I oppose it there, too, and would have mentioned that had that been the topic of the thread.
While that’s a fine position to take, societally there has been hardly any pushback against men taking advantage of their familial relations, while there appears to be for women. Even men who marry into political & wealthy families (Schwarzenegger, Kerry) don’t get much flack for that.
Quite the opposite in fact. We often hear of a candidate who’s family has “a fine history of service to the country”
Of course not. But the second and third women Presidents would come sooner if the first were, erm, unimpeachable. The cause and the country would be better off, long-term.
Yeah, but Arnie and Kerry were famous in their own right for reasons having nothing to do with who they married. In fact, their accomplishments were what enabled them to marry well. whereas Hillary without Bill is just an ordinary lawyer working for a corporate law firm. And not one as prestigous as Rose either, because she got that job because of her husband’s local fame. Given Hillary’s ambitions, she probably would have ended up in politics anyway, but there’s no way she would have chosen to do so in the backwaters of Arkansas. More likely she would have been in Illinois, New York, or DC, but the problem with that is that smart female attorneys are a dime a dozen there.
Now the Bush kids and the Kennedy kids, they have no point, because the only reason any of them are successful is due to their name, and many of them have actually made fools of themselves because they got to take on more than they could handle(ahem, George). I always treat a “name” candidate with skepticism. It’s the talented new faces with actual accomplishments to point to that interest me. Or an old face who isn’t hugely famous due to seeking the spotlight, but has put in a workmanlike, solid career.
Before the marriage, Hillary Clinton arguably had a better political future than Bill did. She was a member of Nixon’s impeachment inquiry staff after all, and was considered as someone who was very promising in the Democratic Party. Hillary actually demurred from marrying Bill for a while because she was worried that moving to Arkansas may harm her future career.
Really, guessing where Hillary would be right now if she had not given up her career to support her husband’s (incredibly successful) career is wild conjecture. With her class standing at Yale and first-class intelligence, she could have moved quickly to a blue chip firm, worked in local politics in Illinois, or clerked at SCOTUS. But she put aside her personal ambitions to support her hubby, and since going on her own she’s done quite well. She doesn’t have his warmth and charisma, but she’s still an exceedingly smart woman who will do well in the White House.
No, I could just as easily see that her time setting aside her career for Bill’s as having slowed down her career, not enabled it.
I disagree. First, because there is no such candidate and never will be. Second, because this isn’t a “cause.” My goal is not “Let’s see how many women we can elect president!” Third, because having a double standard for ostensibly noble reasons is still a double standard.
I see it more as establishing a strategic partnership that benefited them both - neither might have accomplished much of anything without the support of the other.
Let’s not forget how very recently in our history it has even been possible for significant numbers of women to gain positions of national political power on their own, instead of indirectly via influencing/controlling men. Ms. Clinton has been at the forefront of that change.
Just like there could never be a black baseball player as good as Jackie Robinson?
The cause I referred to is that of gender equality generally. That is a goal of mine, and more important than most things likely to happen within a single President’s term. That goal requires that women, plural, be demonstrably able to attain all influential positions in society. A first woman President, while being a historic figure under any circumstances, advances that cause much better if she is acclaimed an exceptionally good one.
The perfect is the enemy of the good. And there has never been a perfect candidate, nor will there ever be - only actual humans.
So let’s not elect a woman, because allowing an imperfect woman to be elected means bad things for women. Let’s instead wait for the perfect woman, in order to help women.
With friends like these…
This feels like an excuse to that could be called upon indefinitely to justify inequality. I’m not accusing you of doing that, just pointing out that this mindset can easily be cited by others to justify sexism. “We can’t elect that woman to be president, she’s <insert common human flaw here>.” There will always be people moving the goalposts so they can maintain guard over gates of progress.
Also, judging a president’s quality is notoriously difficult to do in the short term. It’s another way to kick the can down the road in the hopes that you’ll never have to pick it up. As time passes, the long-term effects of policy decisions become much clearer. At the end of her hypothetical administration, Hillary will be judged for everything wrong with the country and denied credit for much of her triumphs, as is the tradition for presidents. I suspect that she will be judged even more harshly than normal, since she would be the first woman to assume the role.
Hillary Clinton is far from perfect, but she’s got the chops for the job. That’s why she should win the election. Not because she’s a woman, though dealing another blow to inequality is certainly a bonus.
I would rather not wait around for the “perfect” candidate when we have a well qualified candidate running today. Especially not if qualifying said perfect candidate requires them to have served as president already.
First of all, I never said “perfect.” I don’t think anyone here has, except in straw rebuttal.
Second, I never suggested waiting. You notice, upthread, that I said it was past time for a woman President or VP. If the Democratic Party had been bolder about putting forward its better women candidates, I’d have been enthusiastically working for them.
Branch Rickey didn’t “wait” for Jackie Robinson, he sought him out, before he even knew him.
I’m curious–who might you have in mind for the role of female candidate for president who would be “acclaimed an exceptionally good one”?
And what would that even look like? Who, among recent-ish presidents, could possibly qualify as “acclaimed” as “exceptionally good”?
A whole lot of people saw Ronald Reagan as exceptionally good, and he received 60% of the vote in 1984; yet over 35 million people voted against him that year, and lots and lots of people thought then and think today that he was a horrible president.
Barack Obama has been acclaimed as exceptionally good, too, and yet more than 60 million people voted against him last time out, and you don’t have to travel far to find folks who think he is the devil incarnate. FDR? Lincoln? Washington? What do “acclaimed” and “exceptional” even mean?
Pretty much the moment someone declares for president, huge numbers of people gird up their loins to oppose that candidate. If there were someone out there, a woman who we might think would be “acclaimed an exceptionally good” choice, she’d attract the enmity of half the country as soon as she declared. It’s just the way things are.
Leaving aside, of course, the whole question of how we know in advance whether someone will indeed be a good president. I think that Clinton has as good a shot as pretty much any recent candidate as eventually being seen as a terrific president (and a much better shot, certainly, than anyone else who is running right now). You obviously don’t. But it’s worth pointing out that neither of us can possibly tell, years before her (potential) presidency is in the books.
I suspect you Just Don’t Like Hillary Clinton. Which is okay. You don’t have to. Lots of people don’t. But you seem to be holding her, and her alone, to a standard that just about literally no one seems able to achieve.
Exactly. I expect that whatever reeds of justification her critics can find will be, consciously or unconsciously, deployed against subsequent women candidates.
As I said, in the circumstances, electing Hillary Clinton may be the best we can do for now. I fear that it will not be the herald of future equality that such a moment should have been.
Branch Rickey could do that, being one man who ran a baseball team. He had the luxury of going out and finding the person he wanted, and of deciding that he had found him.
There is no Branch Rickey for the electorate. I would oppose the existence or creation of a general manager of the country.
We have the candidates we have. If you won’t vote for Hillary Clinton because she’s a woman, it doesn’t matter if it’s because you think she’s just not good enough to be the first woman president. Would she be good enough to be the hundredth?
I don’t see people rushing to vote for a woman because GWB was such a terrible president. Funny how discrimination only works the one direction.
There is no herald of future equality. There is only work.
And the Democratic Party sought out Hillary Clinton, as much as she sought the party out.
I would also like to point out that, if Bernie Sanders was a woman, I would still be voting for Hillary Clinton. Even if Hillary were male and Bernie was female, I would still vote for Hillary. My views line up more closely with Sanders, but I think he’d make a better king than a president. Clinton will take baby steps compared to the sweeping strides Sanders wants to make, but I think she’ll accomplish way more because she knows how to compromise.