Would she still be in the position she is?

Interesting concept, so you're saying if Bill Clinton had married another man, and then that man ran, would he still be in the same position as Hillary.

I say no.

Definitely not.

Well that's a hard question but if she wasn't married to Bill Clinton I couldn't imagine she would be.

So is Bill Clinton the only reason people are even thinking about voting for her?

If she was any other woman running, would anyone care?

I laugh that Eagle completely ignores this thread, when his completely just as idiotic thread he defends.

So she has nothing to offer except those.

I rest my case.

Think of Bill as the spotlight operator, without him, Hillary remains in the shadows, with no one bothering to see what she stands for or who she is.

Well, we have to assume that some women are voting for her only because she is a woman (and in fact, polls show this), so if women broke for her in the same % as men, then no, she would be losing by a very large margin.

Same thing as the Obama thread. Yes it's true that some women are voting for her because she is a woman. But how many men are not voting for her because of the same reason?

Based on CNN's exit poll, 27% of voters in Mississippi tonight said gender was a factor in deciding who to vote for. Of those 27% almost 70% voted for Obama...

Good point. I'm sure there are some men who will refuse to vote for her simply for that reason.

There's reverse sexism going on too. 93% of female Democrats will vote for Clinton against McCain. 79% will vote for Obama against McCain. They BOTH receive 84% of male voters against McCain. 96% of black Democrats will vote for Obama. 93% will vote for Clinton. This is according to a recent Pew Poll.



http://people-press.org/reports/display ... ageID=1254

Unfortunately for Hillary though, she was a polarizing figure while Bill was President, I alot of people just don't like her.

Every women voting for her because she is women, I am sure I can find a women who hates her.

I also think its important to remember, women vote for women because the expect that Hillary is more likely to push for issues for women.

All of the advances made at he University I work for to help women get for example better child care coverage/packages was fought for by women. I think we need remember what drives people to vote affirmatively based on race.

Hillary is fierce. Tranny, hot-mess fierce. That's why I'm voting for her. Period.

Yes, exactly what this country needs.

A tranny.

Rudy! Rudy! Rudy!

and why not??

only reason clinton is where she is at is because of her last name.

She wasn't exactly dead weight when Bill ran for office. She may benefit from his accomplishments, but she definitely played a part in his success too.

So the women are sexist because they don't vote for a man...to vote for another man? haha

See this is my problem with these two threads. It makes a lot of assumptions, generalizations, and oversimplifies issues that are more complex.

Not voting for Obama does not make a woman automatically sexist in the same way that someone who does not vote for Obama does not make them automatically racist or a man who does not for Clinton sexist, either. Like I said people are ignoring the fact that for most people a vote for Clinton or Obama actually means a vote supporting that candidate, not against the other. Hillary Clinton has a long history of supporting women's rights both at home and abroad...so of course it makes sense that her support with women would be stronger. In the same way that she draws strong support from minorities...

I like how columnist Ezra Klein put it:

Obama is not a woman, nor a white man. He's who he is. To say that if he were different, things would be different is to say nothing at all. As a white woman, maybe he would have led a military coup and established himself dictator. Who knows!? Hell, if he were a slightly less inspiring speaker, or had an off-night at the 2004 Democratic National Convention, he wouldn't be in this position either. Similarly, if Hillary Clinton were a black man, it's unlikely that she would have been a national political figure for the past 15 years, as it's unlikely that she would have married another man from Arkansas, and unlikely that the country would have put an interracial, same sex couple in the White House. But so what? This is an election, not Marvel's "What If?" series.

I think her being the former first lady helped a lot in getting her nominated to the Senate in the first place, and it helped lay a lot of the seeds for her presidential bid over the past few years.

I don't think her campaign would be much different with the Clinton association. But it wouldn't have happend were it not for that association to begin with.

If Clinton is not a woman, she would have already lost in a decisive manner. She has taken a shellacking among men in almost all the primaries thus far, and only the feminist vote ensured her survival. You folks might not have worked on the campaign trail, but I can fully attest to the militancy of old feminists in their quest for a woman president at all costs. In many cases, I have been taken aback by the kind of language and behavior these people are capable of. When they talk about Clinton, it's like Bilbo when he sees the Ring; for a split second, these stately elderly women transform into drunk teenagers blind with suicidal rage.