Letters to the Editor
-
Why are we accepting the premise?
Why must criticisms of Hillary Clinton necessarily be sexist? Why can't people make the factual observation that she came to the attention of most Americans as someone's wife, and that her policymaking role between 1992 and 2000 was because she was first lady, not because she was a smart lawyer from Arkansas?
All along, the Clintons have been trying to have it both ways. Chelsea's role in this campaign is another example. She is a grown woman and a public figure who is using her position as the child of important people to reach other important people. You can bet that a lower-ranking member of the Clinton campaign would be talking to bookers or assistants on these talk shows, not to the hosts -- but Chelsea Clinton can pick up the phone and call Whoopi Goldberg directly, and Whoopi Goldberg takes that call not because she wants to talk to a bright 27-year-old but because Chelsea Clinton is Hillary and Bill Clinton's daughter.
At the same time, Chelsea hasn't made herself available to the mainstream press and won't do interviews. That's her right -- no one's required to talk to the press -- but the fact that she is offering herself to certain media figures while remaining inaccessible to others is the kind of behavior that draws criticism and uncomfortable questions.
A high percentage of Hillary Clinton's 35 years of policy experience were, at a minimum, colored by the fact that her major policy role was "wife of." It's not sexist to point this out, and it's absurd to pretend that her role would have been the same regardless of who she'd been married to.