<p>“One of her interesting points was that she did not do an internship until graduating from college.”</p>
<p>Sounds very normal for the times. Most people back then didn’t do internships. It’s only been in the last dozen years or so that internships during college has become virtually mandatory in order to get decent employment after graduation.</p>
<p>I understand that kbaloney. Yet the economy is the most important issue to most voters. There is no need for the campaign staff to stay at the Bellagio Hotel, no matter how hard one tries to justify such.</p>
<p>Do you not see the hypocrisy in this when the same Clinton campaign allegedly caters to the poorer sector of our nation in this economy? I do.</p>
<p>1sokkermom: While the Bellagio has a reputation for being expensive, I have on occasion found it to be the cheapest hotel available (of its type). They are also known for their excellent security. (I realize you were saying that the campaign staff could have stayed elsewhere, yes, probably.) I would expect that the Secret Service has a say in what hotels the campaigns use, at least for the candidates. I was more concerned by the insane spending on political consultants. </p>
<p>However, if you remember, Nevada was considered a must-win (and she did, sort of).</p>
<p>Mini thank you for shining some light on the truth.
KBaloney- thanks for that link above</p>
<p>"CBS correspondent Lesley Stahl relied on this estimate in 1996 when she asked U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Madeleine Albright, </p>
<p>We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that is more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?
Albright answered, </p>
<p>I think this is a very hard choice, but the price, we think the price is worth it. "</p>
<p>The 'price is worth it"? Why is the price <em>always</em> worth it when you don’t have to pay it yourself? </p>
<p>Same thing with the president’s Iraq adventure. Of course he’ll say it’s worth it. He’s not the one doing the bleeding.</p>
<p>I totally agree with the gist of JHS & Lorilei’s comments. There has been a double standard at play through the entire campaign. Hillary has been examined up and down fand sideways. Obama, by contrast, has barely been vetted at all. Indeed, up to this point he at least, he has been the target of a veritable media love fest. Imagine…Hardball’s Chris Mathews says Obama sends a tingle up his leg. Ugh! </p>
<p>The whole thing about HRC making it on Bill’s coattails…Please. How about Teddy, Bobby & Patrick Kennedy? How about W & Jeb Bush? How about the many (mostly) sons of various Congressmen, governors, civil rights leaders, etc. Do the names Udall, Sununu, Chaffee, Jackson, etc ring a bell?</p>
<p>One previous point is well taken…It’s VERY possible that Bill wouldn’t have been so successful if not for Hillary.</p>
<p>Finally, to celticclan & others who say if Hillary (or Obama) is the nominee, they’ll vote for McCain. What are you thinking? HRC & Obama overlap tremendously with regard to their views. McCain is 180 degrees away from both of them. Sheesh!</p>
<p>“The whole thing about HRC making it on Bill’s coattails”</p>
<p>That’s exactly what she did. If not for her marriage she would not have pushed a qualified New Yorker aside to be the democratic nominee for the NY Senate seat. If not for that seat, she wouldn’t be running for President. There is simply no credible argument that Hillary “made it” on her own because she didn’t. It is very likely that Bill would have wallowed in his own muck without HIllary’s discipline and ruthlessness, but being his fixer isn’t the same thing as being accountable on her own. I know many (many!) Yale and Harvard educated lawyers who are brilliant, hardworking and decent people, but I wouldn’t vote for them for president without a long resume and years of elected service. All those years of doing for him gave Hillary the sense of entitlement that many of us object to now.</p>
<p>Zoosermom- Spot on. Kudos for your well thought out response.</p>
<p>Cadbury- I would never vote for someone I do not respect. She lost me at, ‘I suppose I could have stayed home and baked cookies and had teas…’ That insult has never faded from my memory.</p>
<p>“One previous point is well taken…It’s VERY possible that Bill wouldn’t have been so successful if not for Hillary.”</p>
<p>Right… I guess she was responsible for him “not having sex” with other women. 
Actually, it could be that she is indeed responsible for her own success. She stood by her man, no matter what. She then was able to run for and win a Senatorial race in a state where she never lived. A lot of people “admired” her <em>dedication</em> to her husband. Without that notoriety where would she be? </p>
<p>I guess one can only speculate. ;)</p>
<p>I think Hillary actually does love Bill and stayed with him for admirable reasons. Clearly raising her daughter in the best way possible was her priority and one that should be respected. I actually think that Bill loves his wife, as well and as much as he can under his particular limitations. But that doesn’t make her qualified to be president.</p>
<p>“But that doesn’t make her qualified to be president.”
Bingo!</p>
<p>zoosermom et al,</p>
<p>You raise the issue of Hillary being a “carpetbagger” in NY. Didn’t Bobby Kennedy do the same thing? (Answer: Yes.)</p>
<p>And you haven’t addressed my question re: the issues of coattails:</p>
<p>“How about Teddy, Bobby & Patrick Kennedy? How about W & Jeb Bush? How about the many (mostly) sons of various Congressmen, governors, civil rights leaders, etc. Do the names Udall, Sununu, Chaffee, Jackson, etc ring a bell?” </p>
<p>I don’t remember people being too equally concerned about the political success of these people as a result of their familial connections.</p>
<p>Bottom line: The Dems have had two great, talented, but flawed (read: human) candidates to consider this year.</p>
<p>There was a really interesting piece on Hillary on one of these obscure TV shows, not too long ago. A part of it is here in this article-- I’ll see if I can provide a link.</p>
<p>Hillary was actually well on her way to a successful career, and <em>chose</em> to move to Arkansas to be with Bill (right or wrong). Let’s give this woman some credit; she did graduate from Wellesley and Yale Law. She was living in DC and working for the House Judiciary Committee during the Watergate Hearings, a position which had to have been fairly unusual for a young woman, just out of law school, at the time. When she moved to Arkansas, she taught at the Law School there, at the University, alongside Bill.</p>
<p>People are speaking here as though she has no background or education. Even if you don’t want to vote for her, I really don’t understand why anyone (and especially women) would completely discount her own education and accomplishments, and insist that her success is based solely on her husband. I honestly don’t get it. If anything, I suspect she would have been equally, if not more, successful in life without him.</p>
<p>As far as staying with Bill, after all his antics-- I guess we could ask why Cindy McCain stayed with her husband; why Jackie stayed with her husband; why Eisenhower’s wife stayed with him, surely knowing he was fooling around with his Army secretary; why didn’t Eleanor leave FDR when she discovered he was having an affair with his secretary?</p>
<p>I guess I could on and on, but you get the point. </p>
<p>Also, as this article points out-- the early 1970’s, for women, was not like it is today. Are there no women who post here who remember what it was like for women in the early 1970’s? Maybe I’m older than most here, but I sure remember it.</p>
<p>The article is from the Washington Post (printed in 2000).</p>
<p>[Washingtonpost.com:</a> The Hillary Dilemma](<a href=“http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/campaigns/keyraces2000/stories/hillary032199.htm]Washingtonpost.com:”>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/campaigns/keyraces2000/stories/hillary032199.htm)</p>
<p>Excerpt:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Fact: Things have changed. The past 8 years have proved to many millions in this country that '“legacy” or family connections does not equal “qualified” or even “capable”.
So Hillary, as smart as she is, is in part suffering from a “backlash” against family connections helping to determine who will have the political advantage.</p>
<p>Yes, menloparkmom, you need say more, since you didn’t address the fact that Hillary is a very intelligent woman who clearly had a very bright future, but decided instead to dedicate herself to her family, long before she could have had any idea that doing so would make her First Lady of anything more than her own home.</p>
<p>You didn’t address the fact that she probably contributed a great deal to Bill’s success… you didn’t address all the policy work, diplomatic work, and so forth that she did as First Lady.</p>
<p>Hillary may be riding on Bill’s coattails in some ways (personally, I actually view it more like they were equal contributors to their spousal units’ success and she is now taking her turn in the limelight), but she is a world apart from GWB, who rode his way to the presidency on scant qualifications (the governor of Texas really isn’t a very powerful position, or one that requires much political skill) and even those qualifications were entirely begotten of his powerful family (got into university because of his family’s money, etc.).</p>
<p>janie: good article, but no use. It seems that many here are having orgasms by bashing her.</p>
<p>Hillary’s time may come, and she is no doubt more qualified than GWB, but for this election, due to many factors beyond her control [ the backlash against family connections is but one], she is probably not going to be the nominee. Should she run again? Absolutely. Would I love to see a woman in the WH? Yes. But I don’t think it will happen this year.</p>
<p>Frankly, it is the somewhat hysterical bashing by the BO devotees which underlines the scary part of his support and candidacy. If his victory is because of such wildly thrashing advocacy, how can the rest of us believe that he is that good of a prospect. It is rather like judging someone because of the person they chose to marry…it is not an accident that these two people chose each other…and it is not an accident that the BO campaign is being run in order to attract this spectrum of voters. </p>
<p>Most who support HRC tend not to bash BO, but rather support and defend her. It is not that we see nothing to which we object or which does not concern us about BO, but rather that we choose not to engage in such a destructive dialogue. Again, one wonders at the wisdom of the supporters who cannot function a bit more analytically and without such a harsh judgement. </p>
<p>IMHO</p>
<p>Because, unless something dramatic happens, I don’t see her winning the nomination. The momentum is on BO’s side.</p>
<p>I will certainly vote for Hillary if I can’t vote for Obama. I’m a “yellow-dog democrat” through and through–meaning I’ll vote for a yellow dog before I vote for a Republican. </p>
<p>BUT I’m not currently supporting Hillary for a variety of reasons. I can’t quite get past what I’ve heard called the “ick factor”–the idea of a Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton rotation makes me go “ick”–and I’m uncomfortable with her agenda, which seems to focus heavily on making another run at doing things she didn’t succeed in doing back in the '90s.</p>
<p>Take Bill: what role will he play in her cabinet? We all know he’s not going to sit around and host state dinners. Will he be Secretary of State? Something else? If she’s running as a team, which she has said, how does she envision that team running? Will Bill go everywhere with her? What other advisors will she have? What role will they play? Will she listen to anyone else?</p>