Lowell has a very good post up and an excellent discussion follows in the comment section about Hillary's latest claim that she and Bill shared a co-presidency.
Actually, there is a history and precedence to that boast on Hillary's part. When Bill Clinton first began his candidacy in 1992, the two of them appeared on 60 Minutes and said that voters would get "two for one." The implication even then was that Hillary would play an active role in her husband's presidency if he won. She was supposed to be a selling point with Democratic feminists.
But it fell flat. Women standing behind their men was exactly the role that women were trying to overcome then. Many progressive women questioned Hillary's decision to forego her own career to be a helper to her husband.
A good feminist case can be made now that a woman should not trade on her husband's success to boost her own career. Real feminism should be about women succeeding on their own merits not being either the little woman behind the throne or about getting a boost from a successful spouse.
I'm not opposed to Hillary. I think she is capable and strong. But depending on your spouse to win is not the feminist message that I want to see sent to young women. What it says is marry right and attach yourself to your husband's rising star and you too can succeed.
How about Hillary running on her own considerable merits. It's not like anybody else running has any greater experience that she has - and that's true in either party. She's not running against an incumbent. So her husband's success should not be an issue.
She needs to impress on her own merits and credentials. She has them!