Is Hillary's candidacy really a step forward for women?

[hedgehog]

How far has Hillary gotten on her own and how far did her career go simply because she happened to have been married to a two-term President? If Hillary had simply been an adviser to Clinton, would she have even been considered for the Senate seat from New York? She has plenty of contemporaries out there today who got to where they are because of who they are, not who their husband is.

[Olney Blue]

1. Yes, it is a step forward. There are many "power couples"- not unusual.

[niyad]

2. how about turning it around to say that BILL wouldn't have gotten where he did without hillary?

honestly, isn't it just possible that hillary is a talented, intelligent person in her own right. she did, after all, graduate from an ivy league law school all on her own.

WHY this insulting, and supremely sexist statement that she is nothing without bill?

[hedgehog]

6. I agree that Bill would have gotten nowhere without her.

It's just that there are plenty of intelligent, talented women out there, many of them Ivy League graduates, who worked their way up to where they are today. Hillary stepped into a Senate seat without ever running for another post. For me, her career is reminiscent of female governors who were elected when their husbands were barred from running again.

[niyad]

21. hillary didn't "step into" a senate seat, she ran and WON that senate seat., and won relection

this past election, or had you forgotten that?

your whole post indicates that she couldn't possibly have gotten where she is without being married to bill, so perhaps you had better reread what you wrote.

[hedgehog]

24. Would Hillary have been able to move to New York and run

for the Senate if she hadn't been married to Bil? Possible maybe, but not probable.

[niyad]

28. based on what, exactly? she wasn't capable of moving to NY on her own? gee, countless women each

and every day manage to move, without men. honestly, your statements are becoming more absurd by the minute.

[DemExpat]

29. We all take advantage

of our families and resources (or try to overcome our disadvantages) - why make a special case for Hillary?
What is true for her is true for anyone IMO.

:shrug:

DemEx

[oasis]

23. Do you have someone in mind who doesn't remind you of Lurleen Wallace?

Also please explain how her exceptional qualities differ from those of Hillary.

Thanx.:hi:

[aquart]

38. Bill Clinton was never a New York senator.

HOW DARE YOU INSULT MY STATE WITH THIS SLIMY DRIVEL?

You think New Yorkers are incapable of making an intelligent, reasoned decision? Did we ever vote for a Bush?

Other First Ladies baked cookies. Hillary networked her ass off.

Disgusted. I'm just disgusted by this.

[LeftyMom]

14. Nobody's saying she's nothing without him

She's just not presidential material without him. After all, the country's awash with Ivy Leaguers and lawyers, and the barest fraction of a fraction ever become political heavyweights capable of making serious runs for the presidency. Her resume isn't up to it.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

3. She has worked along side and independently of him their whole marriage.

She did not rest on her laurels and ride her hubby's coat tails (hellooooo, Eliazabeth Dole).

So, I say yes. Whether one agrees with her, or not, she is the first truly serious woman candidate for president. She could win. MKJ

[xultar]

4. Yes.

[kentuck]

5. Regardless, she had to win the race...

on her own. And she won big!

[William769]

7. Damn!

Who needs freerepublic.com? when we can get shit like this right here. :eyes:

[hedgehog]

9. Oh come on - not everyone who disagrees with you is a freeper!

[William769]

19. It's not the disagreement, it's not even what you say...

But how you say it.

[aquart]

39. And the charming intent behind it.

[LeftyMom]

8. Agreed.

No matter what you think of her policy decisions, if she were Hillary Johnson, married to Bob Johnson, owner of a small chain of insurance offices, nobody'd seriously entertain the idea that she was qualified for the presidency. She's held precisely one elected office, she hasn't really distinguished herself or set the world on fire in it, and she has no personal experience with executive power.

I want to see a woman in the White House, but I don't want there to be any doubt that she's there based on her own merits.

[hedgehog]

16. I guess I'm asking if she were Hillary Johnson, a close advisor to

former President Clinton, would she now be considered a major candidate for the 2008 election?

[LeftyMom]

27. No.

If Madeline Albright were US-born, could she run and win? No. What about Janet Reno? Even without Waco, Elian and other PR disasters, she'd have no hope.

Other than Vice Presidents, few make the jump from adviser to President. RFK would have done it, but he was very popular and a Kennedy, so something of a special case.

Before the war, Colin Powell would have had good a shot if he wanted it. Before Iraq completely went to shit, Condi had a very small outside chance. Mostly though, when presidential advisors are well known, it's for something bad, a scandal, a screw-up, being completely evil, going to jail, a tell-all book, death... When's the last time the media paid attention to a cabinet member for doing a good job? When they do well, hardly anybody knows their names.

[niyad]

31. why should a WOMAN have to demonstrate any more competence than a MAN when it comes to the oval

office? der chimpenfuhrer would NEVER have made it on his own, as one example.

I remember a poster from the women's movement in the early '70's that read "equality will be achieved when a mediocre woman can rise just as far as a mediocre man."

Hillary is NOT mediocre.

[LeftyMom]

33. Hey, I think Bush is unqualified too.

Let's not emulate him- he's been an unmitigated disaster since about ten seconds after they cut the cord.

I'm not saying that she's mediocre, but to clean up after Bush's mess we need somebody who is extraordinarily gifted at government, building domestic and international cooperation and inspiring public confidence. Senator Clinton has a reasonable talent for the first and no demonstrated capacity with the other two.

[aquart]

40. You're implying that a hardworking intelligent woman equals a Bush?

Actually, you're not implying, you're saying it outright.

Hillary Clinton is the woman who remained cool and diplomatic during adultery, slander, and impeachment. I think that shows some pretty extraordinary gifts rather useful in government.

You know, I have objections to Senator Clinton but I hope to God they're more rational than these.

[originalpckelly]

10. I think the question we should be asking is:

"If it weren't for Hillary, how far would Bill have made it?"

[Rosemary2205]

11. Don't sell Hillary short

she is not as eloquent as Bill but she's just as good or better of a politician.

[kentuck]

12. Well, she was on the Watergate committee...

that got Richard Nixon to resign. The Repubs have sought revenge on each and every person that was on that Committee. They have never forgotten...

[DemExpat]

13. Yes!

She isn't a propped up puppet like George W. Bush, she's strong, intelligent, and has what it takes IMO.

:kick:

DemEx

[tblue]

15. Not really. Shirley Chisholm's candidacy — that was a step forward for women.

I guess because Hillary is taken more seriously, that's a step forward, and that's good. But I don't hold Bill's coattails against her.

[mdmc]

17. YES

Hillary running for Pres is a hugh (HUGH) step forward for all chicks...

[jobycom]

18. This is a disgustingly sexist post. I hope it is due to your ignorance

of Clinton's career, and not to a general sexist attitude. Hillary was a powerful attorney in her right in Arkansas, and the most powerful "first lady" in our nation's history. She was actively involved in policy, not just the person who picked out the state dinnerware. She won a US Senate seat twice on her own, and while she was no doubt aided by her husband's name and work, she accomplished what she did on her own. Many politicians, from Al Gore to Franklin Roosevelt, have been aided by family names.

Your post strikes me as a step backward for women, or rather, proof that women have not escaped the attitudes of the Victorian Era. It fits right into that whole mentality that a wife is only defined by her husband, and her marriage, and that anything she achieves is due only to the more important and greater work of her husband. Our step forward will be when questions like yours aren't asked.

No offense. This isn't at you. Just at your post.

[against all enemies]

20. Was Ronald Reagan's candidacy really a step forward for women?

Ronald got where he was due to Nancy.

[LeftyMom]

30. He got where he was due to GE.

And he had reasonable qualifications, having been governor in California.

[illinoisprogressive]

22. But, she has done no major legislation in 6 years. Wish it was Nancy Pelosi running

[cynatnite]

25. Other women have ran for president before...

But if she were to win the nomination, I'd say yes. It would be a definite step forward.

[rodeodance]

26. Yes yes yes yes yes-------

[Withywindle]

32. Yes, of course it is!

And she's gotten where she is on her own merits a hell of a lot more than Shrub has. I realize that's setting the bar low - how many Senators currently serving are there because of family connections? Lots. Would Evan Bayh or Jay Rockefeller or Bob Casey or even Ted Kennedy be where they are without them? Who knows?

I've never forgotten Geraldine Ferraro, though I was too young to vote at the time. Hillary's position as a very serious candidate with a good chance IS a huge step forward for women, just like Obama's candidacy IS for African-Americans. For all the talk about how one doesn't need to be a woman to represent women or Black to represent Blacks--and that's true--there is something about seeing someone close to wielding real, true power who "looks like you" that is very intense, and I don't think it's male-bashing to say I don't think a white man can really understand its meaning on the same visceral level, because they are simply used to it. It's not even about their positions on the issues: it's more gut-level than that. It may not in and of itself be a reason to vote for someone, but you KNOW that lots of little AA kids and lots of little girls of every color will remember this race in particular in decades to come when others didn't make as much of an impression.

[niyad]

34. was victoria woodhull's candidacy a step forward when SHE ran for the presidency?

or carol mosely braun?

[Raksha]

35. Nancy Pelosi, first woman Speaker of the House ever,

is really a step forward for women in every sense. We can debate all year about whether Hillary would have gotten where she is without Bill or not, but clearly Nancy Pelosi got to be where she is purely on her own merits. No nepotism involved THERE!

[Matariki]

36. One of the reasons Hillary Clinton is the front runner of the party

Is because she has been the Democratic Party's biggest fund raiser for quite some time. She's articulate and smart on her own merit. I would dare say *her husband* owes as much of his success to her as she owes hers to him.

[aquart]

37. Right. All First Ladies have become two-term senators. It's no biggie.

My god, will the slime never cease oozing?

So, is this how the Hillary swiftboat will glide thru the water?

[AtomicKitten]

41. who knows

maybe SHE is the genius leader in the family