From John Hawkins writing at Townhall:
If a CEO of a fortune 500 company were to retire, would anyone seriously consider his wife to be an adequate replacement simply because she was married to him when he ran the company? What about a Super Bowl winning football team? What do you think the reaction of their fans would be if their coach’s wife was being seriously discussed as his replacement?
It sounds ridiculous, doesn’t it? Yet, Hillary Clinton has practically been anointed by the press and the punditocracy as our next President, despite the fact that her run at the presidency is almost entirely based on being Bill Clinton’s wife.
And yet we are seriously considering giving the Presidency to someone whose major choice in life was to marry a man like Bill Clinton.
Please explain.
November 17th, 2007 at 9:43 am
Well she is a senator, which makes her as qualified as any of the other candidates.
November 17th, 2007 at 10:06 am
Personally I support Obama, but this “question” is such an obvious Republican smear that I couldn’t help responding.
1) Hillary Clinton is a talented attorney who had a very successful career prior to becoming First Lady.
2) As First Lady, Hillary Clinton was involved to an unprecedented level in advising her husband on policy, especially healthcare reform, but on many other subjects as well. We know this to be true because Republicans have been bitching, whining, crying, grousing, grumping and otherwise complaining about Hillary’s participation in her husband’s administration.
Republicans can’t have their cake and eat it too: either Hillary was involved in Bill Clinton’s administration, in which case she has relevant experience, or she wasn’t really all that involved, in which case every attack they have made on her over the years based on her involvement is now shown to have been a lie.
3. Hillary Clinton won election to the U.S. Senate in 2000. In her six years in the Senate she was acknowledge to be a talented legislator and leader. Hillary Clinton was re-elected in a landslide in 2006 making her the “favorite daughter” of New York State, one of the most populous states with the most electoral votes.
4. Yes, Hillary Clinton is married to Bill Clinton, an extremely likeable and popular man who left office with an approval rate of 65%! Yeah, like that’s not going to help her.
Doug, it’s a silly question designed to appeal to the small and shrinking group of people who hate the Clintons. The Clintons’ reputations are on rise again, thanks in no small part to the complete incompetence of George W. Bush. Compared to George W. Bush, the Clintons’ time in office is coming to be seen as a golden age.
November 17th, 2007 at 10:10 am
1. Being a successful attorney in private practice is not a measure of one’s capability of being President.
2. You mean like her failed health care idea. Oh wait, Bill says that was his fault now.
3. A Democrat winning election in New York is about as impressive as Stalin winning re-election in 1950.
4. And Mamie Eisehower was married to Ike, who left office with similarly high ratings. She wasn’t qualified to be President either.
November 17th, 2007 at 10:35 am
I support Hillary, and it is primarily due to her knowledge and experience involved with the presidency, although not direct.
The presidency has a learning curve, even for the most qualified of candidates. Almost all presidents have take time to get up to speed. This curve will be cut shorter due to what was learned by the Clintons during thier first two years in office.
Also, I can’t help but believing that there is a desire for redemption. Hillary learned from the health care failure, and it is rare we get a second chance in life. This may be that rare opportunity. I also believe that there is redemption for Bill also - his presidency was one of missed opportunity due to the time wasted with the Monica fiasco.
My only fear is that Hillary will stop using Bill for advice, in a way like GW Bush seemed to avoid his father.
November 17th, 2007 at 11:54 am
“3. A Democrat winning election in New York is about as impressive as Stalin winning re-election in 1950.”
Gov. Pataki was a Stalinist?
Sen. D’Amato was a Stalinist?
Mayors Giuliani and Bloomberg are Stalinists?
The only thing worse that the stupid Republican attacks are the stupider defenses of those tattacks.
November 17th, 2007 at 12:28 pm
Matt,
You can take a joke, right ?
Seriously, though, other than being married to Bill Clinton and spending six years in the Senate what it is about Hillary Clinton that qualifies her to be President ?
November 17th, 2007 at 1:13 pm
She is relying on big money in order to get elected. This is why you shouldn’t bother voting for her. She’s in the corporation’s back pockets.
The only thing wrong with our country now is political corruption facilitated by these corporations. It’s not incompetence. It’s not anything else. Special Interests.
If you were smart the only people you’d pay attention to are Ron Paul, Mike Gravel, Dennis Kucinich, and Barack Obama (although he focuses more on image than on actual content).
Any of the others ones are business-as-usual.
November 17th, 2007 at 7:06 pm
I want a woman in the white house, but I seriously don’t care who’s in the whitehouse as long as they are intelligent and ready to run this country! Don’t vote for Hillary! Or Obama! (No I’m not being sexist or racist. I just don’t like them)
November 18th, 2007 at 2:17 am
That is a massive over-simplification of both her career and his presidency. Would I imagine a wife capable of doing her husbands job? The criteria of the answer has nothing to do with her marital status. But if I knew her to be among her husbands cheif advisors, that would certainly give her a bit of a bump.