Bitchy Politics: Good Question Sean. Why DO People Hate Hillary?

Before you all go, “Who is Sean and why is he rambling?” let me preface by saying, I know Sean personally from back in high school, I think. I’m not sure when I met him but he’s one of Hubby’s friends from way back and he’s in our rotisserie baseball league. Sean, like everyone who engages in aerobic respiration, has a blog. I really like his blog, mostly because I know him personally but had NO idea all these thoughts were going on in his head. Sean’s blog, it is some funny shit.

Sean asks a pertinent question, and garners an answer from Robert Bluey, author of the Bluey Blog and “director of the Center for Media & Public Policy at The Heritage Foundation, a think tank whose mission is ‘to formulate and promote conservative public policies based on the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense.’”

Why do people hate Hillary Clinton?

Bluey’s answer, from Sean’s site:

Americans began to dislike Hillary during the 1992 campaign and only grew more hostile throughout her husband’s eight years in the White House. I think part of the problem stems from the fact she had no intention of following the typical role of first lady, preferring instead to be a political bulldog. This partisanship alienated a large number of Americans who won’t soon forget the Hillary of old no matter how hard she tries to remake herself.

Keep in mind that during Bill Clinton’s eight years as president, America became a country deeply divided along partisan lines, leading to the contentious 2000 election. This wasn’t entirely Clinton’s fault, but because Hillary was so closely identified with his political and policy objectives—beginning with her failed health care plan—Americans were left with a bad taste.

Now that it is officially 2008, and the election year, it’s time to pay attention to the candidates running for president. I’ve been ignoring them until now because it was too damn early for half of them to start campaigning in my never-humble opinion. Hubby is a political junkie, and considers following politics like following baseball or football. It might be his favorite sport (though he won his fantasy football league this year so maybe politics is #2 in light of his win). I personally try to avoid paying too much attention to any political ads, because they are so nasty I feel unwashed when I’m done watching even a 10 second spot.

I’m also completely turned off by American politics on the whole, because somehow there’s this bizarre expectation or demand that one candidate is supposed to satisfy every ideal I possess, and so the candidates are trying to appeal to a slate of requirements, regardless of their actual preference or voting history. Candidates cease being “real people” and start molding themselves into electable models – because it’s more important to get elected rather than doing the job you’re ‘hired’ by the voting public to do.

But the question of Hillary is fascinating to me because I realized I was dreading her run for president not because I had anything against her as a candidate, but because I was dreading the negative and horrifically awful attacks that would be leveled against her. There’s this virulent hatred of all things Clinton but especially things Hillary that makes people absolutely batshit insane about her, even if they know jack crap about her voting record as a senator. I’ve heard it from radio personalities, random people in conversations, even people whom I suspect make decisions about candidates based on facts and information. Hillary Clinton provokes a knee-jerk gut-level abhorrence that I do not understand, and to which I so do not want to bear witness during this year’s onslaught of political ads.

But why is there that knee-jerk rejection of all concepts Hillary?

The one line of Bluey’s response says it all:

“I think part of the problem stems from the fact she had no intention of following the typical role of first lady, preferring instead to be a political bulldog.”

So the explanation is: people hate Hillary because she didn’t embrace the traditional role of a First Lady by serving as quiet fashionable hostess in the White House and instead carved out a new role for herself as First Lady/political playah. She was aggressive (or assertive, depending on who you ask) and wasn’t content with a traditional gender role, so she’s therefore evil.

This isn’t news. I am betting that the democratic nomination will be based on the question of whether the US is more racist or more sexist, but still. I didn’t expect the reason for the hysteria against Clinton to be spelled out like it was political wisdom: “She’s not demure. She’s a bitch. Therefore we hate her. Pass me some steaming American family values, please.”

Here at Smart Bitches, we’ve only endorsed one candidate who was running against Bill Napoli, and sadly, she didn’t win. It’s not like we’re in the business of endorsing presidential candidates, but any candidate who is called a bitch as often as Hillary Clinton is obviously going to catch my attention. Personally speaking, I think she’s just fine as a senator and would likely be an exceptional president – except that the knee-jerk revulsion she inspires would get in her way at every moment and she’d have a hell of a time getting anything done.

In my mind, just for the sheer comic value of watching people trip over themselves to throw battery-stuffed snowballs of hate, the most ideal ticket for people’s heads exploding would be a Hillary Clinton/Martha Stewart political ticket. I would throw a ticker tape parade made of the shredded remains of traditional gender expectations, to be sure.

But Sean says it right: “‘Because she is a bitch’ is not an acceptable answer.” In the microcosm of the online romance community, some folks hate Candy and me because we don’t play nice, we don’t give buttery soft and friendly reviews of romance novels we hated, and because we aren’t going to shy away from naming names and titles and saying, “This blew savage donkey cock.” The play-nice expectation of the romance world means we Bitches are a special kind of naughty evil because saying, “I didn’t like this romance novel” is somehow a rather explosive statement. But even that’s a viable reason for disliking us: we aren’t always kind when we say we don’t like something. We named ourselves Bitches because that’s what we are. But in the grand scheme, is what we do important on a world stage? Not hardly.

However, if you’re talking about running a country of over 300 million people, a country currently engaged in at least two active military conflicts with a growing national debt and a few significant problems in the way of poverty, human rights, and a growing housing crisis, wouldn’t having a bitch on board be a good thing? Don’t you want an aggressive person in the White House? If people dislike Hillary because she’s a bitch… my question is, so what’s wrong with being a Bitch?

 

Comments are Closed

  1. 1
    MaryKate says:

    I recently did an exercise on Washington Post.com. It’s a blind test that has about 25 questions on a variety of issues. They give you the top 6 contenders for either party’s stance on the issue. You then pick which answer most closely mirrors how you feel and you rank the importance of the question to you personally.

    I really, really thought that I was going to get Hillary. Turns out, I identify most strongly with John Edwards, followed by Barak Obama. Who knew?

    Either way, you wouldn’t catch me crying if Hillary gets the nod. It’s just that I’m worried that this country might not be ready for a woman in the White House (tragic as that is), and I’m MUCH more concerned with getting a Democrat back in the White House, than getting a woman in.

  2. 2

    What’s wrong with being a bitch? Well, I think you hit the nail on the head when the word bitch means someone who is aggressive, states her opinion (and usually has a pretty strong argument) and carves her own place versus accepting the pre-made role that makes people comfortable.

    Personally, I like being a bitch. In fact I’d rather be a bitch than a spineless man. Kinda like the guy who’s “running” our country now.

  3. 3
    Lorelie says:

    Just for shits and giggles, let’s entertain the idea that the first female President is not Hillary.  Madame President X has a non-politico husband.  Let’s even say he has some successful company and ostensibly hands over the reins to someone else for her term in office.  First Husband X does the “typical role” of First Spouses.  Meet and greet appearances, hostings, etc.

    Can you imagine the fracas?  I’m envisioning him being called things like “spineless” “ball-less” etc.  It would be just as vicious as the attacks on Hillary.  It’s kind of sad.

    That whole argument against Hillary has never held weight for me.

  4. 4
    darlynne says:

    It’s just that I’m worried that this country might not be ready for a woman in the White House (tragic as that is) …

    What does THAT mean? I’m not taking a swipe at MaryKate, but that’s as backward thinking as “because she’s a bitch.” Both imply there is something inherently wrong and unnatural about a woman being in a significant position of power. We simply must get away from that kind of sabotage, for ourselves and the women around us.

    I agree that Hillary Clinton is a walking lightening rod, something that I’ve never understood. Personally, I reserve my vituperation for asshats like Bill Napoli. What bothers me is that her candidacy will be dismissed without consideration for reasons that shouldn’t be issues at all. Tell me she’s divisive, that her policies make no sense, but, please, let’s leave this other shit at the curb.

  5. 5
    SB Sarah says:

    “…this country might not be ready for a woman in the White House”

    I think what that means, at least, what I’d mean if I said it, is that on the whole (har har) the US is more sexist than it would like to believe itself to be, and the attention to a woman president would be more on the “woman” part than on the “president” part. And that Americans can’t avoid seeing gender as more important or more obvious an issue than product and accomplishment.

  6. 6
    Ruth says:

    …this country might not be ready for a woman in the White House (tragic as that is) …

    For me this is a compelling indication of our great need to have a female President.

    As for Hillary—I think it’s more than just she wasn’t a lady-like First Lady. She just isn’t ideologically “pure” at all. Not only does she irk the right by being assertive and non-conciliatory but you also find anti-Hillary vitriol on the left: she’s responsible for the death of the health-care bill, she stayed with her cheating husband (not very grrl power), she prioritizes her own political ambitions (dirty!).

    She also suffers somewhat in comparison to her husband, with all his charisma. I mean, I like her, but she’s just really not very likable. Then add that she’s obviously not following any party script or agenda but her own and you’re pretty well on the way to understanding why she’s so hated.

  7. 7

    Damn, and here I thought Ms. Clinton was well liked in the US. That’ll teach me to pay better attention to CNN Global (hey, since they don’t play ‘this is CNN-James Earl Jones’ bit, I stopped paying attention).

    And in the UK, the king isn’t regarded as spine- or ball less, so I like to believe the US would get over it in time. But it’s true, she’d waste a huge portion of her time fighting against the current of attacks and stalling tactics because she has ovaries. Nothing would ever get done.

    But damn, I’d like you guys to elect her, just to throw a few wrenches into the gears of gender bias!

  8. 8
    Lisa says:

    There are a lot of issues wrapped up in this nugget of why people despise Clinton.

    * I understand trying to “take back” the word “bitch,” but, really, I live for the day when a woman speaking her mind isn’t considered a negative trait. Women are still mired in the catch-22 of being viewed as nice but incompetent vs. competent but a bitch.

    * I can’t stand Clinton b/c I don’t want the U.S. Presidency to turn into a de facto hereditary office like some third world country. So, no more Clintons, no more Bushes.

    * The other reason that Clinton bugs me is that she has the intelligence to have made it this far all on her own—she didn’t need Bill. Instead, she sold out and road his coat-tails, all the while he pretty constantly cheated on her.  Not very Feminist, IMO.

    The First Spouse should be doing PR jobs like the Easter egg toss and Christmas tree decorations b/c we don’t vote for them. They’re spouses, not running mates. But I agree, I have a hard time seeing a First Man (?) doing some of these things. Maybe once it happens it will show how really ridiculous a lot of it is.

  9. 9

    I dislike Hillary for the same reasons I dislike a lot of male politicians. Meaning, my dislike has nothing to do with her being a woman, and everything to do with her being a politician.

    What I resent is this whole “Why won’t some women vote for Hillary?” As if because I’m female I can’t see anything except our mutual possession of a vagina. Oh, glory, glory!!! I judge her on the same merits as other politicians A LOT OF WHOM AREN’T LIKEABLE!!! Is she supposed to be likeable just cuz she’s a mommy? *mutter, mutter*

  10. 10
    Charlene says:

    You have to take a leaf from Canada and vote for the party whose leader you hate the least.

    It’s worked for us since 1972.

  11. 11

    I’ve been involved in politics for most of my adult life, either as a reporter or a participant.  I wouldn’t vote for Senator Clinton because she’s a woman any more than I would vote against her because she doesn’t have a penis.  Sisterhood is powerful, but I want the best leader, not the best sister.

    At this point I like Joe Biden and John Edwards, in that order.  It’s not the anti-Hillary vote, it’s just that I favor those two candidates’ platforms and experience more than I like Senator Clinton’s. 

    But in the final analysis, I’m pretty much a yellow-dog Democrat (In the South we used to say “Paint a dog yellow and call it a Democrat, and I’ll vote for it!”).  Senator Clinton certainly reflects my values and hopes for this nation more than anyone currently running from the other party.

  12. 12
    MplsGirl says:

    IMO this country is more sexist than racist (though there’s lots of both).  Black men got to vote before women of any color.  And we endured a civil war over racial freedom; women have only been warred over as objects of ownership, never for our freedoms as women as a whole—though my history is sort of spotty, maybe it has happened? All the wars/revolutions for women’s freedoms that I know of have been cultural rather than two armies facing off with guns and bombs.

    I like HC’s toughness; even so, I believe she’s in the back pocket of corporate America as much as any major party politician in this country.  Getting a Dem is office is important to me, but the middle class will still be screwed.

  13. 13
    Glinda says:

    My biggest criticism of Hilary is in evidence of her poor judgment. Not only did she marry Bill Clinton, but she stayed married to him. How could you trust a woman like that to make good decisions on larger issues?

  14. 14
    cecilia says:

    “I’m also completely turned off by American politics on the whole, because somehow there’s this bizarre expectation or demand that one candidate is supposed to satisfy every ideal I possess”

    This captures something really important, in my opinion. Why do people think that a political candidate has to be perfect? What kind of person would believe that Mr. Family Values has never (not even in college) done something that wasn’t entirely thought-through? Who really believes that if someone smoked a joint in college, or is gay, or had sex with a prostitute actually has any bearing on the candidate’s ability to lead? Who has never noticed that the decisions we make in our private lives are often nothing like the decisions we make in our work lives? Lots of leaders have been useless in private and effective in their leadership role. At the same time, a person who is all virtue may be a useless leader. A whole other set of factors and motives are at play.

    At this point, though, we have this pretense that candidates never inhaled and don’t currently drink, and certainly don’t boink people other than their spouses (especially people who are the same sex as themselves). I can’t help but think that rather than a guarantee that you’re getting a leader who will never take a false step, you’ll be getting a guy who’s going to be wasting a lot of energy on making sure his false steps aren’t made public.

    For women, we’ve got the additional expectation of a pleasant demeanor. I can’t think of a single powerful woman leader (Margaret Thatcher, Golda Meir come to mind, even Kim Campbell for her nanosecond as PM) who got where she got to by playing nice. Playing nice isn’t a winning strategy in politics, for anyone.

    I guess what all this rambling is about is that I think the voting public would be better served by a process that was less fixated on serving up a shiny-faced squeaky-clean choirboy (while tearing down anyone who might not fit into that mold) and was more fixated on rational debate about actual policy. (However, I’m a foreigner, so what do I know?)

    “I recently did an exercise on Washington Post.com. It’s a blind test that has about 25 questions on a variety of issues. They give you the top 6 contenders for either party’s stance on the issue. You then pick which answer most closely mirrors how you feel and you rank the importance of the question to you personally.”

    I did something similar to that during the last Canadian election and had a similar surprise – I was told my stances, which were all over the board, were most like the party Which I Will Never Vote For Come Hell or High Water. Since I’ve just preached rationality, I’m sure you can predict that I just shrugged and said, ‘Oh well, I’m still not voting for them.’

  15. 15

    Sarah, you expressed my feelings pretty well. Part of me would love to have Hillary elected president, if only to spazz out the right-wing attack dogs. It’s always amusing to see them go ballistic. But the other part of me is very, very tired by the inane and insane partisanship in this country. I’ve given up watching “talk” shows (more like “scream” shows).I’m not confident that there’s any candidate, Democrat or Republican, that can mend this nation.

  16. 16
    MaryKate says:

    I think what that means, at least, what I’d mean if I said it, is that on the whole (har har) the US is more sexist than it would like to believe itself to be, and the attention to a woman president would be more on the “woman” part than on the “president” part.

    Yes, Sarah, thank you that’s what I meant (and you said it more clearly that I could have). It has nothing to do with my perception of Hillary running the country. It has to do with the fact that there are some parts of the country that just wouldn’t ever consider voting for a woman. That’s what I meant by the country isn’t ready.

    Can you imagine the PMS jokes? And all the other “emotional woman” shit that would get thrown at her?

    Believe me, I’d LOVE to see a woman running the country. But Hilary is a divisive person, regardless of her gender. She’s divisive for all of the reasons Sarah stated in her original post.

  17. 17
    sara says:

    Sarah, I totally agree about dreading Hillary’s run for president because of the incredible, violent hatred she inspires in people who dislike her.

    I was discussing this with someone last week; even the conservatives who disliked Bill Clinton while he was in office didn’t revile him the way people like Rush Limbaugh do Hillary. There’s this black, toxic, gendered hatred that certain elements express toward Hillary, and it’s really disgusting. They don’t express the same sort of bile toward other liberal women like Nancy Pelosi; I’m not sure what it is about Hillary that engendered (heh) that way back in the early ‘90s and made it stick, but it’s gross.

  18. 18
    snarkhunter says:

    Don’t you want an aggressive person in the White House?

    Well, yes. You do. If that person is a man. The real irony about all of this “bitch” stuff directed at Hillary Clinton is, for me, the fact that John Kerry got pretty much the exact opposite. A male candidate should be aggressive. He should be willing to

    bomb the shit out of

    stand up to

    impotent dictators

    the “axis of evil” without any of that

    rational thinking

    cowardly, namby-pampy “thinking it through” crap.

    Ah, ye olde double standarde. No more tolerable when I put you in fake old-style spelling.

    The other reason that Clinton bugs me is that she has the intelligence to have made it this far all on her own—she didn’t need Bill. Instead, she sold out and road his coat-tails, all the while he pretty constantly cheated on her.  Not very Feminist, IMO.

    I’m not attacking you personally, Lisa, but I see this opinion a lot, and it kind of bugs me.

    We’re sitting here talking about whether or not a woman, specifically Clinton, who is thought to be a “ball-buster,” a “bitch,” etc., could be elected. Does anyone *really* think that if she had divorced her husband she could stand a chance in the White House? The “stand by your man” contingent would hate her even more.

    She can’t win in regards to Bill. I see all these women judging her for not leaving him, but…isn’t that a valid choice on her part? We don’t know anything about their marriage. We don’t know why they stay together. And if she has stayed with him because of her political ambitions…why is that a bad thing? Why is that even an issue?

    I see some of the same people who could care less about what Bill did castigating Hillary for staying. Isn’t that hypocrisy? Why do we hold her to a higher standard?

  19. 19
    SB Sarah says:

    She can’t win in regards to Bill. I see all these women judging her for not leaving him, but…isn’t that a valid choice on her part? We don’t know anything about their marriage. We don’t know why they stay together. And if she has stayed with him because of her political ambitions…why is that a bad thing? Why is that even an issue?

    That’s another thing I just Do. Not. Get. Why is her marriage and whether she stays with someone who cheats on her an issue as pertains to her viability as a job candidate for president?

    I could not possibly care less about who she is married to, and what he does with his slick willie. Whether he cheats on her or they play at BDSM in the basement in Chappaqua makes absolutely no difference to me.

    If she’s a closet lesbian and he’s actually a woman or vice versa? Couldn’t care less. It’s not the least germane to the subject, and it’s embarrassing to me that it’s an issue for candidates, that the purity and sanctity of their marriages, whether they’ve lusted in their hearts for other people, is subject to their evaluation for a job as a national leader. If I interview for a job and my marital status or sexual orientation OR my religion are brought up? It’s against the damn law.

    Not only are candidates supposed to be idealogically pure and aligned perfectly with every one of my personal demands (as if! I think wrestlers should be permitted to unionize under the Stunt Performers Union! Where’s my candidate for that?) they have to be pure in every respect.

    When is the Virgin Mary running for office? And will Mary Magdalene be her running mate?

  20. 20
    cmfletcher says:

    “Keep in mind that during Bill Clinton’s eight years as president, America became a country deeply divided along partisan lines…This wasn’t entirely Clinton’s fault…”

    WTF?? Talk about revisionist history! Jerry Falwell and the evangelical political power playbook took over the Republican party and handed it to the religious right LONG before Bill Clinton was elected. If you talk to longtime moderate Republicans, they identify THAT hijacking with the beginning of divisive partisanship in this country. By the time the Clintons came along, the religious right was already well-established and ready to take advantange of an 8-year fundraising nirvana, screaming about “culture wars” and Hilary’s criminal lack of interest in White House dishware. They haven’t stopped since.

    I like HC as a senator. But she can’t pull this country together as president. She is hated too irrationally and by too many people. After twenty years of Clinton/Bush, it’s time for a new direction.

  21. 21
    snarkhunter says:

    When is the Virgin Mary running for office? And will Mary Magdalene be her running mate?

    Sarah! You should know better! The Virgin Mary got pregnant out of wedlock! Her son (who obviously lacked a strong father figure in that ball-less Joseph—what kind of man marries a woman pregnant by someone else?) was a long-haired commie hippie revolutionary who was executed by the government.

    And don’t even get me started on that Mary Magdalene creature. A h0r is what she is. And a successful businesswoman, which is the same thing anyway.

    Plus, she ran around with the Virgin Mary’s son—you know she’s up to her ears in anti-government sentiment.

  22. 22
    Lisa says:

    snarkhunter said:

    I’m not attacking you personally, Lisa,

    I’m not taking it personally, no worries.

    but I see this opinion a lot, and it kind of bugs me.

    We’re sitting here talking about whether or not a woman, specifically Clinton, who is thought to be a “ball-buster,” a “bitch,” etc., could be elected. Does anyone *really* think that if she had divorced her husband she could stand a chance in the White House? The “stand by your man” contingent would hate her even more.

    Clinton chose a path that put her in the political arena based on who she married, not based on her individual merits. I think she could have made a successful political career for herself without following that path.

    She can’t win in regards to Bill.

    Absolutely.

    I see all these women judging her for not leaving him, but…isn’t that a valid choice on her part? We don’t know anything about their marriage. We don’t know why they stay together. And if she has stayed with him because of her political ambitions…why is that a bad thing? Why is that even an issue?

    For me, it’s an issue of not being recognized for her intelligence, experience etc., but instead of who she, at least at some point, slept with.

  23. 23
    snarkhunter says:

    Clinton chose a path that put her in the political arena based on who she married, not based on her individual merits. I think she could have made a successful political career for herself without following that path.

    Okay, I agree with you as far as that goes, but at what point was she supposed to choose that path? Should she have never married? Divorced Bill before he became president? Not supported his political ambitions? Been a typical, “demure” first lady instead of attempting to be an active part of the political process? Ran for senator while he was in office?

    I don’t feel like her career is at all built on his—in fact, I think most of her success has been *in spite of* Bill. I’m not sure where she could have made other choices, except in choosing not to marry him, and that just seems like an extreme and even anti-feminist suggestion.

  24. 24
    Lisa says:

    SB Sarah said:

    Why is her marriage and whether she stays with someone who cheats on her an issue as pertains to her viability as a job candidate for president?

    Normally, I would agree. In this particular instance, though, Clinton made her marriage an issue by using it as a stepping stone in her political career. It’s not like over the years each of them pursued separate political careers and they both got mileage out of the marriage. Has she held any political office before being a senator, before being First Lady? I honestly don’t know, does anyone here know? She subsumed her ambition in to his and then called in the chips later, instead of just pursuing her political course on her own. At some point she decided she needed him, and I’m saying that she didn’t.

  25. 25
    Lisa says:

    snarkhunter said:

    Okay, I agree with you as far as that goes, but at what point was she supposed to choose that path?

    Hell, I don’t know. I’m pretty sure that about the time they met she had her own political ambitions, though admittedly I’m not an authority on her life story.

    At some point she decided to hitch her wagon to him instead of pursing her own course. If she’d had her own political career, I think she would have had the option of divorcing him without having to lose everything she’d worked for.

  26. 26
    snarkhunter says:

    It’s not like over the years each of them pursued separate political careers and they both got mileage out of the marriage.

    Okay, I totally get what you’re saying now, but couldn’t we see this as taking turns? Lots of two-career marriages are built on the concept of ‘taking turns.’

    First, one partner pursues his/her goal while the other takes a temporary backseat—raising the kids, working the less prestigious jobs—in order to help the first partner establish him/herself. Then, when that’s done, the first partner takes the “backseat” while second partner pursues his/her goal. That’s how I’ve always seen the Clintons’ marriage. I don’t know that you can successfully pursue two independent political careers in a single marriage, particularly when one partner (or both) wants to be president. There’s simply too many complicating factors. Look how Hillary was accused of having too much influence over Bill when she was a politically active first lady. Do you think there is *any* way she could’ve been senator or representative while he was in office?

  27. 27
    Lisa says:

    I don’t feel like her career is at all built on his—in fact, I think most of her success has been *in spite of* Bill.

    Yes, exactly. Which speaks to my point that she never needed him.

  28. 28
    E. Manning says:

    It’s simple. Hillary is proud and she looks pretty good in makeup and heels. She’s independent or at least thinks she is. She’s confident. She’s a woman which makes her different than most politicians. A lot of people want to throw that confidence under the bus and hurt it bad. It’s not personal, just a reaction to the image that has been created.

  29. 29
    Lisa says:

    Okay, I totally get what you’re saying now, but couldn’t we see this as taking turns? Lots of two-career marriages are built on the concept of ‘taking turns.’

    Good point, and some people are able to make this work. But Clinton has had to wait an awful long time for her turn.

    I don’t know that you can successfully pursue two independent political careers in a single marriage, particularly when one partner (or both) wants to be president.

    I’d have to think about this a bit more, but there might be a good comparison with the Doles since both of them have attempted a run for president.

    Do you think there is *any* way she could’ve been senator or representative while he was in office?

    I doubt it. She would probably have had to step down. The more women pursue high office elections, the more this is going to be an issue.

  30. 30

    I think most of her success has been *in spite of* Bill. Posted by snarkhunter

    Being from Arkansas, you can imagine the questions I get asked when I travel. I have YET to meet someone who doesn’t ask me about the Clintons. Just for the record… Yes, I’ve met Bill. Was very good friends with his brother and his mother. Never met Hillary.

    I agree with Snarkhunter – Hillary had a lot of baggage to overcome when she ran for NY Senator – not from there; ex-first lady; Repubs laying in wait to point out all the things she did wrong as Senator. And what happened? She convinced NY to vote for her. Her Repub senators liked her, respected her, worked with her. She was able to build bridges with both parties in the Senate. She did a good job.

    One of the problems is that an assertive (not aggressive as aggression can be a hostile action)woman is call a bitch. 9 times out of 10, a man will be called a “go-getter” or some such nonsense.

    With or without Bill, Hillary is a smart, smart lady who is quick to grasp a situation. She’d do a good job as President.

    and Snarkhunter – your discussion on the Virgin Mary and her illegitimate son…laughed my ass off.

Comments are closed.

↑ Back to Top