Former President Bill Clinton has been singing his wife’s praises all over the State of Texas, but some feminists, myself included, are sceptical of his motives.
When our 42nd president visited the University of Texas at Austin Wednesday, February 27 (which was Chelsea’s birthday) he drew a crowd of around 6,000 people, according local news stations. He, along with State Representative Eddie Rodgriguez, former HUD Secretary Henry Cisneros, former president of Rock the Vote, Jehmu Green, and actor Sean Astin, all praised the work and character of Hillary Clinton. The rally changed tone dramatically, however, when Bill Clinton took the podium and began speaking about his wife.
One of the points he brought up most often was that he always admired how she was never the ‘White House wife’ who picked out china patterns, or held coffees when he was president. She had ideas. She took action. She got out there and worked. Wasn’t that precisely what she was criticized for? Wasn’t she scrutinized and even vili?ed for trying to be ‘the power behind the president?’ Many people wondered, quite vocally, if she had far more in?uence than an unelected of?cial should have.
Many people still remember her infamous quote, ‘I’m not going to have some reporters pawing through our papers. We are the president.’
Now, in 2008, is the role reversed? Is our former president glorying in the idea of life in the White House again? Will he attempt to be the unelected power behind the presidency? I have even heard people tout what a great bonus it would be. How this would be the greatest two-for-one deal in politics, which is exactly why the idea is offensive to me as a feminist and simply as a voter.
The ?rst woman president should make it on her own merits. Hillary Clinton has more than enough of her own to make it to the White House. But with Bill Clinton stumping for her, he’s drawing attention away from those merits. He’s stealing the limelight which almost can’t help but do. He is a superior speaker and the words certainly sound like he’s saying all the right things. The problem is simply that he was the president. You certainly can’t stuff the man in a closet, but you can’t let him have the spotlight any more, either. This has to be Hillary Clinton’s campaign, not his.—M. K. Johnson
M. K. Johnson was Lucire’s ?rst beauty editor in the 1990s to the early 2000s and serves as a regular correspondent.
Above: Pursuing the Hispanic vote: Laura Hernandez, former HUD Secretary Henry Cisneros, and former President Bill Clinton.
You may also like
Apparently, the Economist agrees. “The more Mrs. Clinton relies on her husband, the more she undermines the most compelling arguments for her candidacy. Take the notion that she is a feminist pioneer. Mr Clinton’s omnipresence not only reminds us that his wife made her political career by attaching herself to his coat-tails. Only a spouse could have survived the debacle of “Hillarycare.” It also reminds voters that her first instinct when the going gets tough is to turn to her husband.”
Ouch…