Don’t get me wrong. I think it’s long past time that a woman was the chief executive of this country, and I am confident that Hillary Clinton is more than capable of handing the job.
So, as an unabashed feminist, I should be excited, gleeful, and deeply thankful that I have lived to see the day that a woman has a genuinely good chance of being elected president…
…But I’m not.
Why am I not more enthusiastic about this history making event? Is it because Hillary is closer to a centrist Republican than I would like? Yes, but in order to win, a woman candidate would probably have to have a conservative bent, I realize that.
Is it because I find her personally unlikable? I’m embarrassed to admit that is part of it, but that shouldn’t make this victory for women’s equality any less sweet for me, should it? I hope I’m not that shallow.
But the thought that really ruins this momentous occasion for me is mostly this: As strong and intelligent and capable as Hillary Clinton is, there is no way that she would be in this position if she hadn’t been married to Bill Clinton. I can’t help being disappointed that she didn’t get this far under her own power.
Also, I’m a bit disgusted that except for eight years under Obama, this country has and will most likely be helmed by one of two families, Bush or Clinton for nearly a quarter of a century. I mean, what are we, ancient Rohttp://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=599130me?
Well, there’s a vast gulf between wanting a woman president and wanting this woman to be president. Perhaps you simply had higher hopes about who’d get to the white house first.
But cheer up. Trump could win, and then she won’t be the first madam president after all.
It’s a good thing that you don’t want just any woman president. Not all the men were great presidents or wanted by everyone either. I’d rather have better presidents of any gender myself. They used to say any little boy could grow up to be president some day, if Hillary is elected people can say with certainty that any little boy or little girl can grow up to be president. That’s not a high bar to set, but it didn’t use to be true.
Sorry, that last line should have been, “What are we, ancient Rome?”
I’ve spoken with a few other women, and they seem as ambivalent about this as I am. There’s nothing like the atmosphere that surrounded Barack Obama as the first serious black presidential candidate back in '08.
There are a lot of people who don’t think Barack Obama would have been elected president if it hadn’t been for Dubya’s trainwreck performance. If Dubya hadn’t done such a bad job, maybe Barack would still be a senator.
Personally, I have doubts that Obama would have been elected if both of his parents had been black. I think his biracialness gives him more “mainstream” appeal. Even his foreign-sounding name, as Muslim as it is, gives him some cache. Imagine if his name was Leroy Jenkins. I don’t think the American electorate would take Leroy seriously.
So I’m glad we were “stuck” with Barack Obama.
While it is true that Hillary owes a debt to her husband, it’s not like she’s ridden all the way on his coattails. She’s worked hard to get where she is. And isn’t politics about accumulating power by using relationships to your advantage? Hillary’s power-hunger is really no different than any other politician’s. She’s just been more obvious with it.
Hillary gave a great speech today (Friday, 10 June) at a Planned Parenthood event.
She went on to call for an end to the Hyde amendment, which prohibits medicare funds being used for abortions, and for better family leave.
It’s a good speech, and it directly calls out the Republicans for their hypocrisy if preventing family planning and family leave while restricting abortion. Of course, it’s only a speech, but it’s not one I’ve heard anyone else make in such forceful language. Hopefully she’ll pull it off.
:eek: If Trump won that would horrible ! I am not crazy about Hillary and now that she thinking having Elizabeth Warren as her running mate is even worst ! Two women on the ticket is a bad idea to me and I don’t want 2 women running the country !
Merneith: Agreed. Good speech, and a bit gutsy, as it plays into the right wing’s most holy-of-holies, the abortion thing. She made a good speech…and it will be worth millions to the right-wing fund-raising machine.
And you know… I’m damn proud of her for it. She said what needed to be said. She didn’t shy and hide and back-and-fill. She didn’t take the easy route, with double-talk and weasel words.
She’s going to be good as President.
Maybe others might have been better. Maybe not. Obama could have been Saint Jerome, and the Republicans would have pissed on him for eight years. I think they’ve learned the error of this, and will engage (a little) with Clinton.
We don’t elect saints here. It’s politics. We go with the best we can get. No other woman – no other candidate of either sex – came forward with a successful campaign.
I’m voting for Clinton, with enthusiasm and joy. She’s not merely the lesser of two evils: she’s damn hot stuff, a leader, a negotiator, a diplomat, a scholar, and, today, my hero.
Ask yourself this: What other presidential spouse, since Eleanor Roosevelt, has done a damn thing with her post-First-Lady life? What the hell has Laura Bush done, being married to a two-term president? Or Barbara Bush? Or Nancy Reagan? Or Rosalynn Carter?
Hillary hasn’t just ridden on Bill’s coat tails, she’s become totally qualified in her own right. Though I continue to be critical of some of her positions, I’m thrilled to have the opportunity to vote for her.
I felt like you did in 2008. I hated the fact that the first female president could be accused of riding in on her husband’s coattails and that people might be voting for her as a backdoor way to get another term from her husband. However, it is now 8 years later and I feel like she has paid her dues. She now has the credentials on her own to be president and while I don’t personally like her I think she’ll be a great president. She’s proven to me that she has the brains, the temperament and the skill to lead the country.(Also, I would love to see Warren as vice-president.I think she’d be great for the job. It’s a job with less structure than the presidency and the vice-president has an opportunity to do a lot with it or almost nothing with it. It’s a good position for somebody who is willing to push the limits a little more than the president is allowed to which is what Warren excels at).
It’s great that the OP isn’t excited about Ms. Clinton. I think America has been ready to vote on the issues and personality rather than the gender or ethnicity for 10 or 20 years now. McCain’s handlers thought the electorate would have no problems with Sarah Palin. The battle was won awhile back – signing the treaties afterwards isn’t a big deal.
In 2008 I got pissed when someone suggested Democrats were voting for Obama, in the primaries, because of his ethnicity. I believe Hillary or Bill suggested that at one period, which marked the time I stopped viewing Hillary as an honorable second option.
–But everybody makes a few mistakes, and I’m looking forward to voting for her. She’s unlikely to give inspirational speeches, but she knows how the system works and she lived through the hideous Republican attacks during Bill’s administration – she can be a tough lady.
But I’m not excited about the prospect of female president.
I’m confused about this “Hillary is a centrist republican” thing. She voted with Sanders 93% of the time. She was more liberal than the average Democrat in the Senate, and was rated the 11th most liberal Democrat when she was there.
Could she be more liberal - yeah - but then so could Sanders (I really, really dislike his positions on gun rights - and he’s made some other idiotic votes - against a rapist having to disclose his HIV status to his victim, against the federal Amber Alert program for instance). And she probably couldn’t be more liberal and get elected. About 18% of the population is truly progressive - the rest of us are someone to the right of that. Move too far right or left and the people in the center vote for the other guy - or they stay home.
Obama and Hillary are almost exactly opposite as candidates:
Obama - A new face to the national stage
Hillary - In the national spotlight for 25 years now
Obama - The first serious black Presidential candidate
Hillary - The nation accepted the idea of a woman president when she ran back in 2008
Obama - He didn’t really play the race card and we thought he’d usher in a post racial era
Hillary - Running as a feminist promising to deliver things to women
Obama - At least made bipartisan noises while running
Hillary - I don’t think the idea of working with Republicans is even floated
There was good reason to be excited about Obama. He’s an inspirational speaker and great at connecting with people. Hillary isn’t. She’s the second worst and second most unpopular presidential nominee we’ve had in the last 50 years at least. The only reason she’s (probably) going to win is because her opponent is the worst and least popular presidential nominee we’ve had in the last 50 years.
I think everybody should go back to 1992, when Bill was running, and ask themselves how far he might have gotten without Hillary. Because she was an asset–and in fact, there were jokes about it. The one I remember was something about Bill & Hilary stopping for gas and the gas station attendant turned out to have dated Hilary in the long-ago past. So as Bill and Hill pulled away the other gas station said to Hilary’s former date, “Hey! You could have been president!”
So let’s not judge her for riding in on his coattails, okay?
Clinton was going to be elected in 1992, Hillary or no Hillary.
A bad economy, 12 consecutive years of Republican presidents, the Ross Perot candidacy, Bush’s “No new taxes” promise broken, and Bill Clinton was going to have that presidency no matter what.
Dolly Madison did the thing with the cupcakes and Zingers and sponsored a lot of Charlie Brown specials in the '60s and '70s. That’s pretty enterprising, especially for a dead First Lady.
This is basically what I was about to post, down to the joke about Hillary’s gas station attendant ex-boyfriend. Although I remember it with a slightly different punchline. As Bill and Hillary pull away Bill says something like “Heh, if you’d married that guy you wouldn’t be the First Lady now” and Hillary replies "If I’d married that guy, you wouldn’t be the President now.
:dubious:
Bill Clinton would have been President no matter who he was married to. The guy managed to get to the top, despite being from a poor background, having no political base in Arkansas, he became first AG than Governor. After that, despite being you know the Governor of Arkansas, he defeated a popular sitting Preident, representing a party in power for 12 years. As a pure politician, he is probably one of the best ever.
Hilary’s entire political career is based on her married name. Yes, once she got in to the door, her accomplishments are impressive, and many men have built their own careers on the family name (all three Bushes for instance). However, do you think if she had not been the sitting First Lady, would she have been able to get her shot at a Senate seat, even if she was as able as she is? Or have bene considered as a Presidential prospect?
She is an excellent policy wonk, but she is a lousy politician. In 2008, she managed to lose to a minority, half term Senator. This time, she has had trouble putting away a 74-year-old, Jewish near communist. Now, admittedly both of her opponents have been charismatic men, but their success owes in large part to her own weaknesses. She could still lose to Trump.
And before you jump on me, their have ben plenty of women who have been charismatic politicians who have managed to succeed despite not having a political base. Maggie Thatcher, Angela Merkel, (maybe Golda Mier; not knowledgeable enough about Israeli politics to be able to say.). Just that she is not one of them.
My best guess is she has pretended to be more liberal than she really is because she represented New York in the Senate which was a carefully crafted power grab on its own. She isn’t from New York and had no ties to the state before that.
In previous incarnations, she was one of the few campus Republicans at Wellesley College outside of Boston. She described herself as “a mind conservative and a heart liberal”. The Wikipedia links describing her transformation have been heavily and deceptively edited but she did not become a Democrat until she met Bill Clinton. He is a Southern Democrat and a centrist and I truly believe that she would be an old-school Rockefeller Republican except those don’t really exist anymore.
That is what people are saying when they claim she is really a moderate Republican in sheep’s clothing. She is much more hawkish and fiscally conservative than your average liberal let alone Progressive. That isn’t a bad thing. I am fairly conservative/libertarian myself and, while I find her unlikable, I generally agree with what I think her views really are and believe she will make a good administrator. The latter is much more important than most people realize.