Dowd, in today’s New York Times (article only available-fucking fascists- to Times Select members):
“Hillary has been wielding Bill as a bludgeon on support and money. If you were ever behind him, you’d better fall into line behind her. But doesn’t that undermine her presentation of herself as a self-reliant feminist aiming to be the first Madame President? If you can only win by leaning so heavily on your man for your muscle, isn’t that a benign form of paternalism?”
The short answer: No, it isn’t.
The long answer: Why are you glib? Do you think you’re clever? Okay, so your argument might hold some water. It might. If you were talking about anybody other than one of the most popular and charismatic Americans ever. And when your husband is Bill Clinton, I’m sorry, but you’re going to be connected to him, and he’s going to campaign with you, and this doesn’t make Hillary any less of a feminist, whether you agree with her politics and personality or not. As first lady, Hillary was involved in her husband’s administration, much more closely than others before and since. So would it not follow logically that her campaign for the presidency would be in part a continuation of the policies and goals they pursued together from 1992 to 2000? I mean, duh?
Maybe you think Hillary sucks, and that she has a history of kissing conservative ass, and that her run for office smacks of a dynastic element we’d like to see absent from American politics, at least where the presidency’s concerned. Maybe you think she shouldn’t be running at all. Wev. But campaigning with one’s family is de rigueur. And when one’s family includes William Jefferson fucking Clinton, you bring him along to your rallies because when he waves his chubby little hand it makes people smile and long for the days when we had a president who could complete the Tuesday crossword. So, like, get over it and stop waving the ‘you’re not a real feminist’ flag around, because it’s beginning to seem like you just can’t think of anything better to say.