So who would you say should get the most credit for her becoming POTUS, assuming she is elected?
Bill Clinton
Chelsea Clinton
Barack Obama
Donald Trump
Hugh Rodham
Eleanor Roosevelt
Ross Perot
???
I’m going with Ross Perot. If not for Ross Perot, most likely Bill would not have won the general election in 1992. Bush #41 probably would have been reelected. It is uncertain if Bill would have run again in 1996. And if he had not become POTUS, HRC would not have been First Lady, and probably not have moved to NY and elected US Senator. And if those events hadn’t happened, I highly doubt she would have been named SoS. Most people today, probably wouldn’t even know who she was. Thanks Ross!
I realize that I’m fighting the question, but I’m inclined to say that she won on her own. There’s a hundred reasons why she could have given up political ambitions – HillaryCare, her cheating husband, the vast right-wing conspiracy, losing the 2008 nomination, etc. – and if she manages to be elected after all those hurdles she had to cross, then I think the one person who deserves the credit is Hillary Clinton herself.
Except for one person, everyone you mention was also there for her in 2008, when she didn’t win the nomination, much less the election.
The one new person is Barack Obama. So if you want to give credit to anyone other than HRC herself, give it to Obama for appointing her to be Secretary of State and making her more visible than she would have been as a senator from New York.
If we can go back to Perot, then we might as well go back to her birth and say her parents were the most influential. Or perhaps her grandparents’ birth. Or maybe the comet that killed the dinosaurs.
I think the best answer is Obama, since a (rare) third term for the same party requires some good feelings for the previous two terms.
It has to be WJC. It’s not clear if she would even have gotten into politics without him, and almost certain she would not be a national figure running for president. I mean, it’s possible, but not likely.
Four wheel drive political determination climbing over obstacles. If you dislike ambition, move on to another candidate. Some folks say she piloted Bill Clinton to his chair in the West Wing. I dunno about that, but I think she participated. He has participated in her rise to power as well, reciprocally speaking. Even trade.
She really wants it.
That isn’t a bad thing. It can become a bad thing (ref: Nixon, Watergate). But it can perhaps mean that the candiate really believes “Hey, you know, I could do a damn good job, I’d be good at it. Watch”.
I could be a fool and she could be a self-aggrandizing plutocrat and power-crazed despot. But my inclination is to want to see her do her stuff and I think she really will be good at it. I just sent her another contribution.
Gotta go with Bill. If he wasn’t President, Hillary Clinton would be nowhere. She wouldn’t be able to get elected to Senate in Arkansas and she wouldn’t have the fame to carpetbag to New York.
I don’t think you can give her any credit at all for winning, since she’s tried so hard to lose. She’s Martha Coakley with a better husband and an easier to beat opponent who she might still find a way to lose to.
She can’t prosecute if the FBI doesn’t recommend charges, and if they did, it wouldn’t matter if she refused to prosecute. Clinton would still be done.
Other folks have weighed in on the likelihood of Perot costing Bush the election, but why are you uncertain of whether Bill Clinton would’ve run again in 1996?
Has anything in Bill Clinton’s [del]career[/del] life given you reason to think he wouldn’t? He lost an election to be Governor of Arkansas – and then he came back years later and won an election to be Governor of Arkansas. He got his party’s nomination to run for President after losing both the Iowa caucus ans the New Hampshire primary, which as far as I know never happened before or since. Richard Nixon resigned before he could be impeached; Bill Clinton got impeached and – grinned a lot?
HRC is the consummate bureaucrat. She, like Bill, are political animals. It’s in their genes. Some people are born with these sorts of ambitions. She is as much fueled by her ambitions as her failures. This is an opportunity for her to finally show everyone that she will not be denied.
I applaud her tenacity in the face of all her detractors and negatives. I listened to a snippet of an interview with her where she candidly admitted that she is not the kind of inspirational candidate like her husband or Barack Obama were. That sort of self-awareness is not something we hear enough from her and it went a long way to improving my opinion of her.
That said, I agree with Ravenman. She is undeniably self-driven.
