I’m opening this pit thread for those who have seen enough of the Clintons.
I voted for him twice, and was glad I did, but I’ve seen enough of Bill Clinton.
I would love to see a woman president, but I’ve seen enough of Hillary Clinton.
Clinton Clinton Clinton Clinton Clinton blowjob Clinton why didn’t she leave him Clinton Chelsea Clinton Impeached Clinton Lying under oath? Clinton Clinton Whitewater Clinton Can Clinton beat McCain? Clinton $5 Million Clinton Loan Clinton Clinton Clinton Clinton Republican Base Hates the Clintons Universal Heath Care Failed Clinton Clinton Clinton I’ll Promote Her but Not Defend Her Clinton
But Clinton got a blo… oh, I see you already had that covered.
I agree completely. I am tired of hearing about these people and their endless supply of supermarket tabloid psychodrama, their selfishness, their fraudulence, their emotions, their sex lives, their money, and people’s fascination with all of the above and damn near everything else about them. They were the E! network equivalent of the Kennedys for a self-satisfied decade without any ambition, but that decade is over it’s time for them to just go away already and stop asking everyone to care about what they do.
Ugh. That felt good to get off my chest. I’ve actually spoken to Hillary Clinton and found her perfectly nice and otherwise a very impressive candidate for office. But somehow the Clintonness always comes out.
I did and enjoy that. I thought it laid out a number of good reasons not to vote for her - not that I needed more of them. Just as revealing is a piece they did a few years ago that detailed her name changes - Hillary Rodham to Hillary Rodham Clinton to Hillary Clinton. Showed pretty clearly that she has gone by different names at different points, which is her prerogative of course. But her campaign’s response was something like “She’s never changed anything.” It had a very “Oceania has always been at war with Eurasia” quality. (Like I said, it drives me nuts that they cannot do anything without a million pundits breaking it down and wondering about its significance.)
In that light I guess it’s hypocritical of me to say that interviewing her was one of the highlights of my career, but it was.
It’s hardly uncommon for a woman to change her surname after marrying, nor to keep her maiden name and add on her husband’s name. I’ve done it, with no political motive at all. Many women have gone by different names, at different points in their lives.
That’s an issue that would never be mentioned about a man running for office, so I think it’s unfair to bring such gender-based social practices into question. Sheesh, it’s not as if she had an alias.
I may have made this look chauvinistic by not explaining the timing better. She married him in 1975 and stayed Hillary Rodham, then added his name during one of his campaigns for governor (maybe 1982). She ditched her maiden name and started using just Hillary Clinton when she started her Presidential campaign. I don’t care about it one way or another, but these are pretty clearly political moves.
It’s not unfair to observe something a candidate did.
To observe it is not unfair; to drag such a common social practice into a political arena is unfair, when it is based only on her gender. I reiterate, nobody questions why a male candidate uses one surname or another.
As I recall from Bill Clinton’s presidential campaigns, she only started using Hillary Rodham Clinton during his first, but I could be mistaken.
ETA: Now that I think about it, I believe she started using all three names after he was in office. And I’m not accusing anyone of chauvinism or misogyny or anything of the sort, so not trying to pick a fight.
Answer me this: if you had a married friend who went by different names that often, wouldn’t you wonder what she was doing? This isn’t like my mother, for example, who goes by her married name but has her maiden name on her bank accounts. This is repeatedly deciding to be called by a different variant of her name.
Here’s how the New Yorker covered it - and again, I stress that I found the “it’s a non-issue” comment interesting; it’s not a make-or-break thing. I guess I did miss one change in here:
She continues to just be “Hillary Clinton” while running for President.
I still disagree. I haven’t seen her waffling on her name, and she only uses her maiden name and her married name in whatever combination suits her. I’ve done the same; I’ve used my maiden name professionally and my married name socially, and I’ve used a combination of both. It’s merely a social convention. It’s her name, and legally, she can use whatever the hell she wants, just as I can. It really isn’t a political statement.
And men do have a choice of surnames; if my husband wanted, he could have taken my name when we married. (He’d be crazy, but he could have.)
I’m not saying it’s deceptive or wrong or anything else. But I do think there’s some reason to think the changes are politically motivated, since they all concide with political campaigns. And even if they aren’t, I think the assertion that “She’s never changed anything” (when she appears to have done precisely that, three times) is kinda typical of how she works.
I’m not a big fan of Clinton (mainly because of her political shift to the right). It’s also clear that she’s gone through a number of iterations with her name, and has tried to make it seem like those changes never happened.
But this is, it seems, exactly the sort of thing that every politician does. I can barely think of a politician who hasn’t, at one stage or other in his or her career, changed some personal or policy position while insisting that the new position has been their position all along.
“Oceania has always been at war with Eurasia” might as well be the motto of the profession of politics, and to single out Clinton for practicing it seems somewhat unfair.
Well, I have not had enough of the Clintons. I don’t see much difference politically between Hilary and Barack so I am voting for Ms. C for one reason… Bill will be back in the WH.
Stay tuned for my new book: My Love Affair With Bill Clinton or I Did Not Inhale That Cigar
That was a good read. It actually has me disliking her a bit less after reading it. I can see her a bit more sympathetically if a little misguided. Not quite tragic.
But still agree with the op. She can be an effective Senator. Keep her there. Maybe without he constant positioning for a future presidential run she can actually be a great Senator.
I’ve actually spoken to Hillary Clinton and found her perfectly nice and otherwise a very impressive candidate for office. But somehow the Clintonness always comes out.
