Would Bill Clinton have had anywhere near the success he had without Hillary Rodham Clinton advising and guiding him? Honestly I think not. The reality is that in the America of 30 plus years ago, when he was running for governor, the frontman of that team pretty much had to be a frontman. Times have changed but do not pretend that they were other than they were. The era of female governors (not wives or widows) was just starting with Ella Grasso in 1975 (Connecticut) and Dixie Lee Ray in 1977 (Oregon). Now they are all over the place and all over the political spectrum … but not then.
A vagina isn’t the best reason in the world to make somebody a US President.
I don’t really care whether Hillary Clinton is a man or a woman. I don’t see how that makes much difference in a politician. Anyone who argues we should vote for her or against her because she’s a woman is making a pretty weak argument at best. Or being horribly sexist.
I plan on voting for Hillary Clinton for two reasons: She seems like a competent politician. And she’s far better than the likely alternatives.
I am voting for Hillary because she is the most qualifiied candidate. I don’t think Bernie can deliver on his promises; i like him for Senate. The fact that she is a woman IS timely but it did not factor into my choice. What might have factored into my thinking a little was the 20+ years of attacks from the right. She has earned this job.
Hillary being a woman has nothing to do with my opinion of her future presidency.
I’m opposed to Trump. But I think he would be ineffective. Hillary is my enemy. And she may be effective.
I’m probably not going to vote for either.
Real men aren’t intimidated by strong women.
I wouldn’t vote for Hillary Clinton just to annoy the right wing. But since I’m voting for her for valid reasons, I feel free to enjoy the way it annoys the right wing as a bonus.
There are many “firsts” that still need to happen. I don’t see any reason to prioritize a woman over a Jew or a Latino. And I certainly see no reason to elevate someone less qualified just to get the first. “Firsts” should always be like Jackie Robinson. They should be great at what they do. If the first black player had been awful, what good would that have done?
What a disgustingly sexist thing to say.
There’s nothing wrong with voting for someone because of their race or sex, but its more to it than that. White males have been overly represented in the halls of power since before this country was created and have continued their dominance since. Voting for someone because of their race or sex means slightly expanding that privilege to what this country professes to be about: liberty and equality.
Not everyone qualifies because there are plenty of women or minorities who, when in power, behave like traditional white males. Sarah Palin, Ben Carson, Bobby Jindal, etc. these are not representative of their race or sex. Palin is against women’s choice, Carson’s proposals would have done shit for the poor, and if you’ve never seen Jindal you’d swear he’s as WASP-y as any other evangelical.
I’d vote for Hillary because she’s a Democrat, but more than that, she has fought for women for a long time. Given all things equal, someone who brings that perspective would be better than someone who’s a white male but holds the exact same beliefs.
The argument doesn’t work the other way around because traditional power structures are replete with white males. Voting for them, or against a woman or minority, is to vote for the continued segregation of power to help it stay concentrated in the same hands. Its standard white male privilege that many deny but is absolutely true. Don’t lie about it, just accept it and that you’re a bad person if you vote for someone just because they are white and male. The rest of us are not fooled by your twisted reasoning nor are we impressed
Actually, Clinton does not represent her sex well: Married women tend to be Republicans. Just to show that two can play this dumb game.
I’m not going to vote for Hillary or for Trump. I couldn’t care less about a candidate’s gender. I vote based on the candidates’ positions. I find it somewhat depressing that there are so many people who do take gender into consideration when voting.
But honestly, supposing that we do have a desire to see a woman become President, don’t we want it to be a better woman than Hillary Clinton? She’s supported every war that the USA has waged in the past generation and shows zero ability to learn from all our foreign policy failures and not make the same mistakes repeatedly. She’s taken huge sums of money from hundreds of CEOs and other odious people and groups. She opportunistically shifts positions on almost any major issue. She’s a lifelong supporter of higher military spending, longer prison terms, and the War or Drugs.
Also, why would you want the first woman President to be someone who only got the job because of her husband? Seems like it sets women back if anything. “If you marry the right man, you can become President!”
To be fair, it seems like sometimes, that’s just the way it has to start. The first two female governors of US states, Nellie Ross of Wyoming and Miriam “Ma” Ferguson of Texas, were both wives of ex-governors. But they broke barriers that needed to be broken, and plenty of women have been elected governors of states without husband connections since. (It should perhaps be mentioned that Ma Ferguson’s administration was plagued by quite believable rumors that her husband, who had been impeached and removed from office, was the real power behind the throne - she even flat out told people while campaigning that she would take the advice of her husband as she governed).
I’m sure there are many people who are dumb enough to believe that. But they’re all going to vote for Trump anyway.
Right now a lot of them are voting for Sanders, actually.
Is the converse of this pronouncement also acceptable to you?
I didn’t realize that Bill Clinton gave Hillary her law degree, voted her in to the Senate, or appointed (and confirmed!) her as Secretary of State. Thanks for the info!
OK, she got a law degree. That’s all her accomplishment, or at least as much her accomplishment as it ever is any single person’s accomplishment.
But there are a lot of lawyers in this country, and very few of them successfully become Senators. If, given her background in 2000 minus being married to Bill Clinton, she had run for Senate, the overwhelming response would have been “Who’s that, and why should we care?”. Going from “a lawyer” to the Senate is a huge step, and one which would have been impossible without her connection to the President.
The same is true, to a lesser extent, of her further career moves. When she ran against Obama in the primaries in 2008, she was considered a serious contender, despite only having only a little more time in the Senate than he, and no political experience of her own before that, compared to Obama’s time as a state legislator. What else was there, that gave her an edge? Her marriage to Bill Clinton. When she was named Secretary of State, it was on the weight of her run for President, her time in the Senate… and her marriage. Now, when she’s likely to win the Presidency, it’s on the weight of her stint as SoS, her previous run for the Presidency, her time in the Senate… and her marriage.
As for the claim that her husband’s success was largely or even mostly the result of her ambition rather than his, I don’t buy it. OK, one can argue that the public was not yet ready for a female governor… but what about lower offices? Bill started his political career with a close run for the state legislature and a successful run for state Attorney General. That’s about how political careers usually start. Why didn’t Hillary make a try for anything on that level?
Then whom?