That’s not what the 1992 polls said. There was no inevitability about Clinton winning.
In March, 1992, Clinton was polling almost 20% behind Bush.
From March to July, Clinton never led in the polls, and in some of them he was running third, behind Bush and Perot. In fact, in some of those polls, Perot was first, ahead of Bush in second place.
It was not until Perot dropped out in mid-July that Clinton finally started to pull ahead of Bush.
Even then, it was never a certainty, and Clinton did not win a majority in the popular vote in November.
Maybe you have it backwards and the only reason Bill was ever president was because she pushed him and worked from behind the scenes controlling everything while he played around? She seems highly qualified to be president, unlike most of our candidates each election year.
I would never use gender as a criteria for voting/not voting for someone. Normally I select a third party to vote for, but this year I am voting against the party of bigotry/racism/sexism/stupidity because I’ve had enough of them. I’ll vote for anyone who has a good chance to defeat any GOP candidate.
I’m kind of ambivalent about Hillary as president but then I look at the alternative. Donald Fucking Trump! It is a sad state of affairs that Trump is even in contention for POTUS! Holy Shit! How did it come to this?
Trump and Sanders got popular in my view by speaking out against the corrupting influence of money in politics. The fact that the public is so desperate for any candidate to do something about this issue that they’d pick a guy like Trump is saying a lot. It is like a sick person who is desperate for medicine, Dr. Nick is still a Doctor and better than nothing even if he has a litany of flaws.
Imagine if the GOP had a candidate who spoke out against the corruption and influence of money who wasn’t a total buffoon. They would probably win this election easily.
Trump is tapping into the economic fears of the white working class and tapping into people’s resentment about how the rich/powerful own politicians. There is a lot of untapped energy in those things because politicians in general have no real interest in fixing these issues (if anything they want to make them worse).
Look, as far as identifying with any particular, non-majority group the goal should simply be to eliminate exclusivity and allow, that’s allow, inclusivity. To allow the potential for it, but not to demand or force or legislate its existence. To eliminate the concept that being a woman makes you ineligible to be president, but NOT replacing it with the concept that being a woman makes you more eligible simply because of past ideas.
If the only reason you’re going to vote for Hillary is because she’s a woman then you are not what I consider an informed individual and ideally you shouldn’t vote at all because all you’re doing is picking a token woman. If you want to vote for her because she’s a liberal Democrat then by all means. But make no mistake, Hillary Clinton did not want to be a *good *senator, nor a *good *Secretary of State, those were just artificial stepping stones. Nor does she care about being a *good *President. She just wants to be the first woman President. Her goals are get elected, get a second term, and not get impeached. And she has and will continue to do nearly anything to achieve this for herself. She is the absolute antithesis of the phrase, ‘The job should seek the individual, not the other way round’…
George Washington really didn’t want to be President but everybody convinced him he was the only one who could hold the country together. He wanted to quit after one term but was convinced to stay on–even by some already badmouthing him behind his back.
After Washington finally returned to Mount Vernon, later candidates played at being unwilling–but they all wanted to be President. Eventually, they admitted to some ambition & began actively campaigning. Eisenhower is the only candidate in recent centuries who was actually “sought.”
Hillary is ambitious to be a good president. (Is ambition un-ladylike?) I’ll gladly vote for her–even if she doesn’t make my nipples tingle. Her gender isn’t the main reason–but I notice misogyny in many of the anti-Hillary comments; I’ll be glad to watch a few MCP* heads explode when she takes the oath of office.
As a feminist, I know Trump would be a disaster. (That’s also my opinion as a human being.) Bernie had a few good ideas but feminism wasn’t really a priority with him.
Mrs. Carter and Mrs. Ford have done immense good in the fields of mental health and substance abuse, and both were powerful advocates for women and children. They may not have aspired to political fame, but they definitely didn’t just sit around post-White House.
Using what advantages or insider track or stepping-stones or coattails are available to you to get to the place where you can prove your value (Senate, State Department) is *per se *no vice. Having nothing but those coattails to your name and leapfrogging over everyone else to the very top post without any serious challenge would raise an eyebrow but can we really argue that any more about her after both the 2008 and 2016 cycles?
I’d say it’s a great achievement that since 2007 she’s considered an obvious contender and women have regularly been in the primaries’ field of candidates (even though spectacularly unsuccesfully save for herself); that means that yes, she has prepared the nation for the inevitability of A woman POTUS sooner rather than later, and perhaps more important, to the point many in the feminist-inclined voting public can say to themselves “well, but maybe not THIS woman, because, baggage?” without having to feel guilty about it. But, then you may have a different problem: holding out for someone about whom you cannot say *“but, baggage!” *is likely to mean a very, very long wait. Or betting on faith on an unknown quantity.
Do feminists get excited about Cristina Fernández de Kirchner?
I think if a woman takes an office vacated by her husband, that seems “feminist” to some people, and almost “counter-feminist” to others. I am in the latter camp. Maybe that’s unfair of me.
And you know, Hillary has been around national politics off and on since 1993. She’s not “some woman,” she’s a person, about whom you can have informed opinions as about any other politician. And that’s as it should be.
Well, the other thought is that feminism is simply all about women being recognized and treated as actual people instead of as a subhuman subclass. It’s perfectly ok to not like certain people for various reasons that have nothing to do with the shape of their genitals. So it’s ok for feminists to not like particular persons for whatever reason who just happen to have vaginas.
As a non-American, I would like to see a President who gets shit done. Barack Obama is a wonderfully charismatic guy and has a huge heart, but he couldn’t get much done, he was constantly thwarted. I suspect Hillary will get in there and get it done. I don’t know what she’ll get done, but done it will get.
It’s a question of degree. Yes, all politicians are driven to succeed, but there should be a balance between that and the desire to serve the public good and, on a national level, a strong sense of patriotism and belief in and love for your country. And those should not only be balanced, but when push comes to shove the latter should always strongly outweigh the former.
IMO the Clintons are snake-oil salesmen politicians. Bill got into it strictly for the power and the money (and the pussy). Hillary strictly to satisfy her huge ego, and to right the humiliation that her horn-dog husband caused her during his term. So if you consider yourself a woman first and an American second, then Hillary’s for you…
I consider myself a human being first. I think that Hillary will be a far better president than that creep Trump. And better than Angry Old Man Bernie–who is probably wondering what he could have accomplished if he’d ventured onto the national stage when he was younger.
Might we hope for better candidates in the future? Sure. Let Bernie’s kids get out there & support more progressive candidates at all levels of government. Maybe some of* them* will run, eventually.
Funny, until your post every time I’d heard “Angela Merkel” and “charisma” in the same sentence it was to say she has none. A few months back, I was in a project which involved a dozen Americans and a German woman; the Americans were talking about Hillary’s lack of charisma and the German pointed out that “Angela Merkel would never have been elected in the US, she’s got all the charisma of a bowl of humus”.
“Charisma” and “powerful personality” overlap but not exactly. Someone like Merkel or Thatcher exerts powerful leadership and people will say “she’s got what it takes” or “she knows what needs doing and will do it”, without necessarily being smitten with her style or thinking she’s the sort of person with whom they’d like to knock back a couple of pints.
