Comments on: Peer Marriage and Team Clinton

by: Ed T.

Fri, 25 Jan 2008 09:58:15 +0000

A scary thought… if Hillary gets elected, the era could become known as the Clinton Peeresidency.

~EdT.

by: Polimom

Thu, 24 Jan 2008 20:13:00 +0000

belloscm — I have to guess the media will be extremely reluctant to “go there”… right up until they recognize that, like every other danged scandal, it’ll sell for them. Unfortunately, for many folks it will be merely an uncomfortable rehash of the past. The worst kind of deja vu.

by: Polimom

Thu, 24 Jan 2008 20:11:27 +0000

Hi John,

Interestingly enough, the little discussion there IS online about the subject mentions gay relationships, and “peer marriages”. I didn’t delve deeply into it (since I was really only looking for a straight-forward link), but given the lack of traditional role definitions, I agree that it would be more common.

It is definitely not the norm, though, in the heterosexual world.

by: John

Thu, 24 Jan 2008 20:02:57 +0000

Interesting. I’ve actually never heard of the term “peer marriage” but as I read your post, i thought, “well isn’t that how it’s supposed to be?” Because that “team” idea is pretty much what the gay couples I know strive for. it just seems incredibly normal to me. But then, when there are basically no role expectations, it’s easier to think that way.

by: belloscm

Thu, 24 Jan 2008 19:13:04 +0000

The Clintons made a bet going into this that there would be no vetting of Bill. I remembered reading months ago the the Hill Campaign had warned that such scrutiny would be considered “out of bounds.” Try to “go there” and you will be denied preferred access to the campaign and the candidate. Can/will the media risk defying the Clintons?

Another thought.
What if, by once again making Ann Lewis a prominent Clinton “explainer,” we are reminded of Monicagate and the accompanying spin and deceit?
I’m already having flashbacks.

by: belloscm

Thu, 24 Jan 2008 17:43:48 +0000

Ann Lewis. Again. I was hoping that I had seen (and better yet, heard) the last of that genial and oh, so reasonable sounding, grandmother figure. Ten years ago, she played sugar to Lanny Davis’ spice in reciting the daily Bill ‘n Hill approved talking points. Just another Clinton tool.
Does this mean that B. Franks has endorsed Hillary?

by: Ed T.

Thu, 24 Jan 2008 14:59:35 +0000

An interesting thought: if you are correct, and (admittedly this is someone simplistic) it is Hillary AND Bill running, does their “peer” candidacy run afoul of the 22nd Amendment?

~EdT.

by: The Peer Marriage of Bill and Hillary | Writes Like She Talks

Thu, 24 Jan 2008 14:48:30 +0000

[…] That could be the title of a ballad, but for now, it’s the subject of this very interesting post by Polimom: If you’re old enough to remember the Clinton years with any kind of clarity, you’ll remember the enormous role Hillary played in Bill’s presidency. I don’t think that was an anomaly. Rather, it seems to be a function of their relationship. They have apparently built a peer marriage. The rule books haven’t been written yet; peer couples are making it up as they go along. But this much I have observed: Peer couples trade a frustrated, angry relationship with a spouse for one of deep friendship. They may have somewhat tamer sex lives than couples in traditional marriages. They definitely have fewer external sources of validation. And these couples have a closeness that tends to exclude others. But theirs is a collaboration of love and labor that produces profound intimacy and mutual respect. Traditional couples live in separate spheres and have parallel lives. Above all, peer couples live the same life. In doing so, they have found a new way to make love last. […]