Again, if you can’t understand why that particular path is going to be problematic for some, then we’ll agree to disagree ect. It’s the same reason in a similar vein why some people can’t stand the Kennedys or why both Bush II and Bush Florida got to run for President. There’s no way Hillary would have been up there if Bill hadn’t first won.
The misogyny comes to play in the different reactions nepotism had between men and women.
I don’t get it. Hillary didn’t just leave Bill’s kitchen and run for President, she was very accomplished in her own right.
Right?
I mean, maybe some folks don’t know this. Its a benefit of the doubt I’m happy to give.
Wtf is this? Do you have any clue about her career, and what she has done?
Just a quick copy and paste from wikipedia.
She then went on to serve as a Senator and Secretary of State. Someone that Putin was worried enough about that he sabotaged our elections and boosted Trump.
But sure, she just rode in on her hubby’s coattails I guess.
Again, I’m not saying she’s nothing, and she still might have run for President, and clearly she wanted to be President. But she moved to NY state and ran for senate the day she arrived, and then was given a kind of consolation appointment by Obama when she lost against him.
I mean, she was certainly qualified but my point was that odds are without Bill having gotten there first it’s unlikely she would have had all these other opportunities to get ahead. I mean getting into the senate is hard enough. But let’s be honest this is dead horse territory. I’d vote for Hillary a thousand times again. All I was saying is that if you think her getting into the Senate in 2001, running against Obama in 2008 and getting appointed to his cabinet, and the running again, had nothing at all to do with Bill Clinton winning first, I think you’re not being completely honest with yourselves.
I mean who hasn’t become a law professor in their 20s?
You are all correct, and at the same time ignoring an obviously correct statement from @Enidigm as well.
Think back to before the nominations were in the bag. There was strong sentiment against both Clinton and Jeb! during primary season, because for many people the appearance of oligarchy of having ruling families triggered a visceral reaction.
The thought of a Bush Clinton race was deeply upsetting to many (myself included) and had fuck all to do with either as individuals or candidates.
There is no possible way you can look at what Hillary has done, academically, professionally and come out with a statement like this
It’s bullshit. The woman is a Maker, as in Makers: Women who Make America, and she would’ve been that without being married to the president.
No one has to like her, but what the hell, dismissing her successes like they’re nothing…
Did I just walk back through a portal back to the 50s where wife and her husband’s coattails were used in the same damn sentence?
I remember thinking at the time that Hilary Clinton was probably the most qualified presidential candidate I’d ever seen, so clearly that was not the issue.
To be fair, I think that’s rather common. You can have a JD by 24 and certain schools pump those pursuing that path straight into academia. Or at least what passes as academia in the legal world, with their non-peer-reviewed journals staffed by stressed-out law students.
Can we save this conversation until some time in late January?
Do you think that the opportunity for her running for President was entirely on her merits, and had nothing to do with Bill Clinton winning first? Sure I was using some annoying phrasing - the point here btw, in case we forget, was describing why Hillary weaknesses as a candidate to some people, and not judging her on some cosmic balance.
She earned her opportunity buddy, and it wasn’t because she was window dressing for a man.
How about we burn it in a dumpster fire and never look back? :)
Fair enough!
Yes please.
So soon? I was hoping for it to advance at least to the ‘Bernie would have won’ phase of the 2016 election discourse. I’m joking
I’ll make this relatively easy, if someone wants to avoid being labeled a misogynist when discussing a woman’s career… start with talking about her… career, not her looks, not her smile, or her husband’s career.
Want to know how to talk about a woman’ qualifications without looking like a misogynist, you can start by talking about her… qualifications, not her looks, not her smile, and not husband’s qualifications.
And if you want to talk about some deep rooted lie about the Democratic party, stop trying to sell Republican talking points as if they are a secret.
Let’s hope for a big jump in the next few days, post-Barrett.
And here I thought she’d have had a much easier time winning if her last name wasn’t Clinton. Go figure.