On April 12, Hillary Rodham Clinton officially announced her campaign to run for president for a second time, hoping to make up for her 2008 try when Barack Obama was crowned the liberal darling of the moment. America has clearly tackled the race issue, so next is breaking that glass ceiling of gender restrictions by electing a woman, right? After all, this isn’t the 1950s anymore. The United States has “evolved”.
When you clear away the baggage of Mrs Clinton’s last name, and her entitled life filled with extraordinary opportunities, you are not left with much in the way of actual, independent achievement. This New York Post article explains:
“Hillary served as US senator from New York from 2001 to 2009, but her accomplishments are thin. No piece of legislation bears her name. Her tenure came to be defined in the 2008 presidential primaries by her vote for the war in Iraq — which Barack Obama, who had opposed the war, used to chip away at her foreign policy bona fides.”
“Her accomplishments as secretary of state are as unclear. She travelled to 112 countries, but again, she has nothing of consequence to her name: no peace treaty, no accord, no summit of consequence.”
Yet in the short time since her announcement, the US media has failed to contain their exuberance at the possibility of Madam President Clinton. Unfortunately, too many in the media – and among the electorate – believe it’s time for a female simply on the foundation of gender. And to many, that female is Hillary Clinton. Despite the lies told by self-proclaimed social justice warriors, being a female is not an achievement. It is imperative that womanhood is established as one, however, for Hillary has not much to stand on besides that.
As the wife of the “charming” Bill Clinton, Hillary is aware of the status that position gives her not only politically, but sympathetically, given Bill’s decades-long history of womanising. These are reasons she hasn’t broken away from him. Her connection to him is a vital one, and his shoulders are necessary, for she is standing on them to reach that famous glass ceiling. This in itself is far away from the feminist ideal of success, that which is obtained without the help of a man. Although Hillary has not gotten where she is without her husband, the feminist crowd refuses to acknowledge this. She is a liberal female in the world of politics, and to them that is qualification enough. How wrong they are.
With Hillary Clinton’s announcement, and rumors of Jeb Bush’s on the horizon, one can’t help but wonder at the routine and complacency among the electorate. The way the race is shaping up, with rumours of these two eventually becoming the nominees, this might turn into 1992 all over again in a Clinton v Bush showdown. Why does America revert back to what it has already had? Neither gender nor last name brands you as deserving of the office, although some would argue the opposite. With a recent history of presidents staying for two terms, it would not be too far-fetched to expect the next election to set in motion a two-term leader. America should be more concerned with real accomplishments though, rather than the desire to label our country as being “on the right side of history” by ushering in a Hillary term. Yet with a society drowning in social justice rhetoric, what do we expect their main focus to be?
Those who are eager to list Hillary’s accomplishments (or lack thereof), conveniently gloss over this woman’s habit of lying, and downright dismissal of subject matters which make her uneasy. We should make candidates uncomfortable though, for they are interviewing for the highest position in the land. A short list of Hillary’s lies and failures include:
– As a young lawyer, dismissal from the Watergate investigation for unethical behaviour.
– The Whitewater land development scandal, in which she and Bill Clinton were both involved.
– The ethics controversy known as Travelgate, soon after Bill took office. This is a scandal which she has brushed off, although reports place her at its very centre.
– After visiting Bosnia in 1996, she initially insisted her group came under extreme sniper fire while landing, but news footage destroys that claim.
– In the midst of the Lewinsky scandal, she claimed a “vast right wing conspiracy” was out to derail her husband, although she knew full well of his past.
– The claims that she and Bill were broke, although that is clearly not the case, as evidenced by their lifestyle, homes, and finances in which high-priced speaking engagements are plentiful.
– Continued uncertainty as to what her full role was in responding/not responding during the deadly September 2012 Benghazi attacks.
– The many questions surrounding the Clinton Global Foundation, including possible foreign donations to the Foundation during the time Hillary was at the State Department.
– Emails as Secretary of State, including use of her personal address for Secretary of State duties, deleting a vast amount of emails, and keeping the server private from investigation.
A 1996 New York Times article opened with: “Americans of all political persuasions are coming to the sad realisation that our First Lady…is a congenital liar.” The almost twenty year old piece still rings true today, and has much more of a foundation to support that claim than ever before. And this is who the Democrats are eagerly supporting for 2016? A scandal-ridden non-achiever whose power has been garnered from access obtained due to her famous last name?
Those who throw their support behind Hillary Rodham Clinton for her past “achievements” are just as foolish as those whose main reason is her gender. She is not what our country needs now, or ever. Electing her would be to our country’s – and the world’s – detriment. But she is in the running, and time will tell whether the majority of Americans once again focus on the superficial, and want her at the helm. If so, God help us.