?

Log in

No account? Create an account
Yes, Her Husband Was President - Mo's Journal
March 10th, 2008
02:01 pm

[Link]

Previous Entry Share Next Entry
Yes, Her Husband Was President
for eight years, but it is Senator Hillary Clinton who is running for POTUS. She is running as herself and running on her record of service, which includes eight years as a Senator from New York and eight years as First Lady of the United States. She is not running as half of a two-headed husband-and-wife President. Why is it that so many of those who oppose her seem bent on pretending she is? So many articles decrying her candidacy refer to the prospect of a presidency called "the Clintons" as opposed to what a win for HRC would be: Hillary Rodham Clinton, the 44th President of the United States (and the first woman). A couple of examples:

Maureen Dowd yesterday exhorted Obama to stiffen up the sinews, summon up the blood and start acting tough. She finished the piece by saying, "If he thinks Hillary has cut him down to size lately, he’d better imagine what his life would be like as the Clintons’ vice president."

For another recent example, Andrew Sullivan writes a column for the Times of London comparing "the Clintons" to the monsters in a horror movie who just. won't die. He talks about how he likes much of what Bill Clinton accomplished as POTUS (all the things I fault him for, unsurprisingly. Sullivan, as a neo-Con is very happy that Clinton moved the Democratic party to the right. As an unreconstructed liberal, I see that as his great failing) but still anticipates horror if "the Clintons" become President in this year's election. He says, "The further away you are from them, the easier it is to think they’re fine. Up close they are an intolerable, endless, soul-sapping soap opera." Which, actually, is my opinion of Andrew Sullivan. But, you know, that his writing juxtaposed with his personal life show huge hypocrisy really doesn't reflect on his ability to write. And the soap opera of "the Clintons" doesn't really indicate anything about Hillary Rodham Clinton's capability to be President of the United States. I assume that she will listen to her husband's advice and do what she thinks is best. And I believe that's what happened, mutatis mutandum, when Bill Clinton was President, too.

Tags:

(6 comments | Leave a comment)

Comments
 
[User Picture]
From:gaelushawk
Date:March 11th, 2008 02:58 am (UTC)
(Link)
Well, I think that part of antipathy for Hillary, is based in the society's fear towards women with power.Ignoring examples in cold war ( hysteric societies are not statistically valid, I think)
[User Picture]
From:mofic
Date:March 11th, 2008 11:23 am (UTC)
(Link)
Who were women in power in the Cold War?

I do agree that a lot of the antipathy is misogyny. OTOH, some of it is antipathy towards Bill Clinton displaced on her, I think.
[User Picture]
From:gaelushawk
Date:March 12th, 2008 02:38 am (UTC)
(Link)
and I don't intend to ignore the antipathy generated by her linkage with the Iraq War, either. But,and probably I will be considered a feminist outdated, the people really seem to need of women in politics a number of qualities that are sometimes contradict each other.And I feel that all these qualities required are focused on obtaining certain that the woman does not have the most minimum amount of ambition, greed or need for power.In the case of male candidates, the public takes in a natural way that they exhibit a bit these defects.
[User Picture]
From:gaelushawk
Date:March 12th, 2008 02:46 am (UTC)
(Link)
Who were women in power in the Cold War?

well , actually, I'm thinking in Margaret Thatcher, that I saw mentioned in some discussion about this topic , here, in Lj.
[User Picture]
From:kestrelsparhawk
Date:March 11th, 2008 05:49 am (UTC)
(Link)
Thanks for the Sullivan reference. It was fascinating all by itself, although I'm surprised the writer limited himself to "attack queers". African-American neocons are given biiiig bully pulpits, all the way up to the Supreme Court; ditto for anti-feminist women.

I agree with you on the Clintons -- and obviously they wouldn't be so much of a "soap opera" if people didn't keep trying to scrape up personal dirt on them. I think part of it really is that an egalitarian couple who relate intellectually just is too threatening to their own world view.

Given all that, you'll not be surprised to hear that I've voted for Obama, and hope to again. It's not personal -- it's politics. If Clinton ever moves to the left of him, and I believe she's sincere (which is unlikely on both counts) I'll vote for her.
[User Picture]
From:mofic
Date:March 11th, 2008 11:26 am (UTC)
(Link)
I'll be very happy to vote for him, if he's the candidate. And I would have voted for him in the primary if I believed he was truly to the left of her. He's had so little time in the Senate that it's hard to judge - he's marginally "lefter" in his votes there, but just marginally. And in his policies - particularly health care - I'd say he's a bit to the right. But in over 90% of issues they agree, so I went with other factors.

Still, I think they are both competent and credible candidates and he is a truly moving speaker. I'll be happy to vote for either one.
Mofic Powered by LiveJournal.com