Results so far:
| Yes | 25% | 67 votes | Total: 270 votes | |
| No | 75% | 203 votes |
Already a member? Log in.
Suppose for a moment it is 1992. What if the Gennifer Flowers scandal had actually hurt Bill Clinton's campaign, as it did Gary Hart's in 1984? Bill Clinton would have been forced from the race, and forced to endure sniffing derision had he attempted to run again; his wife (with her victory speeches and overbearing behavior) would have been a strange footnote to a failed campaign derailed by his own indiscretion. While she would have been acknowledged as a brilliant lawyer, she would not have had the national platform needed to make a run on the presidency now.
For whatever reason, that didn't happen, and Mrs. Clinton has spent the last 15 years carefully using her husband's popularity and ground-roots organization to her own purposes. She handpicked the New York senate seat, though she was not a resident of New York and had never lived there previously, and used her husband's charisma, contacts and organization to win it. It is the same tactic she is attempting now in her bid for the presidency, though her success is not yet to be determined.
The gender biases of forty years ago appear to play a large role in her choices for herself and her image. Mrs. Clinton has both broken and adhered to these morays; she appears to be unable to choose between one or the other. Her entire political career so far seems to be a mix of her own attempts to be accepted on her own merit while still attempting to retain her traditional status as Mr. Clinton's wife.
Her election to the senate seat in New York could have proved she can be elected, yet she seemed to think it necessary to use her husband and his organization to shore up her campaign. Her current campaign follows the same pattern. It is a sad manipulation of the feminist ideals many say she represents.
Learn more about this author, Sarah Fulkes.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.