Having joined the 2008 presidential wannabe party, Hillary’s signalled her willingness to go through the public meat grinder — an evidently contagious form of self-flagellation that I truly do not comprehend.
There are aspects of Hillary, though, that I do understand (or at least I think I do), and they stem from being a woman and wife. Thus, while I don’t know what she might think when she reads that she’s merely a reflection of her husband’s glory, my gorge comes up, and I’m willing to bet hers does too:
That the Bush’s administration has been consumed by political partisanship comes as no surprise to students of history. From the time of John Quincy Adams — whose term in office marked the end of the Era of Good Feelings — the children, grandchildren and spouses of presidents engender exceptional hostility when they seek office themselves. For all their personal capacities, the latter Adams, Harrison and Bush — like Hillary Clinton — inherited their claims to the presidency. George W. Bush would not be president today were his name not George Bush, nor Hillary a senator from New York absent the Clinton name. This nation’s traditional commitment to meritocracy inclines many to reject these “unnatural” aristocrats, who never garner widespread popularity.
If there was ever an example of why women should consider keeping their maiden names, this is it.
Hillary Clinton was hardly a basking wallflower plucked from obscurity and given light and air by her magnanimous husband; she was — and is — a powerful, brilliant, and educated woman who had launched a legal career and had ambitions of her own. That she chose the supportive path many (most?) women ultimately do when the husband’s career dominates the marriage hardly remakes Hillary in Bill’s image.
Surely folks realize that marrying a man doesn’t change the woman’s genetics or neural pathways… right?
To go along with that, though, is this Jonathan Alter article about “How Hillary stacks up against Bill“:
We are only now beginning to assess how the comparisons will play out. If elected she would be the president, and he the—what? First Gentleman? First Man? Or would protocol demand they be introduced as “The president of the United States and former president”? What will happen when they are known to disagree about some issue? He would be expected to defer to her, of course, but imagine if the public thought he had the better judgment. What then? Even as Hillary and Bill Clinton take the first steps down this uncharted path, we’re back where we were 15 years ago—trying to figure out not just their personal relationship, but the qualities they share, and those they don’t.
While I’m amused at the “what do we call him” word games, it’s far less funny to imagine the press corps one day grilling Bill for his opinion on Hillary’s policy / action / speech.
Are they doing this with Laura? Okay, scratch that… but would we wonder about Elizabeth Edwards’ opinion? Of course we wouldn’t, and while Bill Clinton’s thoughts are relevant as a former president, they’d be no more or less relevant if his wife is elected than they are today.
His status would be unchanged; this really isn’t rocket science here.
It’s obvious to me that we really do need a woman president — if only because some social assumptions desperately need to be re-set.
This isn’t just some random female senator running for president. If that were the case, I would be more willing to follow you. This is the wife, which is considered by some to be family, of a former president. This is not a nephew, or brother, or son. This a case of a former president that will be living in White House at the same time. The potential for that former president to have influence on policy or decisions cannot be ignored and won’t be if the media carefully follows any similarities between Bill’s policy and Hillary’s.
Bill is already asked and gives on his own, opinions about the current president’s actions. Bush’s father has generally chosen to keep out of the light about his opinions on his son. But when you live in the White House, it would not be so easy to just hide from public view as a former president. We don’t ask Laura Bush what her thought’s on some issues are because she has so little experience outside the White House in international affairs. This will not be the case with Bill.
Basically, Bill’s previous job is way way more significant here than a simple gender argument. You should not take offense if he is asked what his opinion is. He will probably recognize when his opinion would hurt the current president/his wife’s cause and respond appropriately, like previous supportive spouses have. It should also not be a big deal to have his term compared to how hers is going. He will have been the latest Democrat before her term. Reagan and Bush are both used to compare to this president as the previous Republican terms.
Jack — I wouldn’t find it at all offensive if the issue were phrased or approached in terms of his status as the most recent Democratic president (vs. the current), for instance. There’s certainly a degree of that with Bush and prior presidencies — but the overtones here are much different.
The assumptions seem to be that a) because she’s a wife, he’ll be able to influence her, and/or b) she’s merely an extension of him (i.e., “another Clinton).
Which is garbage, imho. I’ve never had a problem distinguishing them, myself. They’re very different — and not just politically.
The concerns about dynasties are valid, though. I suspect that George W. Bush rode in partially on his father’s coattails, and some folks who trusted the father extended that to the son.
If people don’t judge Hillary on her own merits, but instead try to view her as the wifely incarnation of Bill, they’re doing themselves, and her, a disservice — and they’re likely to be extremely surprised by the reality.