The second Bush only got as far as he did because he was the son of the first Bush president. At that, I still think Hilary is more capable as a human being.
And the first President Bush would undoubtedly not have gotten as far as he did had he not been the son of a United States Senator.
Well, we have her record. And if those aren’t the beliefs of her heart of hearts, they are how she has acted, fairly consistently, for twenty five years. I’ll take her Senate record over the Onion as a source.
There have been many women governors, and so far as I know, they all did a good job!
This may not be a popular opinion, but the fact that Hillary rode her husband’s coattails is kind of disappointing from a feminist POV, at least to me.
A successful woman who is self made like Elizabeth Warren, Golda Meir or Doris Fisher is one thing. But a big part of why Hillary is famous is because she married an ambitious man. Had she not done that she probably never would’ve become a senator or presidential candidate.
I could care less how Hillary got to where she is. I’ve voting for her! The men don’t seem to be doing a very good job, let’s give a woman a chance. Might be less “back room dealish”!
And thank you for posting this so her supporters can point out the good things about Hillary.
Hillary was an ambitious woman who married an ambitious man. Together they created a political partnership where Bill - far more charismatic than Hillary, was the frontman and Hillary’s role was downplayed to appeal to those people who back in the 1980s were still uncertain about powerful women. In 1991, when Bill was running for President, there were only TWO female Senators. Twenty nine women in the house. Politics in the U.S. really wasn’t a game women could play at a high level until 1992 (one thing we can thank Clarence Thomas for)
Would Hillary have gotten this far without Bill - probably not. She needed Bill’s charisma to get into public office. But she needed his charisma - not his brains or his leadership skills. She’d probably be in an appointed position - attorney general, national director of NARAL. But I’ve no doubt she would have been successful.
Charisma helps you get elected - but charisma is not the most important quality in a Senator or President.
Why? As a male chauvinist, I’m not very happy about the recent male presidents.
I am not a personal fan of Hillary Clinton as POTUS. She is IMO more of an political apparatchik (albeit a competent one) vs a true leader and I do not think she is a person who can inspire the American people and I do think that is an important and necessary characteristic for being President. The whole Bush-Clinton doubleheader noted by the OP also rankles the hell out me. Having said this Trump is a human dumpster fire so Hillary it is.
It still amazes me that in a nation of over 300 million people this is what our choices come down to.
^this. I just finished a short biography of Hillary, and she was ambitious, smart, and an incredibly capable leader from the time she was a little girl. A total go-getter. And while she might not have Bill’s crowd charisma, she has great people skills one-on-one. I think she’ll be somewhere between satisfactory and great as president.
I agree Hillary is talented and ambitious, but I have no idea where she would’ve ended up had she not married a guy who became governor at 32 and president at 46.
As an uneducated guess, I’m assuming Hillary would’ve risen up in NGOs, the corporate world and politics but only on a state/local level. I doubt Hillary Rodham would be a national figure w/o Bill.
Being smart, talented and ambitious is not enough. Even if you assume only 0.1% of people have all those traits, in a society of 320 million that means 320,000 people are smart, talented and ambitious. Hillary is currently in the top 0.001%, in part due to connections she made via her marriage.
As a human being, I wish the candidate’s gender was not her primary selling point.
Off to check my privilege. It was running about half-tank yesterday morning.
It’s probably hard for anyone, whether one is a woman or a man, to succeed on one’s own when at least three billionaires are deeply invested in making sure one fails.
I’ve been saying the same thing for years, now (ever since her first run in 2008). I’m still going to vote for her this fall, because the alternative is far worse, but I’m not at all enthused about it. And it’d be bad enough if she were just using her First Ladyship to get name recognition, but there are plenty of people who are supporting her because of the assumption that they’re really just electing Bill again and that he’s the one who’s really going to be calling the shots.
I read the OP to Ms. Seldon and here is what she said. While she agrees with the OP in some sense, she points out that the first women congressmen got there when their husband died and they were appointed to replace them. And presumably were not expected to run for a full term. But some did. Think Margaret Chase Smith. Now, 21% of congress consists of women. That’s not 50% but it’s a start. So the first woman president gets there (we hope, hope, hope) partly on her husband’s coattails, but it’s a start. I predict that the next woman president will get there on her own. Things move slowly, but they move.
At least it wasn’t Sarah Palin.
Hillary Clinton is not that liberal. Also in past she was more liberal but moved more to right.
Obama is way more liberal than Hillary Clinton.
So I think lot of liberal people and far liberal people are probably not going to go out and vote. This could give more votes for the republican to win.
I think if it wasnt for the fact that she basically rode Bill’s coattails I would take her more seriously.
Reading the latest tell all books it looks as if Hillary and Bill were more of a political and business match than being about any kind of loving relationship. She actually considered dumping him when he lost his governorship.
There are some awesome female politicians out there and I feel within 20 years one of them will be president.
Hillary is not one of them.
Actually, Clinton rated more liberal than Obama when she was in the Senate. Barely, but she was.
Now, its possible she’s moved right in the past eight years, but we have no proof since we have no voting record. We do have her actions and statements as Secretary of State, but many of those actions would have been made with input from other individuals - such as the National Security Advisory or the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs.
In my opinion, the most important effect of a female president will be the fact that future elections will no longer exclude half the population. I would be surprised to see future primaries that do not feature at least one woman.
I, too, hate the family dynasty angle, but Hillary Clinton is an incredibly accomplished individual. She gave a commencement address at her freakin’ graduation! She went to an Ivy League law school. When her husband was governor, she spent time as a partner at one of the most prestigious firms in her city (admittedly, Little Rock, but still), earning more than her husband. She was a policy wonk as a First Lady, spent time as a Senator learning legislative politics from the inside, and has traveled the world as a Secretary of State.
I think that’s worth voting for. Having Trump as an opponent just makes it more obvious.