Hillary’s life has been better. Perhaps not since the emergence of Barack Obama as the Democratic frontrunner in 2008 have her headlines been so bleak.
While the revelations surrounding her communications while serving as the head of the State Department are indeed troubling, they will likely run their course and be swept under the rug, at least partially, by a sympathetic media eager to see her coronation in 2016.
But there are other, equally troubling tidbits peppered throughout her past that deserve scrutiny. Much like her party, Hillary’s vocal defense of the women’s rights have been little more than lip service. She talks the talk alright, but she has never walked the walk.
As we focus on the emails, let us not forget the females.
Few relationships in American politics are as secure as is female support for Hillary Clinton. The sun rises in the East and sets in the West and women love the former first lady. Whether it’s a genuine admiration for her political savvy, a collective menstrual middle finger at the patriarchy, or the graceful cut of her pantsuits, Mrs. Clinton has long enjoyed significant favor among the fairer sex.
And come 2016 it could well pay off. A recent Quinnipiac poll shows Clinton destroying much of the Republican field by up to 31 percentage points when it comes to women voters in swing states.
The overwhelming support of women enjoyed by Hillary is understandable when viewed from an “us-against-the-world” perspective. Persecution, real or perceived, creates legitimate bonds; sisters before misters.
But a rational preponderance of historical evidence reveals this support to be ill-conceived. In fact, the historical record paints a crystal clear picture of a woman driven by ambition that has repeatedly placed the priorities of her political career well before gender justice.
As with most things in Hillary’s career, the story starts with her husband.
In perhaps the greatest political soap opera of its time (aided and abetted by the birth of the Internet), the country was paralyzed by a sitting President’s salacious affair with his much younger female intern. At 22, Monica Lewinsky’s life was just beginning while at 49 Bill Clinton was the most powerful man on Earth. The Leader of the Free World’s seduction of an impressionable, naïve wallflower was an unfortunate lesson in mixing chauvinism and power; Lewinsky would contemplate suicide as the scandal played out on the World Wide Web and her life would be marred by depression and seclusion for years to come.
Yet Hill stood by Bill, or depending on one’s perspective, her political future. By openly ignoring the true female victim (vast right-wing conspiracy, anyone) Clinton endorsed the darkest side of the oft-bemoaned male political patriarchy. Sadly, this was only the latest in a string of extra-marital dalliances by her powerful husband—some strong woman.
More recent revelations have shed light on her husband’s relationship with Jeffrey Epstein, a billionaire financier fond of engaging in paid sex with underage girls. Apparently the line between women’s’ rights and high-dollar sex trafficking is finer than anyone imagined.
But sex is one thing. Money quite another. Taken together these two powerful motivators make Washington move and speak volumes about Clinton’s dedication, or lack thereof, to protecting the interests of women.
When Hillary left the State Department in 2013, she began fundraising for the William J. Clinton Foundation, later rebranded as the Bill, Hillary, and Chelsea Clinton Foundation. Money poured in alright. Among some of the more notable donors: Algeria, Brunei, Oman, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia. That’s right, countries where women can be stoned and are forbidden from holding office and driving.
It seems, sadly, that like so many others in the beltway, Clinton’s principles stop where the bottom line starts. But few others in the beltway carry the torch of women’s rights so highly, and falsely, as does Hillary.
But the buck doesn’t stop there; the money trail continues, all the way to Clinton’s personal staff.
A recent Reuters article enthusiastically points out that a large majority of Americans think that men are compensated more than women, “a finding that suggests that Democrat Hillary Clinton’s message on pay inequality could resonate broadly with Americans should she run for president in 2016 . . . Clinton has championed the economic advancement of women as a former secretary of state, U.S. senator and first lady.”
Perhaps. And if so, it would be a manipulation of the masses to make P.T. Barnum proud. An analysis from the Washington Free Beacon shows that while Hillary served the great state of New York as senator, women on her staff were paid 28 percent less than men. While Clinton’s male staff averaged right at $56,500 annually, women took home just under $41,000. And this from the woman that tweets with the hashtag “#noceilings.”
Furthermore, the Weekly Standard revealed that of the 11 highest paid employees at the Clinton Foundation, eight are men. With friends like Hillary, women don’t need enemies. Time and time again the opportunity has arisen to actually empower women, and she has repeatedly ducked behind the familiar security of politics and profit.
As Democratic Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan famously, and somewhat chauvinistically, remarked: “Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.” The same holds true for women and Hillary. They certainly retain the right to support her, at their peril; undermining one’s own cause may be illogical, but it’s certainly not illegal.
After all, everyone is free to wrestle bears or drink gasoline, but given the likely repercussions most people choose otherwise.