A reader writes:
Recently when a reader challenged your criticism of Hillary Clinton, you replied that, "nepotism – especially when her prodigious talents required none of it – is not feminism." However, it is not opposed to feminism either, and that is where you have erred. Did Hillary fail at feminism simply because she didn't run for governor before her husband did? Because she didn't insist that he let her "catch up" in political achievement before he then ran for president?
Also, let's be careful what we attribute to "nepotism" in Hillary's career. I haven't noticed any other First Ladies becoming Senators and then Secretary of State, especially First Ladies who were as disliked and criticized as Clinton was at that time. No, she could not have become the First Lady without Bill, but to a lot of people's surprise she created her own successful political career after that. She has been a tremendous Secretary of State, and she is the first woman in my lifetime who ever had a strong chance of winning the presidency. Being married to Bill simply doesn't get her there, but you give her no credit for it. That's not feminism, either.
Another writes:
As to the notion that she is a benficiary of nepotism, sorry – I suspect her marriage to Bill has been a liability at least as often as a benefit. Or are you forgetting all the nastiness said about her, of all people, during the Lewinsky affair?
Another:
I don’t think it was necessarily an anti-feminist choice in their marriage for Bill, perhaps the most natural politician on earth, to be the front and center candidate for most of their partnership. That makes business sense to me – to put the stronger candidate front and center, particularly since women in politics was still a fairly new phenomenon. Is that her fault?
Neither do I think it’s reasonable to assume she would not be in politics but for Bill Clinton. Say what you will, but she is very smart and capable, and there is a dearth of women in her age group in politics, or in politics – period. Would it have been more feminist of her to never run for office, just because her husband had a successful political career?
I’m a member of a "power couple" myself. My husband and I practice law together. Besides sharing our law practice, we are raising three children. Every day of our lives is a juggling act and a dance of compromise and shuffling the schedule. I think you’d better leave this topic to the women who actually have to deal with trying to "have it all", because even now, it’s not so simple.
Another asks:
Did Hillary ever advertise herself as a "feminist"? Why isn't she just a powerful woman who deserved to get there as much as any of the other powerful Washington types? I don't think every powerful woman has to be emblematic of feminism just like every black politician doesn't need to embrace critical race theory.
(Photo: U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton testifies before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee about the department's FY2013 international affairs budget February 28, 2012 in Washington, DC. Clinton faced questions ranging from the cost of embassies in Iraq and the Middle East to the START Treaty with Russia. By Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images.)
The Dish 