Clin­ton’s record makes her a poor cham­pion of women

The Washington Times Weekly - - Commentary - By Mercedes Sch­lapp

Many in the lib­eral me­dia were over­joyed Tues­day night when Hil­lary Clin­ton be­came the first wo­man to clinch the pres­i­den­tial nom­i­na­tion for a ma­jor po­lit­i­cal party. The wallto-wall cov­er­age that fol­lowed her vic­tory speech made it ap­pear as if the main­stream me­dia had closely co­or­di­nated with Mrs. Clin­ton’s press team to en­sure that view­ers couldn’t miss the pro-women talk­ing points fo­cus­ing on her gen­der and the pres­i­dency.

“We are all stand­ing un­der a glass ceil­ing right now,” Mrs. Clin­ton joked at one point. “But don’t worry, we’re not smash­ing this one.”

I felt like I was watch­ing a Na­tional Or­ga­ni­za­tion for Women rally.

As a mother of five daugh­ters, I wish that I could get ex­cited about Hil­lary Clin­ton’s his­toric mo­ment, but she is a poor ex­am­ple and the wrong mes­sen­ger for women seek­ing em­pow­er­ment and bet­ter lives for them­selves and their fam­i­lies. In­stead, Mrs. Clin­ton is the epit­ome of the Demo­cratic estab­lish­ment, a ca­reer politi­cian out of touch with the con­cerns of ev­ery­day Amer­i­can women.

There was one bit of history the com­men­ta­tors for­got to men­tion: Mrs. Clin­ton is the first pre­sump­tive pres­i­den­tial nom­i­nee ever who is also be­ing in­ves­ti­gated by the FBI on sus­pi­cion of com­pro­mis­ing the na­tion’s se­cu­rity with her pri­vate email server and cav­a­lier han­dling of clas­si­fied in­for­ma­tion.

Mrs. Clin­ton talked Tues­day night about the women at Seneca Falls who fought for women’s rights, but no­tably failed to em­brace the spirit of these early fem­i­nists who were pro-life and fought for women and their chil­dren.

Com­pare her oft-stated rad­i­cal proabor­tion views with those of pi­o­neer fem­i­nist El­iz­a­beth Cady Stan­ton, who once wrote, “When we con­sider that women are treated as prop­erty, it is de­grad­ing to women that we should treat our chil­dren as prop­erty to be dis­posed of as we wish.”

De­spite her claims as a trail­blazer for her gen­der, Mrs. Clin­ton has rid­den the coat­tails of her hus­band and spent much of her ca­reer de­stroy­ing women tied to her hus­band’s sex­ual es­capades. She tweeted last year that “ev­ery sur­vivor of sex­ual as­sault de­serves to be heard, be­lieved, and sup­ported,” but ob­vi­ously that sen­ti­ment did not ap­ply back in the 1990s when she dis­missed Mon­ica Lewin­sky as a “nar­cis­sis­tic loony toon” and helped dis­credit and de­stroy the rep­u­ta­tions of other women such as Gen­nifer Flow­ers and Kathleen Wil­ley. Ms. Wil­ley, who was sex­u­ally ha­rassed by Pres­i­dent Clin­ton, stated that Hil­lary used “mob­like tac­tics” to si­lence her.

Younger fe­male vot­ers are clearly unim­pressed by Mrs. Clin­ton’s estab­lish­ment cre­den­tials and have re­sisted vot­ing for her on the ba­sis of gen­der sol­i­dar­ity alone. An over­whelm­ing num­ber of mil­len­nial women sup­ported Bernie San­ders in the pri­mary con­tests, and it re­mains to be seen if Mrs. Clin­ton can win them over given her record and her role in cov­er­ing up her hus­band’s dal­liances.

The hypocrisy ex­tends even to the fam­ily’s Clin­ton Foun­da­tion, which ac­cepted tens of mil­lions of dol­lars from na­tions with dis­turb­ing records on women’s rights, gen­der dis­crim­i­na­tion and vi­o­lence against women and chil­dren such as Saudi Ara­bia, Qatar and Al­ge­ria.

Even set­ting aside her check­ered record in the Sen­ate and the State De­part­ment, it is Mrs. Clin­ton’s fla­grant con­tra­dic­tions on women’s is­sues that ex­pose her true char­ac­ter. While many women may see through the dou­ble talk, this won’t stop her from brand­ing her­self as a cham­pion of women. But Don­ald Trump and other Repub­li­cans now have an op­por­tu­nity to re­mind vot­ers of her real track record of crit­i­ciz­ing women, as­sist­ing in de­stroy­ing their rep­u­ta­tions and turn­ing a blind eye to Bill Clin­ton’s sex­ual mis­con­duct — all for the sake of po­lit­i­cal power.

One “I am wo­man/Hear me roar” speech may play well with her al­lies in the me­dia, but women need to look be­yond her rhetoric and the snazzy ads. If they do, they’ll quickly re­al­ize that the Hil­lary Clin­ton who bashed women and called them bim­bos in the 1990s is the real Hil­lary Clin­ton run­ning for the White House in 2016. Mercedes Sch­lapp is a Fox News con­trib­u­tor and co-founder of Alexan­dria-based Cove Strate­gies, a gov­ern­men­tal and pub­lic re­la­tions firm, where she de­vel­ops and im­ple­ments me­dia strat­egy for non­profit or­ga­ni­za­tions. She can be reached at mschlapp@wash­ing­ton­times.com.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from USA

© PressReader. All rights reserved.