In a watercooler political conversation at work today I mentioned that I liked Hillary Clinton well enough; when asked why I said that among other reasons I liked her because I’d liked Bill Clinton and it would be good to have him back in the White House.
My coworkers immediately jumped on me, saying that the fact that she is married to Bill Clinton should have nothing whatsoever to do with my view of her, and even telling me that my viewpoint is sexist, and asking if I took into account any other candidate’s spouses when evaluating them.
To get two things out of the way, 1) Hillary Clinton can stand on her own qualifications even if she were married to someone no one had ever heard of. And 2) if she is elected I would not assume that we are electing both of them to office; she, alone, would be president of the country.
But that said, it’s ridiculous to pretend that her husband is not a former president, and perfectly reasonable to factor that in to one’s view of her. He may have no official position if she is elected, but as her husband and as someone who was formerly in the role he’s naturally going to be a primary sounding board and advisor. What I thought of him as president is a completely valid matter to factor in to my view of her.
What do you think?
(Mods: I put this in IMHO because the question isn’t really about either of the Clintons’ positions or whether they would be/were good presidents; it’s more a general/philosophical question.)