Though UI Freshman Michael Slusark seems to think so, as he wrote in to today's DI with the argument:
What's worse, the attacks on Rodham Clinton ring of sexism. Andrew Swift's column, "Clinto-phobia" and Nate Whitney's "Hillary Clinton: the Queen of convenience," repeatedly suggest that Rodham Clinton is nothing more than her husband's name. The former does little but attack former President Clinton's presidency and attempt to link it to her campaign.
Now, this is hilarious. The Clintons are a tag-team, as are any married couple. You get one of them, you'll get the other - and Bill's injection into this campaign has certainly not been under-the-radar lately. If Hillary is going to campaign on "experience", and count her eight years as First Lady as experience, than she has to own up to those eight years in full. You can't pick and choose. I don't know where Mr. Slusark gets the impression that I think Hillary "is nothing more than her husband's name", but it seems to come from some deep-seated desire to paint opponents of the Clintons as automatically sexist, and hence stifle any discussion of the merits of the two.
Furthermore, I'd offer Mr. Slusark an opportunity to demonstrate what Senator Clinton's "strengths" are, as I see very few that get past even modest analysis. He doesn't even offer a strong case for the experience argument - he cites Senator Clinton's four more years in the Senate as making all the difference in the world. 35 years, Michael! Did you forget your talking points? Or have they changed already?
Mr. Slusark goes on: "She has just as much, if not more merit in running for president as Obama ..." Well, I don't know how you can have more "merit" to run for president - a) Merit is entirely relative, and b) It's not a freaking college application.
So before Mr. Slusark gets to call the DI Opinions Page "ignorant", perhaps he should write in detailing why we should support Mrs. Clinton, rather than charging that op-ed writers are "sexist." I'll be waiting.