When delegates officially nominated Hillary Clinton for the Democratic presidential candidacy last night, commentators couldn’t get enough of the word “historic.”
Yesterday marks the first time a woman has ever been selected as a major American political party’s nominee, but journalist Sarah Rumpf of The Capitolist took to Twitter to explain why she believes the accomplishment isn’t so great.
Sorry but I don't feel particularly empowered because some Ivy League grad got famous because of who she married & now wants to be president
— Sarah Rumpf (@rumpfshaker) July 27, 2016
She added, “Try to argue with a straight face that Hillary would be the Democratic nominee, or Secretary of State or a Senator, if she weren’t *Mrs.* Clinton.”
Rumpf then laid out the argument for why Clinton’s elite status has resulted in her various positions in the government.
This isn't some #HouseOfCards plot. Hillary would have been much harder to confirm as Sec of State if she hadn't been Senator first. /9
— Sarah Rumpf (@rumpfshaker) July 27, 2016
Normally, running a statewide race is tough, expensive, & darn near impossible if you haven't established some roots in that state. /11
— Sarah Rumpf (@rumpfshaker) July 27, 2016
Recommended
Hillary could win the NY Senate seat because she showed up as a celebrity as a former First Lady & all of Bill's DNC & money connections /13
— Sarah Rumpf (@rumpfshaker) July 27, 2016
And we can't discount the major name recognition advantage of being a former First Lady. /15
— Sarah Rumpf (@rumpfshaker) July 27, 2016
Hillary is intelligent, educated, accomplished, hard-working, but wouldn't be accepting the nomination in Philadelphia w/o marrying Bill /17
— Sarah Rumpf (@rumpfshaker) July 27, 2016
Is Rumpf right? Did First Lady name recognition have anything to do with Clinton’s years of success? This Twitter user seems to think so.
https://twitter.com/verity_america/status/758133266033410048
Join the conversation as a VIP Member