Posted by
beltway girl on Monday, March 24, 2008 6:43:59 PM
Hillary says she and Bill are equal partners.
Maybe in their marriage. But they are definitely not equals when it comes to their respective candidacies.
Although you might be able to claim equality in terms of foreign policy inexperience. Bill, who'd been the governor of Arkansas for twelve years of so in total, was decidedly light in foreign policy. And Hillary, running at a time of war, has sought to make something-out-of-nothing with her vast "foreign policy," First Lady experience. Even were it something, she was married to it.
Then, she talked up the non-experience into opportunities for real experience. Again, she couldn't have done this had she not been Mrs. Bill. Since Mr. Bill had no spouse who'd formerly occupied the White House when he first ran in 1992, you still have to be thinking that this is all looking very unequal.
Then, when you look at the domestic situation, Bill had been the governor of Arkansas. Many presidents are former governors. Mrs. Bill, on the other hand, once again is First Lady, in this case, of Arkansas. Then, she's First Lady of the US, trying unsuccessfully to push through her health care reforms.
Trying desperately to ride on her significant other's coattails, she starts to look like a Hollywood Mom. It would be amusing except for the fact that she is trying to become head executive and Commander-in-Chief of a nation embroiled in an expensive, dangerous, and strategically important war overseas, and a United States that is in a recession to boot.
Then there's electability. Bill's negatives never looked like hers until he started campaigning for her. Moreover, when Mr. Bill ran, he promised potentially big returns in the South. An actual Hillary nomination carries with it big losses in the South, thanks to Camp Clinton's alienation of the Obama bloc.
So we have much that is unequal here. But Bill and Hillary do seem to be equally unashamed when it comes to spewing forth very, very large fabrications, such as he didn't sleep with that woman, and Hillary didn't support NAFTA. In terms of that last item, the release of the First Lady's organizer shows her attending several NAFTA pep rallies.
So we see that they are equally committed to historic revisionism.
Where does this rather unflattering comparison of Mr. Bill's and Mrs. Bill's political portfolios end for feminism?
Well, look back. Look way, way back to the days of actual royalty. We now have an heiress apparent to Bill's un-Democratically vacated throne. George Bush is the equivalent of a peasant revolution, temporarily interrupting the proper line of succession. (They'd probably enthusiastically agree with that last point.)
God Save the Hillary! The feminists had to go overseas to make it all happen for the sisterhood on this one.
And what are the Queen-to-Be's actual achievements? So far, her biggest achievement seems to be have been marrying a man who became president and parlaying her First Lady Days into a position as senator from the powerful state of New York. And, of course, prompting feminists to revert back to the days of monarchy.
Feminists are scampering all over the set of what National Review has referred to as the Bill and Hillary Show, but the current plot for B&H looks more like a cross between the history of the English Royal Family and "Desperate Housewives."
The Dems have few real ties to actual principle any longer, and the sceptre of Queen Hillary's fake foreign policy experience illustrates this very clearly. The Democrats are pure only in their agenda-driven politics. And now that the plug has been pulled on the coronation, one has to wonder what the Bill and Hillary Show will have done to feminism in America.
We may have to stretch and look way, way back over our shoulders to figure that one out.