity forum.
Posted by: Rodolfo Morales | January 25, 2007, 3:41 am 3:41 am
in addition, how do we, the voters, as well as, the media make sure the candidates stick to the real issues and their solutions/ ideas; instead of, their typical magic act of playground antics?
thank you for sharing any insights.
blessings and peace.
Posted by: rebecca | January 25, 2007, 10:12 am 10:12 am
Mr. Moran,
It seems Bill Clinton isn’t the only one who married well; congratulations on having had the good sense to do the same!
I make no claim to know who would be the better candidate, simply to argue that as an accomplished professional, Sen. Clinton has as much right as any other American to run for office.
My best regards to the wife.
Martha SG
Women’s Campaign School @ Yale
Posted by: Martha Sterling-Golden | January 25, 2007, 2:35 pm 2:35 pm
Angela’s comments about Reagan and Schwarzennegger ‘s “affilations” completely misses the mark as these were directly a result of their “own” initatives, efforts and work. They made it on their “own” merits..as she so well listed! Now, yes, given, GW would not have got to where he is if it wasn’t for his father! This, however, raises another issue–unlike the feminist rhetoric, GW or others like him haven’t claimed they’ve made it solely off of who they are and not their associations as the liberals want to claim with Hillary.
Posted by: Duncan | January 25, 2007, 7:48 pm 7:48 pm
I would assert that whatever Hillary did for her husband, she also did for herself. She came on “60 Minutes” in 1992 not to stand behind her husband, but with a view toward his winning the White House. During the scandal- ridden Clinton years, she asserted that, “WE are The President,” when she balked at the FBI going through her papers.
As her constituent in New York, she has been unexceptional as a Senatrix and only the other evening on Nightline, it was pointed out, as it has been so often, that in Bill Clinton, she has the best man to advise her, because he’d love to get back into the White House as well.
I think Hillary Clinton should finish out her term and return to teaching at Yale. She never had impressed me very much and I see in her a craven, duplicitous politician, just like the rest of them. In this way, both she and her husband are cut from the same bolt.
Mr. Moran, wbat did your wife think during the Lewinsky affair? Any other woman would have been excoriated for staying with her husband, after Gennifer Flowers, Paula Jones, etc, but Hillary Clinton was praised and elicited great sympathy.
These Clintons are something else. I wish they would just GO AWAY!
Posted by: Mike | January 26, 2007, 9:23 am 9:23 am
I have to echo the George W. Bush comments — he never would have accomplished anything without his father’s connections. At least Hillary got into college and law school and launched her legal career on her own merits.
Posted by: Jill | January 26, 2007, 1:37 pm 1:37 pm
Terry, When are American voters going to judge their candidates on their comments on issues?? Hillary is trying to explain her positions and why should she be judged on anything else? She truly loves her country and works hard to do what is right. She deserves support on who she is as opposed to who anybody else is and rightly so. She is intelligent and knows what she wants for the United States!!!
Listen to her and if it is what you want for the United States-vote for her. If it is not what you want vote for the person who best suits your wants for the United States!
Sincerely,
tom234z
Youngsville, PA
Posted by: tom234z | January 30, 2007, 2:59 pm 2:59 pm
Conservatives despise Hillary Clinton because she holds up the mirror to their hypocrisy. They say they are for families but pass laws to steal money from the middle class. They say they are for faith but strongly support men like Tom Delay, Mark Foley, Dick Cheney and Dennis Hastert who lie, cheat and steal. They claim to be patriotic but made sure that Haliburton had contracts in place while American troops were sent to Iraq without body armor. Conservatives lack moral values while pretending to support “morality”. Senator Clinton commits the crime of holding up the mirror to this hypocrisy, They hate her for it. Morality has been raped by the conservative movement. It is so very sad.
Posted by: Sam | February 7, 2007, 8:58 am 8:58 am