Patronage is a part of presidency

Faceoff: Hillary Clinton's success. Is former First Lady's background legit?

Tuesday, April 7th, 2009

Hillary Rodham Clinton’s much-anticipated announcement that she will run for U.S. President has drawn a media frenzy over the past two weeks.

The upcoming presidential primary elections will feature both a woman and an African American candidate. Many critics believe Hillary has ridden her husband’s coattails.

Looking closer, however, her personal credentials make her more than qualified for the nation’s top job.

From being named valedictorian at Wellesley College to being named one of the 100 most influential lawyers in America by The National Law Journal in 1988 and 1991, Hillary’s academic and professional credentials are impressive.

Additionally, prior to meeting Bill, Hillary was already involved politically as a member of presidential candidate Barry Goldwater’s campaign in 1964 and in 1972 she was part of the presidential impeachment inquiry staff during the Watergate scandal.

These accomplishments, among many others, occurred well before she entered the White House.

The bigger issue when debating Hillary’s presidency, however, is patronage in politics.

Did Hillary benefit from public exposure during Bill’s presidency? Absolutely.

But any assistance Bill gave her has aided her no more, if not far less, than George Bush Sr. helped current President George W. Bush or Hollywood acting boosted Ronald Reagan.

The reality of running for a job like president is candidates require more than personal credentials to acquire the job. Connections, be they personal, business, or religious, are virtually required to successfully execute a bid for president.

So while Hillary may have benefited from attention she received as First Lady, it shouldn’t de-legitimize her campaign over the next year.

Share this article on:

Facebook | DiggDigg |

Copyright © 2008 The Gazette