Without Bill, Hillary would be . . . ?

[DangerDave921]

Personally, I think that without Bill, Hillary would be a virtual nobody. Sure, she'd be a successful attorney somewhere, maybe on the board of a couple companies or foundations, but that's it. She sure wouldn't be running for president, and the leading contender. It's all about who you know.

Having a popular ex-president stump for you is a massive advantage to Hillary. She draws in those who love Bill, and it's almost immaterial what her personal qualifications or views are. I would say that Hillary is simply riding Bill's coat tails, but that would be demeaning. :)

Let's see . . . what other recent president wasn't really that qualified but was elected based on a famous relative having been president?

[donheld]

1. Without Hillary, Bill may have turned out to be nothing

Who's to say?

[havocmom]

2. Agree

but advise you duck! ;)

[mtnsnake]

3. President Rodham. nt

[mondo joe]

4. Without Hillary would Bill be anywhere?

And then people wonder why older women are supporting Hillary with these sort of BS statements out there.

[Little Star]

21. What you said!

[mondo joe]

25. I 100% appreciate older women seeing this kind of shit and voting for Hillary

come hell or high water.

[Little Star]

27. How'd you know I was older?.........

:rofl:

[mondo joe]

32. Didn't mean you.

:-)

But glad to know you "get it" too.

[Captain Hilts]

5. Senator from Illinois. nt

[xultar]

8. ...

:evilgrin:

[goldcanyonaz]

6. President Rodham. Duh!

[Dogmudgeon]

7. Without a Man, a Woman would be ... ?

"Let's see ... what other recent president wasn't really that qualified but was elected based on a famous relative having been president?"

Franklin Delano Roosevelt?

The same people hate him as hate Hillary. But he did pretty well.

--p!

[Captain Hilts]

37. And people used TR, jr's campaign buttons from his failed NY Gov race for FDR's NYGov race.

[Colobo]

9. You wouldn't know who she is.

[rinsd]

10. She was on the cover of Life magazine at age 18.

She was working on the Watergate legal counsel and then got involved in McGovern's race.

She would have at least been a Senator.

[stellanoir]

11. Tammy Wynette

kidding

Talk about a rhetorical question. . .?

Conventional wisdom has always been that it's not what you know, it's who you know.

This is no revelation really.

[MADem]

12. Finishing up her second Presidential term, overseeing an unprecedented era of peace and prosperity?

You seem to forget that Attorney RODHAM started out on the WATERGATE COMMISSION. She helped to initiate the IMPEACHMENT of Richard Nixon, which he avoided by resigning.

She put her career on hold for her husband.

Yeah, she'd be a 'virtual nobody.' Sure.

[DangerDave921]

19. Helped initiate?

Hillary helped initiate the impeachment of Nixon? Can you provide a link to that? I was always under the impression she was a very very junior member of a legal team during that era.

[MADem]

26. What do you think the fucking Watergate Commission did? Serve tea?

And do you have difficulty with the definition of the word HELPED?

You don't need a link, you need a course in comprehension and an attitude adjustment.

[Alexander]

31. Hillary was a very junior member and had virtually no role in Nixon resigning.

I see you don't let facts get in the way of a good argument.

[MADem]

36. You need a reading tutor too.

I see you don't let your inability to comprehend the written word get in the way of being a snarky and inaccurate scold.

[DangerDave921]

34. Pardon me?

Sorry, but your post is very rude. By saying that Hillary helped to initiate the impeachment, it clearly implies she played a substantive role in the actual decision-making to initiate the impeachment. You know that's not true. She was in the background doing legal research on procedures.

And on DU, it is always appropriate to ask for a link when someone makes a claim that appers to be exaggerated.

[MADem]

35. You need to read for comprehension.

My post "implies" nothing. And it certainly was NOT "exaggerated." I can't help it if you have comprehension challenges. Ask for a dictionary at your next birthday.

She was a member of a Commission that helped usher Tricky Dick out of office. I did not state that she "played a substantive role"--YOU just did.

Are you one of these Rocket Scientists who thinks you can get into people's heads and ASSUME what they think or mean?

You need to get over yourself. And if you think plain speaking is 'rude' when someone crawls up your ass and tries to twist your words to suggest meaning that you didn't articulate, well, you need to grow a thicker skin.

See, at DU, it's also appropriate to ASK if you are unclear, and not ACCUSE people of "implying" when there's no evidence of that in the original post.

[DangerDave921]

41. Comprehension

Your original comment was that Hillary "helped to initiate the impeachment." If you did NOT mean to suggest that she played a substantive role, then what the heck is your point in making such a comment in the first place?

By your definition of "help", the guy who serviced the copying machine on which legal documents were copied also helped to initiate impeachment.

[MADem]

42. Yes, COMPREHENSION. Try it sometime..

Why must you insist that I am "suggesting" anything? Why don't you, instead of carping, whining and nitpicking, do your own fucking research if you want to "prove" something here, something that I didn't even "suggest" or "infer."

She was ASKED to join that Commission; this was after she had graduated law school and had served in at least one internship in DC--I doubt they asked her because she made great coffee or could cheerily fetch pizza in high heels. There were a few dozen people on it. All of them worked hard. No one, save you, seems to want to "infer" that I am "inferring" anything beyond that she WAS A MEMBER of that Commission.

And if you think her role was as insignificant as the guy servicing the copying machine, you have a shrunken and inadequate understanding of the duties of the commission or recent American history. That's YOUR problem, not mine.

Edit/typo

[DangerDave921]

43. I am not

disputing that she was a MEMBER. But your original comment didn't just say she was a member. You said she helped to initiate impeachment, which is a brazen mischaracterization of what her role was. That's all I'm saying. She did not help to initiate impeachment. So your original comment was flat-out wrong and was clearly meant to convey a level of accomplishment that she did not earn.

[MADem]

45. It is not a 'blatant mischaracterization.' So stop perpetuating a blatant falsehood.

The GOP were tittering with glee that many of the impeachment protocols that SHE prepared were dusted off in preparation to stick it to her husband.

That's not keeping the coffee hot or unjamming the copier.

My original comment was NOT "flat-out wrong" but your effort to try to turn Attorney Rodham into the errand girl is pretty "interesting." I could make all sorts of "assumptions" about you, if I so chose.

I'll refrain for two reasons--I don't presume to be able to read your mind, such as it is, and I don't really care, based on your disingenous statements thus far, about what you think, anyway.

[DangerDave921]

46. not errand girl

I agree she was a member of the commission and was doing legal research into protocol and procedures. Never said she was an errand girl. She was an attorney, one year out of law school. So we agree on that.

But please explain how she "helped to initiate the impeachment."

[MADem]

48. What do you think the commission did? Crochet doilies?

This is getting old. You apparently don't even know the ROLE of the Commission, and you've got the stones to be arguing with me about this shit!!!

:rofl:

You had me fooled. I actually thought I was talking to someone who knew the subject matter! You're just another testy advocate for another candidate!!

:rofl:

[DangerDave921]

56. We are done

I've given you multiple opportunities to back up your original claim that Hillary helped to initiate the impeachment. So far, you've done nothing but scream repeatedly that she was on the commission. So I guess I can fairly conclude that you have no evidence that she personally did anything to help "initiate the impeachment." You should be careful in making broad exaggerated claims because someone is going to ask you to back them up. And you just look silly when you can't do that.

[Jai4WKC08]

69. Let me try

The commission was in the process of initiating impeachment. She was a member of the commission. Hence, she either helped initiate the impeachment, she did nothing at all, or she impeded the effort.

There's no reason at all to think she worked against impeachment. So that leaves the other two alternatives.

You seem to think that since she was fresh out of law school, she did nothing at all. But that really doesn't make a lot of sense. Why would she have been a member if not expected to participate? You need more evidence before you can make the claim.

Unless you think experience is that singularly important, of course....

[MADem]

76. We sure are!

I've given you multiple opportunities to cease being DELIBERATELY obstreperous, and you continued to play the clueless questioner. Then, you have the ruby red stones to toss the 'exaggerating' accusation--when I did NOTHING of the sort--because you keep wanting to push some point I didn't make--perhaps to push down Clinton and elevate your favorite?

You're trying to fire for effect, but you couldn't hit the broad side of a barn at ten paces.

You can do your own research. Start with Bernstein's book.

[robbedvoter]

13. Or maybe he wouldn't have became POTUS without her help. You seem to miss

the whole partnership concept - you know, 2 strong people - instead of strong man & photogenic wife.
yet another clarion call for women everywhere to come vote for Hillary!

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

14. Headmistress at a reform school for wayward girls.

The kind who says, "We're doing this for your own good."

[Orangepeel]

15. well, you're entitled to your opinion. Your reverse crystal ball is as good as anyone's

I think that they are both brilliant and ambitious and have worked together as a team for years. Hillary, in particular, is very practical, and, given the times they grew up in and Bill's natural charisma, it would be a no-brainer that Bill would be the frontman for the team.

My reverse crystal ball says that it is just as likely that Bill would be a virtual nobody without Hillary. She's the disciplined one. Without her, he might have lost the battle with his self indulgent tendencies and ended up wasting his natural gifts.

[DangerDave921]

17. Only Sound Response

Yes, I would credit Hillary with reining in Bill's more self-destructive tendencies. Good point.

[enid602]

16. Hillary

Bill was a peacemaker, someone who could navigate the country (in a compassionate way) during the conservative revolution. Obama reminds me a lot of Bill Clinton. Hillary, on the otherhand is demanding, potentially abrasive and very direct. She's all business, and I don't think the American public can accept less in a candidate this time around. I saw her in PHX last night; the scrappiness is still in her.

[Occam Bandage]

18. Senator Rodham.

[SaveElmer]

20. President already...nt

[Proud2BAmurkin]

22. Former President Clinton campaigning for Obama

[Captain Hilts]

24. Two consecutive presidents from Illinois? The country would never stand for it! nt

[DJ13]

23. The Rose lawfirm would be the Rose & Rodham lawfirm

And she would be chasing ambulances.

(Just kidding.)

[lutefisk]

28. "Without Bill, Hillary would be . . ."

...somewhere other than where she is right now. And without her, Bill Clinton would have had a different path through life.

She is where she is because this is where her life has taken her. If Bill Clinton had not been part of her life she would not be running for POTUS against Obama and Edwards and McCain and Romney.

I just don't understand this belief people have that she has been destined to run for POTUS since birth. This isn't magic - it's chance and circumstance. Sure, she's smart and ambitious, but so are millions of other people. Is she the best candidate? That's all that matters at this point.

[Alexander]

29. Working at Wal-Mart.

And still busting unions.

[RaleighNCDUer]

30. To be fair, she's a hell of a lot more qualified the the current resident

but then, who isn't?

Bill being AK AG had a lot to do with her getting on with Rose Law firm. Bill being Gov, and her being with Rose, had a lot to do with here getting on the board of WalMart. Bill being ex-pres had a lot to do with her getting elected in NY.

She MIGHT have been just as successful without Bill, but we'll never know, will we.

[Perry Logan]

33. And Obama would be nothing without Reagan.

[MADem]

38. Or Rezko--his longest and oldest supporter, who had very deep pockets over the years. NT

[emilyg]

39. Good one. Heehee

[bpeale]

40. just to complete the thought...

<<It's all about who you know.>>

and who you blow. don't forget that part.

[Beacool]

44. Without Hilary's guidance and discipline Bill wouldn't have been president.

Hillary would probably have been in the senate for years by now if she hadn't put her personal goals aside to move to Arkansas to be with her then boyfriend.

If you really think that Hillary would have been nobody without Bill, then you know very little about her early history.

[Vinca]

47. Without Bill, Hillary would be running for president of Smith College. nt

[mod mom]

49. a hat check clerk at an ice rink?

[electron_blue]

50. I'm convinced she'd be farther along than she is now (w/o Bill)

[Sparkly]

51. President already.

Or a former president. Who knows? I don't buy that he helped her along; she helped him along, and her move to Arkansas derailed her potential in Washington.

[Maribelle]

52. Eleanor Roosevelt would totally disagree

100%


And if she were a person of today, why I bet Eleanor would be one of Hillary's biggest fans - such as Maya Angelou is a big fan of Hillary's.

[smoogatz]

53. Evidently you haven't heard the joke.

Bill and Hillary are out for a liesurely drive through their old Arkansas stomping grounds. They pass a run-down gas station with a sign out front that says "Arlo's Gas 'n Go."

"You know," Hillary says, "back in high school, I dated the guy that runs that gas station."

Bill grinned. "You used to date that guy? Just think—if you'd married him instead of me, you'd probably be living above Arlo's Gas n' Go right now."

"Bill, Bill, Bil," Hillary says, shaking her head. "If I'd married Arlo, you'd be pumping gas and he'd be president."

[maddiejoan]

54. She'd have probably

been our 42nd President. President Hillary Rodham

[calico1]

55. She'd be doing just fine.

And thanks for yet another sexist remark. That really wants me to switch from Clinton to Obama. Not...

[DangerDave921]

57. Sexist?

How is my OP sexist? Sexism is the belief that women -- as a whole -- are inferior to men. I never said that, and I don't believe that. I said that HILLARY (note I am talking about her personally) would not be a sitting US Senator and the leading candidate for president without having the name recognition of Bill. Her exposure in the public eye for many years as the first lady, and the benefit of having Bill stump for her, is a massive advantage to her.

Women are not inferior to men. Many women have risen in the ranks due to their own accomplishments. Hillary has benefitted hugely by the person she was married to. Different case altogether.

[Maribelle]

60. Oh great. Now you've gone and made yourself look even more sexist.

Without attempting to sound too dogmatic, perhaps you might want to update your concept of what sexism is all about.

[DangerDave921]

63. OK, you tell me

What is sexism? Can a woman not be criticized without it being called sexist?

Can you deny that Hillary benefits greatly by the name recognition that comes from being first lady for many years? That she is benefitted by having a popular ex-president campaign for her? That a lot of people like her because they like Bill?

[mondo joe]

66. When you ignore a woman's actual qualifications, talent and

achievements to reduce her to just a wife, you're guilty of sexism.

[DangerDave921]

68. Have to disagree

I have not ignored her talents, etc. I'm only saying she's gotten a huge benefit from being First Lady, from having Bill campaign for her, and from having the spill-over from Bill's popularity. I think to ignore those very real benefits is short-sighted and willfully blind.

Does Hillary have her own strengths and talents? Of course. Would she be the leading candidate for president without Bill? No way. So in a large measure, her connection with Bill has led her to where she is today.

[mondo joe]

70. You can disagree. I hope you keep pushing your line of reasoning and

I hope Obama does - it's good for Hillary's vote count. :-)

[DangerDave921]

74. Not a matter of votes

I believe Hillary will be the nominee 100% No doubt in my mind. So I'm not trying to influence votes either way (not that such an effort on DU would have any practical effect in the world anyway).

Edwards has zero hope of winning. Obama had a tiny chance but he will become marginalized as Bill and Hillary dominate the news cycle and when they vaguely insinuate that Obama is the "black" candidate.

[mondo joe]

61. Keep telling yourself that. And keep asking questions like this - it's great at

getting out the Clinton vote among women.

[DangerDave921]

64. How?

Are you saying that women will vote for Hillary based on her being a woman, rather than on her policies and credentials?

[mondo joe]

65. Nope.

I'm saying Hillary's credentials are fine, and there's not a world of difference between any of the 3 candidates - but if you want to push more sexism, it will be good incentive for women (and some men) to respond with a show of support.

Look at NH.

[DangerDave921]

72. So you agree

That people will vote based on sympathy and support for her because she's a woman. One would think in this enlightened age of non-sexism that you espouse, that such thinking would not exist.

Is it sexist to vote for Hillary because she's a woman?

[mondo joe]

75. I'll try to explain in a way that helps you understand.

"That people will vote based on sympathy and support for her because she's a woman."

No. In a field of equally qualified candidates, a variety of factors play into final choice. When one of those candidates is unfairly attacked, some voters will show support for that candidate with their vote, not out of sympathy but to teach the offending assholes a lesson.

"One would think in this enlightened age of non-sexism that you espouse, that such thinking would not exist."

Since your thinking is typically off-base that's not an issue.

Don't confuse shoving something in a jerk's face with sympathy.

[AtomicKitten]

58. Working at Dairy Queen?

[Jed Dilligan]

59. Really? I think she would be a CEO

and a Republican.

[Madam Mossfern]

62. The bottom line is that she *is* a primary candidate for POTUS

And the issue is whether she could do a good job and has the same values/agenda as you do. How she got here is not relevant. I wish we would all take the higher ground in this election. I'm an Edwards supporter and I have felt in the past that I "could not stand Hillary". I have changed my views a bit after seeing the debates and I am impressed with her nuts and bolts knowledge of how things work. I still have reservations about her allegiance and her overall agenda, but questioning her ability and her qualifications is not the issue. She is as qualified as anyone running.

My issue is people supporting her because she is a woman and because she is married to Bill.

[Azathoth]

67. A well-paid, completely unknown corporate lawyer who voted Republican n/t

[sandnsea]

71. Presidency is no place for nepotism n/t

[undeterred]

73. She would have been president by the year 1992.