A lot of the Hillary-Clinton-is-going-to-be-a-grandmother coverage is amazingly stupid. Much of it is outright sexist. But it’s not like it can’t be discussed intelligently. And, no, it’s not some kind of double standard to discuss the impact on a future presidential run just because people don’t make the same arguments about Mitt Romney or Joe Biden. Those gentlemen have never been the First Lady and they never raised a daughter in the White House. The Clintons are what passes for royalty in this country, along with the Bushs. If you want to argue that Hillary won’t want to miss time with her infant granddaughter attending chicken dinners in Dubuque, that’s an idiotic double-standard. But if you want to discuss how being a grandmother will alter the public’s perception of her and how that might play out in presidential contest, that seems like fair game to me.
Remember our introduction to Hillary Clinton?
“You know, I’m not sitting here — some little woman standin’ by my man like Tammy Wynette.”
“I suppose I could have stayed home and baked cookies and had teas, but what I decided to do was to fulfill my profession which I entered before my husband was in public life.”
That wasn’t how any First Lady before her had sounded. She was tough and combative. She was a professional, not content to be a homemaker. Some people loved her for it, and others hated her. But it was an image. It was our first image of her. And much like the first impression we had of her husband as a philandering hound dog, first impressions tend to last.
The Clintons becoming grandparents has the potential to replace those first impressions in ways that will be broadly appealing. What would be really sexist would be to await the dauphin.
Is there any reason it should be discussed at all? No more relevant to the public at large than the grandchildren born to any person while she/he was running for President or born to a former President.
Is that really true? All the other First Ladies were “homemakers?” Didn’t Eleanor Roosevelt have an outside job as a columnist during her years as First Lady? How about this:
Women of wealth and privilege don’t do much ordinary “homemaking” — they may manage the help (or in Martha Washington’s case the slaves) that do the work of homemaking. There were also a couple of First Ladies that effectively acted as POTUS.
After reading her bio a few years ago, I often wonder if there would have even been a New Deal at all if it wasn’t for Eleanor.
FDR had many progressives, including Eleanor, in his administration pushing him. At the social safety net level, the visionary was Frances Perkins. IMHO FDR is given too little credit for hiring (and in the case of Eleanor marrying) those progressives that he knew wouldn’t shut up when he resisted doing the right thing. He had to beg Perkins to join his administration.
I wish she ran for president. I think she would have won, tbh. May have kept Eisenhower out.
She had too much class and too much other work to do. Also, she fully recognized that Franklin had the gifts and skills required to be an effective politician and President.
Nah, it was the Fifties. Womenfolk were expected to prepare the meals then take care of the dishes while the menfolk went off with their whiskey to the smoking room where they discussed serious, manly things like bidness and politics.
At least that was how it was depicted in Giant, one of my all-time favorite movies.
Probably not too far from the truth.
I think ER would have gotten McGovern-like numbers, at best, against Ike.
But I do approve of the intriguing theory, seen on a very interesting website, that Eleanor was reincarnated as Chelsea Clinton.
Yeah I know, but Eleanor was also respected by many, many people, and was courted by the party to run for something.
I think Boo addresses both your questions.
The reason it should be (or that it’s not unfair that it will be) addressed is that the Clintons are what passes for royalty in the US.
And the claim is that that wasn’t how any First Lady before Clinton sounded. Especially in terms of a first impression.
Why? And for whom? When did this royal anointing take place?
The media and the public somewhat couldn’t get enough JFK’s family. In part because he left behind a young and very attractive widow and two beautiful children. John Jr. was too attractive to be ignored by the paparazzi, but Caroline’s pregnancies weren’t an obsessive focus of the media and she didn’t announce them on TV.
So, I’m not buying the “passes for royalty” thing.
Well, then, no one passes for royalty in this country.
Except, Elvis!
This country was founded (with a major assist by George Washington which is one reason he was a great President) on a rejection of royalty at the level of head of state and head of government.
The people are free to satisfy an urge for royalty (and look stupid) by buying it as entertainment — the Kardashians, Duggars, and Duck Dynasty.
Well, I think LBJ, then a congressman hungry to build power and personal wealth, had a lot to do with Lady Bird acquiring that station, getting it out of the radio doldrums, and making it profitable. With a little help from Dem fixer Tommy “the Cork” Corcoran and several other well-positioned and courted persons behind the scenes.
Caro covered the radio station story but thoroughly in one of his early volumes.
How bout highway beautification.?
She was an educated woman, it was her money, and she managed it. Not discounting nor disputing that her ownership was favored by licensing regulators.
The Highway Beautification Act of 1965 was Lady Bird’s project — from before becoming First Lady — but wasn’t attempting in anyway to list the accomplishments of her or any other First Lady before the “Royal Clinton.”
Interestingly it’s also not how any First Lady after her has sounded either.
“She was tough and combative. She was a professional, not content to be a homemaker.”
“The Clintons becoming grandparents has the potential to replace those first impressions”
Surely one of HRC’s major selling points will be her toughness, competence and experience in a wide variety of roles. (Yes, Republicans and libertarians-who-pretend -not-to-be-Republicans, you may all croak “Benghazi!” together now). I don’t see that her campaign is going to want to replace that image with too much in the way of a soft focus granny biopic.
It doesn’t have to, that it exists and if HRC is anything at all like the majority of grandparents, it will take care of itself without the campaign having to focus on it. Meaning it will come off as natural.
Like this:
Contrast that with this – Nobody Had to Ask Her
Probably the same “liberals” that supported recent US wars of aggression and massive NSA spying.
That’s a ridiculous comparison to make. Do you really think that HRC isn’t going to campaign on her record of accomplishment, which is considerable, even if it isn’t quite as liberal as many Democrats might like? Let’s remember here that HRC had to deal for all of her career with an ascendant hard right plus a party of cowering Democrats with distinct Blue Doggish tendencies. It’s a helluva a lot easier to be holier than thou from the sidelines when you don’t actually have to take tough votes on the record.
Care to list those accomplishments? Anything substantive from when she was FLOTUS? A Senator? As SOS? You can assert that it’s considerable, but the facts don’t support that. Over those three assignments/jobs for a period of over twenty years, it’s not easy to come up with anything that was even tangible and meager.
Hill/Bill will be GREAT grandparents!
CONGRAT’S TO THEM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
And who cares about the politics?!?!?!?!?!?!
All of the critic’s, should just STFU!
Where are Ike’s, Nixon’s, Ford’s, and Reagan’s kids?
We already seen how atrocious one of George H. W. Bush’s kid’S was.
Who could POSSIBLY be worse?!?!?!?!?!
“Who could POSSIBLY be worse?!?!?!?!?!”
There are five Romney sons to choose from, for starters.
Is it irresponsible to speculate whether Hillary had her daughter artificially inseminated with the frozen sperm of Vince Foster?
I think not!
This was in an article I read yesterday:
Hillary Clinton reacted on Twitter late Thursday: “My most exciting title yet: Grandmother-To-Be!”
I am expecting republicans to jump on that one.
I don’t recall much discussion when Hillary attended chicken dinners in Dubuque while Chelsea was young. This granddaughter will have parents. The media gets more stupid by the minute. Actually, I think it will be a plus for Hillary. Who could throw a “rotten tomato” at a grandmother holding the little one? That type of treatment would be very offensive in several of the deep South states, where extended family is sacred. I know they will not vote for Hillary, but Repubs are going to have to watch their rhetoric or it will backfire.
Obvious pandering to a certain demographic in a Presidential race is very ill advised. Dukakis in a tank and Kerry in camos carrying a gun are two examples that seriously backfired. Palin parading around with her kids didn’t help (probably didn’t hurt because Democrats aren’t as effective at mocking their opponents as the GOP).
Didn’t help that the Palins are trailer trash to quote Bristol’s hubby (or was he her hubby, I forget).
Don’t think Bristol’s baby papa is in any position to throw stones — some drug busts in his family.
I’ll bet they all watch Duck Dynasty.
Nah. Too busy watching Putin from their front porch.
I believe it has the potential to impact the opinion of those who have never heard of Hillary Clinton – everyone else has their opinion fairly-well baked in IMO.