Does Clinton really count? She didn't exactly claw her way up from local borough politics, she floated in on Bill's coattails.

And didn't a NY congresswoman (Nita Lowney?) actually want to run for senate and had to step aside for Clinton? That doesn't make Clinton's accomplishments sit any better with her "haters"

I agree with Jon H-- Hillary Clinton is hardly a "New York politician" the way the others were. The only other figure with whom she could be lumped, in terms of her relationship to the state she now represents, is RFK. And I agree that she is where she is because of her husband-- hardly a forward-looking way to come to power as a woman!

fwiw, Messinger's loss in the mayoral race has been the planet's gain. She took the top job at American Jewish World Service, and is doing great things around the globe.

Furthermore, New York has more up its sleeve. There is a significant chance that, in 2009, New York City will elect its first female mayor in the person of Christine Quinn, the current Speaker of the City Council. Not only would she be the first woman to run the Big Apple, but she also happens to be an out lesbian. So, there is progress on the horizon . . .

To Rob B.'s comment about Messinger, I would add that the same is true of Carol Bellamy, who has been director of the Peace Corps, UNICEF, and now of World Learning. There are many ways other than electoral politics to have a positive impact on the world!

I'm not sure I understand the point that Clinton "doesn't count." The point is that she achieved what none of her predecessors were able to do, and perhaps not having the baggage of local politics was part of the success.

Good point about Christine Quinn! Thanks.

The only other figure with whom she could be lumped, in terms of her relationship to the state she now represents, is RFK. And I agree that she is where she is because of her husband-- hardly a forward-looking way to come to power as a woman!

Your point is well-taken, but I can't seem to recall very many people at all making a big issue of the fact that RFK hardly came to his Senate seat exclusively on his own merits. What accounts for the difference, do you think?

"After 25 years of potential and this series of debacles, no woman had yet claimed one of the brass rings of New York politics -- senator, governor, mayor."

Must be due to all those sexist, misogynists in the New York Democratic Party who insist on keeping women down.

Wow, it's so much fun to argue like a liberal feminist. LOL

I don't know why people didn't make a bigger deal about RFK. But then, I'm a young'un-- I was born in 1979, so I wasn't around to witness the Kennedy years.

All those women, except Abzug, were *awful* on the political talent front. No message ability whatsoever. Laundry list policy literalism And not particularly warm.

Hillary is a giant talent compared to them, and I'm not a huge HRC fan. But she's good.

Nita wasn't the only one who had to step aside.

So yeah, if you had the sitting President of the United States clearing the decks, you could probably win an open Senate seat after an uncontested primary in a state that's overwhelmingly Democratic.

Mark wrote:"The point is that she achieved what none of her predecessors were able to do, and perhaps not having the baggage of local politics was part of the success."

Or maybe it was mostly her lucky choice of spouse. None of the others were married to a popular US president.

I think that the reason why RFK received less criticism was not because of misogyny, but what he did before he went to NY. Before he became the Senator from NY, RFK served as Attorney General.

Despite all of the "35 years" talk, there really isn't anything else that Hillary Clinton did at a high government level since her efforts with the Watergate hearings, and her subsequent efforts to push for a system of partial public financing of Presidential campaigns that she ironically would destroy 34 years later, and a failed health care proposal.

The difference between the two wasn't nepotism or misogyny, the difference was substantive experience. Bobby Kennedy had it, Hillary Clinton didn't.

Oh whatever. Clinton is an enormously talented, bright woman. Did having a famous husband help with name recognition? Sure. But that came with baggage too.

Did RFK get his gig as AG because he was the best lawyer around? I doubt it. and I'm betting his last name was helpful when he ran for senate.

Would McCain have been able to have a long political career without the deep pockets of his wife's family?

Would any of the Udalls be in higher office if it wasn't for uncle Mo?

For that matter, leave aside the family connections and let's just look at some good luck:

Would Barack Obama have been a senator if he hadn't run against a complete joke in 2004?

Or bad luck?

Would Max Cleland have lost his race in 2002 if it hadn't been 2002?

There are lots of reasons people attain higher office that have nothing to do with pure skill or brains. But it seems that these days, Clinton is the only one that doesn't "count". Wonder why.

let me add something about bobby kennedy: i am among those who believe that had he not been assassinated in 1968, he would have wrested the nomination from humphrey and defeated nixon, and the history of the past 40 years would be completely different.

that said, apparently the young people here don't know that jack and bobby got their start in politics thanks to their crooked dad, joe, and apparently don't know that bobby was a total thug in his younger days who didn't really mature into an interesting and potentially transforming politician until after he became senator.

and yes, there were, at the time, jokes about bobby in new york and, for that matter, teddy in massachusetts....

And, even though she may not fit the template, being a Republican - let's not forget formwer Westchester DA Jeanine Pirro. Another "rising star" in Ny done in by bad luck. In Pirro's case a combination of a sleazy-business spouse (again!); and being blindsided by rival NY GOP factions; who scuttled her bid to run for Hillary Clinton's Senate seat in 2006.

We could go on forever with what ifs in regard to folks political careers.

The fact is when HRC ran for the Senate when she did, she had no prior elected office experience, she had not lived in NY but a short time and if her last name was Jones she would not have been elected.

She is a hugely talented woman. There are hugely talented women all over this country in all manner of positions.

It is not a slam on HRC to state the facts. It would set back the women's movement 30 years if she's elected because of her gender and did a poor job. Remember, she will not only be under the incredible scrutiny of being the first woman, she also carries the bad baggage of being a Clinton, fair or not, it is a fact.

Vote on her record, not her gender. To do anything less will hurt women all over this nation by forwarding the stoogery that they are not up to the job as a gender.

I say all this as a 56 year old white woman who would love to see a woman in the WH.

to G Davis - please. no president could be worse that the guy who's there now. And he's hardly going to take all male politicians down with him. By all means, don't vote on gender, but don't hold HRC to a higher (nay impossible, christ-like) standard than anyone else. Because you're never going to find a female candidate (or a male candidate for that matter) who can rescue their entire gender from the potshots of the idiots on Hardball.

"Would Barack Obama have been a senator if he hadn't run against a complete joke in 2004?"

Clinton also benefited from good luck in opponents. Giuliani's prostate took him out of contention in mid-race, and he was replaced by a novice with no hope of beating Clinton.

Let's not overstate her achievement.

And didn't a NY congresswoman (Nita Lowney?) actually want to run for senate and had to step aside for Clinton?

That would be Congresswoman Nita Lowey.

Do people get confused because you and Holly Yeager have different last names?