Saturday, December 22, 2007

Hillary's Co-Presidency, Not!

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!

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

Hillary's greatest problem is that she is not milk-toast enough to stand quietly by the side of her man, and be ignored.

Why should she?

In Christian culture, there is little room for female assertiveness even if it exist, as women, like children, were to be seen not heard. But that is of a different day and time, before women were educated.

Hillary has the best education that America can offer. How can she be expected to remain the silent woman when so many are injecting themselves into the mainstream of American thought?

No one has answered this question, and debate is centered, more or less, as to whether she should speak at all, much less with her own voice.

Schooled and conditioned to his voice for so many years, many would now rob her of her own voice, but NH didn't, and NH she acknowledges with allowing her to identify her own voice.

Females, nor males, were meant to be robotic, the mere reflection of their mates.

Whether Hillary is likeable or not should not depend upon how well she conforms to the perscription of women unwilling to make waves because they mimic their husbands, or refrain from dissent - in public.

That Hillary is unique as a person is to her credit, not distain for her as an individual. Women need not wear burkas in America, or so we thought. If Bill wasn't willing to prefer, why should the public?

Unbelievably there are still many men in America who do require that public protection. Bill was not one of them.

Whether they deserve, by that estimation, praise or disdain, depends upon the philosophy of the judge, the person making the speculation and the accusation.