<p>I don’t second guess for one minute why Hillary chose to stay with Bill, knowing how time and time again he was unfaithful. What I do mind is her lying about his affairs (Gennifer Flowers) and even seeking to destroy them (Kathleen Willey and Paula Jones). She did exct concessions for her willingness to not just overlook his infidelities but also actively seek to cover them up: she pushed hard on her secretive health care package, blind to his warnings that it would not pass.<br>
So, no, I do not fault her for being a victim of her husband’s infidelities or for staying with him. No one who claims to be battle scarred and tested can be cast as a victim. She is not.</p>
<p>I don’t know if some of my previous posts were misunderstood. I simply don’t know why Hillary stayed with Bill. I can only look inward and ask myself what I would do, and I ‘know’ that I would forgive and stay in the marriage as long as the love (and I guess commitment) was still intact. I cannot imagine staying in a marriage for political calculus. But then that is me. I have never actually been in that situation myself so I don’t really know how I would react.</p>
<p>Okay, well, this is going to be a rant about American views of marriage, forgive me!</p>
<p>I agree with the people above who don’t criticize her for staying in the marriage. In the first place, the United States is one of the few places where infidelity is viewed as such an unforgivable offense. There are a lot of places where it is tolerated on both sides. We have such a rigid view of what marriage is supposed to be and there is seldom room for a marriage staying together for the sake of something besides romantic love. And, I think that is a shame because I think that people can co-exist quite peacefully often and maintain intact families for valuable economic, social, familial reasons: giving their children the peace and security of one home, the “economy of scale” of being able to pool financial resources, the comfort of routine and family history–it just seems to me that it isn’t fair to criticize someone for making such a personal choice. </p>
<p>I remember reading lots of articles about Hillary and Bill before she became a candidate. I concluded from what I read that they were great intellectual partners, had very similar goals and ambitions, and actually that they were great good friends from their days in law school. I think she has suffered a lot but I also think she has gained a lot from their partnership and they have worked awfully hard at it, it seems to me. I don’t know what went into the equation of staying together, and it could have been for purely political reasons, but in a way I think she is to be respected for not taking the conventional path of divorce. </p>
<p>Shoot, you’re going to make me move to Hillary’s camp ;).</p>
<p>Maybe Bill really does love Hillary—at least in as much as he is capable of “loving” any woman. I’ve read before that there actually is a great deal of love and respect within that marriage. It’s been said they understand each other completely. They find one another more interesting than any other single individual. They each understand the other’s raging ambition. They are each other’s best friend and intellectual equal… Somehow, I believe all that may well be true. Their’s is an unconventional marriage, to be sure. But it appears to work—for them! And at the end of the day, that’s all that counts.</p>
<p>I do believe that Bill may prove to be as much of a political liability, as a political asset to Hillary. As most of you know, I am not a Clinton supporter. But it has nothing to do with the fact that she chose to stay with Bill. Her reasons for staying are her own, and not my business. </p>
<p>One of the things that I just can’t get past is the idea of her Presidency being a joint endeavor. There’s no way (based on my own observations) that Bill will take a back seat to his wife’s role as Commander in Chief. His ego simply won’t allow it. They may as well move another desk into the Oval Office for him to occupy full time, if she’s elected. He will be Co-President, and well able to defend that arrangement because of his “8 years” of prior experience in the job. She will not actually be “The First Woman President”. She will be “The First Woman Co-President”. Them’s the facts. And I’m just not comfortable with them. Of course, there are others who view this as the best possible arrangement, especially those who retrospectively view the Bill Clinton White House with rose colored glasses (a feat not so difficult–granted—when compared to the disaster of the Bush White House;)). I just think we can do better…At least I pray to God that we can.</p>
<p>I think Barack and Michelle may be co-Presidents too :). BUT I don’t think we have to worry about that with Cindy and John. I agree that a lot of people are voting for Hillary precisely because they liked Bill for all his shortcomings and secretly think he is really the candidate! And who knows–maybe he is. I know that when I would talk to Hillary supporters when canvassing over the last few weeks, Bill’s name would always come up and people would say how good things were under him.</p>
<p>I may be wrong but I just think Hillary is an awfully long shot right now. Her own superdelegates are starting to desert her, the big unions are endorsing Barack–this time enough in advance of the contest to make a difference…</p>
<p>patient, I understand your point about the “American” view of marriage. Even if Hillary stayed on with Bill for non-traditional reasons, and even if Hillary doesn’t mind if Bill is ‘unfaithful’ again, I don’t have a problem with that. Her marital affairs are her own personal business and I honestly don’t factor that into my assessment of her character (or his).</p>
<p>I agree that there is nothing inherently wrong in staying in a marriage for matters of convenience rather than love. As you say:</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>But then here’s a follow-up question:</p>
<p>Wouldn’t then the economics of scale also apply to non-traditional arrangements such as polygamy? </p>
<p>How is ‘marriage’ any different from having a ‘roommate’?</p>
<p>I stress again- I am perfectly happy with non-traditional marriage (and strongly support gay marriage). But what I am trying to explore is what are the limits of calling something a ‘marriage’.</p>
<p>Maybe we should start a separate thread on this question :). But you’re right, maybe new words need to be created, etc. Part of my point is just that in America, it seems that we have redefined what marriage is that is very different from the rest of the world. </p>
<p>I have been a family lawyer for many years and my whole life is immersed in the marriage stories of people, so it is something that I think about, on some level, virtually every day! Also, my mother was European and I lived in France, and my clientele is very culturally diverse since we are in California, so all in all I have just heard so many different points of view.</p>
<p>By the way, I do agree wholeheartedly with the criticism of her treatment of the other women in one of the posts above.</p>
<p>"What I do mind is her lying about his affairs (Gennifer Flowers) and even seeking to destroy them (Kathleen Willey and Paula Jones). "</p>
<p>I agree and it seems like many of those relationships were at best coercive. I know I will be slammed for this, but I do wonder about Juanita Broadrick. There just seems to be a real hatred for women and I couldn’t imagine a woman who didn’t need to remaining married to that, but I know that if my husband was a harasser of women or worse, I couldn’t remain married and don’t respect the enabling of that.</p>
<p>Newsweek’s cover story is Michelle Obama:</p>
<p>[Who</a> Is Michelle Obama? | Newsweek Politics: Campaign 2008 | Newsweek.com](<a href=“http://www.newsweek.com/id/112849]Who”>Who Is Michelle Obama?)</p>
<p>"Barack’s Rock: She’s the one who keeps him real, the one who makes sure running for leader of the free world doesn’t go to his head. "</p>
<p>Thanks for the link. Interesting account of Michelle’s life, especially her experiences at Princeton and Harvard.</p>
<p>Yes, it made me wonder if things have changed for the better for students of color at those universities. She attended in the early and mid 80s. </p>
<p>Very sad about her friend who passed away from cancer and thus inspired her to change her career to public service and even marry Barack.</p>
<p>great link, thanks for posting. Enjoyed reading about Michele’s hope to outreach while in the White House, and try to stay directly in touch with the people. How refreshing after these last 8 years.
Didn’t like reading about her thesis under lock and key? M,m,m,m,m</p>