Regards,
Peter H.

I’ll stand by my other comment. Going on TV to reinforce Bill’s spin was unprincipled, or actually not holding her head up, IMHO. Silence – while pressuring Bill come clean sooner – would have been more honorable, and not coincidentally, better for America.

Past reaction certainly does indicate future behavior.

Regards,
Peter H.

2. After Bill’s well-publicized infidelities, she maintained her dignity and held her head up high.

I must respectfully dissent. After Bill’s well-publicized infidelities, she went on national TV news shows to try to lie for him and blame the Clintons’ problems on others (the VWRC). Holding her head up, in my book, would have been if she either (a) divorced him, or (b) at least made him confess sooner.

3. She probably kicked Bill’s ass in private when she found out about Monica.

Pure speculation, made necessary by her lack of public action (see above).

Power-seekers will always claim they aren’t, and that they have legitimate goals. Hillary Clinton talks constantly about how she needs to be given more power (the Presidency) so she can “help” people. Well, no thanks.

By carefully analyzing the politician’s words, history and actions, a rational person can distinguish the (rare) genuinely principled politician from the (many) opportunistic, power-seeking egomaniacs.

Take Ronald Reagan. He did not live to exercise power over others. He had a life outside politics and power-seeking, and when he got into politics (or seeking office), his goal was to *curb* the government’s (and hence, his own) power. Same with Presidents such as Lincoln and Washington. So, it’s possible to have a President who is more (or should I say less?) than just power-hungry.

Thank you for your post above, but you make it seem like Hillary is the only politician who “lives to exercise power over others.” Don’t you think that anyone who strives to be President, either of an organization or country, is a little bit of a power seeker by nature? Why do you isolate Hillary Clinton for being power hungry?

The source of Hillary’s appeal is not hard to find. It is the same as Obama’s: Identity politics. Many women, especially older women who had tougher struggles with sexism, ache to see a woman President. I can’t blame them. But I can blame, to some extent, their eagerness to settle for any woman; their unwillingness to see Hillary as what she is, a person who lives to exercise power over others.

DER:

She has worked with each branch of government and at both the state and national level, she doesn’t need to relearn or learn how to manage the bureaucracy of the executive branch.

How, specifically, has she worked with the executive branch? Is that part of what a First Lady normally does?

If yes: Would you say that Laura Bush, Eleanor Roosevelt or Pat Nixon has/had executive experience?

If no, i.e., if Hillary was uniquely co-Presidential with Bill: have you heard of the Twenty-Second Amendment? What would entitle her-and-Bill to violate it?