And how many of them are, or can reasonably expect to be in the next 4-8 years, serious candidates for the presidency?
The point stands, however: HRC will make no better or worse a POTUS for having ridden Bill’s coattails, nor for what she had to ignore in the process. She is by no means my first choice for the nomination, as I have often stated in this forum; her politics are way too far to the right, the business interests own her, and I wish she were more honest; but her relationship with Bill is not an instance of her dishonesty. And she will still make a better POTUS than the best Republican in America.
Sorry. Your comment was that allowances need to be made for women in politics. I don’t recall that you qualified your statement for presidential candidates only.
You said a woman may reach her level of prominence in the next generation without riding coattails. Currently her level of prominence is a sitting Senator. Kay Bailey Hutchison is similarly prominent by that reasoning - no coattails. Same with Olympia Snowe. Janet Napolitano was elected on a statewide level - no spousal coattails. Same for Kathleen Sebelius.
And a leading presidential candidate, a status she enjoys only because she is a household name, which is only because she was once a very high-profile First Lady. Hutchison, Snowe, Sebelius, may have a shot one day at appearing on the presidential ballot – but only because Hillary did it first.
So you’re saying that presidential candidates in 2007 who are women cannot possibly be there on the basis of their accomplishments alone?
I think you’re looking at the example of Hillary Clinton and making her experience a general one. Probably not a wise move, as she doesn’t seem like a typical example no matter how you look at things.
[shrug] How else can we genaralize? She is the only female candidate in the field. In fact, she is the first serious (meaning, with a shot at winning) female presidential candidate in American history. Even for the vice presidency, the glass ceiling has yet to be broken; Ferraro in '84 was a symbolic gesture, put on the ballot when the Dems had to run somebody but had little hope of victory.
True, and unfortuantely for the women’s movement, if she does end up going all the way, the world will never know if the first woman President could have made it on her own merits. I’d rather wait a few years to get one who really proved herself.
Of course. My issues with her have little to do with what she puts up with in her marriage. Certainly, she’s not the first wife of a President to look the other way. People do what they do for their own reasons.
Yeah, well, at some point Bill’s affairs will come up. And I’m betting they come up before the primaries start. Other Democrats have been hitting Hillary hard lately.
And while you may not have a key on your calculator for this, other people do.
Do you really think there are any people less disposed to vote for her for her wifely tolerance, who would have been more disposed to vote for her if she had filed for divorce years ago? I very much doubt it. She loses no more votes one way than the other.
From what I recall reading, infidelity has occurred in about 2/3rds of American marriages.
So there’s a whole lot more people besides her “looking the other way”. Heck, if she manages to work that so she gets the vote of most of the ‘cheated-on’ wives, that could be a good block of votes. Including a lot of republican women!