[quote=FlyerInHi] … BTW, people who have gone trough a lot should be admired, not hated.
Contrast Princess Di to Hillary. Di was a needy, insecure woman and people loved her. Hillary is smart, intelligent and resourceful; and people hate her.[/quote]Apples to oranges, FIH. As “needy and insecure” as you make Diana Spencer (aka Princess of Wales) out to be, she actually voted with her feet fairly early on (at the age of 31 after 11 years of marriage). By 1986, Di could see with her own eyes and hear with her own ears that what her spouse really wanted was not her but the “one that got away.” However, they had two young sons at the time and so instead of addressing their problems (which were not fixable, IMO), they put on a facade of trying to make their marriage “work” by continuing to fulfill their royal duties together for over five more years while constantly in the public eye … which had to be very hard. (Camilla Shand was married at the time as well but that didn’t stop either she nor Charles from conducting their liaison “under the radar”). Charles and Di’s tumultuous “marriage” is a prime example of not choosing one’s partner wisely. Di was too young at the time to get married and, at the age of 19, got caught up in the pomp and circumstance of planning her opulent wedding (paid for by the monarchy), IMO, and Charles just ended up “settling” at the age of 34 due to incessant family pressure to get married and produce an heir to the throne ASAP. By that time (1981), his “one true love” had married someone else due to his effing around in his youth and not making a decision to commit to her. Charles Windsor (aka the Prince of Wales) was lucky in life in that he was finally able to marry his one true love at the age of ~59 but many, many others are not. He is a prime example of why we should ALL counsel our kids to choose their spouses very wisely and marry based ONLY upon true love and NOT “convenience,” money, security or how they feel they others will perceive them if they are married.” I speak from experience in this matter and have been on every side of the fence imaginable in this regard. By the time most people are able to take the time and energy out of their busy lives to even locate (and hopefully converse with) their one true love in life (often 30-45 years later), that person is frequently “attached” to another person, very ill or deceased or dies shortly after becoming “unattached.” There comes a time in life where one has to realize that the egregious errors made in their youth are not fixable and no one wants to die with major regrets.
Hill and Bill would have been married 11 years in 1986, at which time they were ~38 and 39. They could have thrown in the towel then but at that time, he was the Governor or AR and the Clinton’s were enjoying their power, prestige and connections. (I forgot to add to my earlier post that Bill was appointed AG in the state of AR in 1977. This was 2 years BEFORE he was elected Governor of that state so that makes 34 years that Hill has either been in a supporting role of a an elected or appointed official in high office OR occupied those positions herself.)
It’s a shame that many (most?) US voters are too caught up in the institution of marriage in that they expect their president to be “married” and “straight.” It doesn’t matter much to them whether their president should be married to a particular person … or should even be married at all! It only matters that they are married because on the surface, a married person “gives a public appearance of being settled in life.” In actuality, I believe a single president would likely have more time and energy than a married one to devote to running the nation properly. This “married public official” voter preference was undoubtedly the conumdrum that Hill and Bill felt they had to wrestle with their entire lives in order to attempt to achieve their goals. Maybe one day, this voter mindset will change but I’m not so sure of it in my lifetime.
