Politics Hillary: Coasting on the Clinton Name?
posted by on January 22 at 10:50 AM
DailyKos knocks down the argument, from a recent LA Times Op-Ed (and, in the past, from DailyKos itself), that there’s some sort of parallel in the way that Sen. Hillary Clinton and President George W. Bush have both benefited from their last names.
There’s a one argument made in the article — one that’s been made many times in posts on this site — that sticks in my craw.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 is a comparison that’s unfair in the extreme. George W. Bush loafed through life and depended on his name and family connections to get him out of trouble. Most importantly, G. H. W. Bush owes not one moment of his career to the help of his son.
On the other hand, Hillary Clinton was on her own a capable, high-powered lawyer with nearly unlimited potential. She chose to partner herself with her husband, and worked with him to raise his profile and possibilities. Would those “she wouldn’t be senator” folks be as comfortable if this was turned on its head: Bill Clinton would never have been president without a wife named Hillary.
Personally, even though I like Bill and Hillary in person, I'd be glad if both the Clinton and Bush dynasties ended, to never return.
Unfortunately I think Kos missed the mark here. The real problem with the Op-Ed is not that it fails to address the distinction between "earned" and "unearned" nepotism or family advantage. It's that the comparison is just plain sexist.
By equating HRC and W as nepotistic opportunists, the Op-Ed implicitly relies on an outrageously sexist assumption about married women. That is: wives are like wastrel sons -- extensions of the man (husband, father) "responsible" for them both.
Kos only hints at the sexism by rhetorically inverting the accusation against HRC from HRC would not be a senator, if not for Bill to "Bill Clinton would never have been president without a wife named Hillary." But Kos never really follows up on it.
The question of implicit and explicit sexism is going to be the critical issue facing HRC's campaign. Kos missed a real opportunity in failing to take that one head on.
I'd be proud to have gone on in life with a name like Luther. You know be linked with that guy Martin Luther King. His kids got his last name to, and I'm sure they don't mind the benifit in being related to a great man. Whats in a name. Nothing but the spirit that carries it. Maybe when we are born our Angels that protect us are named. We don't have a name really until we are angels ourselves.
Did everyone vote for me because of my name or how much cuter I am. There were lots of great squirrels before me.
From the tone of the mainstream media, voters and other pundits, I don't believe the surnames or nepotism are factors at all in either case.
@4 - you mean, like Foamy?
The difference is that Rodham Clinton actually works for her country and is NOT coasting by on her name.
monhydt ibtegcxwp vpxynmes tiqxlyd kgdfv hncouyzjd fogzlyvr
Comments Closed
In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).