As Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign appears to be taking its last breath, my prescient abilities concerning her behavior with respect to her feminist leanings has not let me down.
Back in October of 2007, I wrote how I would not vote for Hillary because she had declared herself a feminist earlier in the year while speaking at a National Organization for Women event. I wrote at that time that by declaring herself a feminist, she also declared her expected behavior, which meant her campaign would most likely include traditional feminist characteristics such as hypocrisy, distortions of the truth, or one of the core fundamentals of feminism: the ability to blame someone or something else for your own indiscretions.
It is hard enough to try and determine which candidate is the most trustworthy and honest, but if a candidate declares herself/himself a feminist, in my opinion that all but assures the voters that truth, honesty, and personal responsibility will be capriciously applied by the candidate. I wrote because of this she would not receive my vote.
Hillary made me look like a genius.
Last Tuesday Hillary Clinton blasted the media – and indirectly society – for the failures of her campaign. Hillary and her supporters are blaming the rampant “vitriol” of sexism that pervades most media, pundits, and others for her fall from grace in the race for the Democratic nomination.
In an article published in the Washington Post, Hillary scolded the media by saying,
“The manifestation of some of the sexism that has gone on in this campaign is somehow more respectable, or at least more accepted, and . . . there should be equal rejection of the sexism and the racism when it raises its ugly head. It does seem as though the press at least is not as bothered by the incredible vitriol that has been engendered by the comments by people who are nothing but misogynists.”
In another call to supporters she stated,
“I deeply regret the vitriol and the mean-spiritedness and the terrible insults and rhetoric that has been thrown around at you for supporting me, at women in general, at many of those who support my campaign because of who they are and their stand based on principle. I don’t have time for their insults, I’m impervious to them.”
Hillary, her staff, and supporters have been claiming throughout this campaign that sexist aspersions and actions have been plaguing her bid for nomination since last year, so these new charges are just another notch on her “gender bias” platform. However, after reiterating her position – again – that sexism has played an important role in the outcome of this presidential nomination, she then states she has no time for this ugliness and she is “impervious” to it.
Impervious? If this is true, then why the hell does she keep bringing it up and bitching about it?
Obviously I’m not the only one who has noticed Hillary’s lack of continuity in what she says from one day to the next.
Robert Parry, a former investigative reporter for the Associated Press and Newsweek wrote back in March for Consortiumnews.com that,
[I] observed a disturbing trend in Hillary Clinton’s campaign – her growing tendency to stretch the truth, twist what her chief rival was saying and then rely on her supporters to go on the offensive against you if you spoke up.
He wrote how media articles exposing her contradictions, or challenging her honesty during the campaign led to,
“… furious reactions from Clinton’s supporters who seem on perpetual alert to any criticism of their candidate, so it can be repudiated as an example of “sexism,” “Hillary bashing” or membership in some “Barack Obama cult.”
So is it surprising that as her nomination turns moribund, Hillary and her supporters – using traditional feminist ideology – will place blame on others for her failures rather than accept the fact that she is ultimately responsible?
To set the record straight, and prove her loss had nothing to do with sexism or misogyny, but more with Hillary herself, let me highlight the many damaging issues that occurred within the Clinton campaign:
— During a national presidential debate, Hillary stumbled and flip-flopped on the issue of whether she agreed with the state of New York and their proposal to give drivers licenses to illegal immigrates.
At first she seemed to agree with the proposal, but after another candidate, Senator Chris Dodd, spoke confidently against it, Clinton backpedaled and said she never agreed with it, but rather meant to express an understanding of why it may be needed. She then scolded moderator Tim Russert for “picking” on her after he drew attention to the contradiction. The other candidates took great pleasure in exploiting her gaffe.
The next day her staff sent a press release stating what she really meant to say was that she supported the New York bill. But the Clinton camp also began circulating the propaganda that Hillary was the victim of sexism. In a letter to supporters and donators, her staff wrote,
“On that stage in Philadelphia, we saw six against one. Candidates who had pledged the politics of hope practiced the politics of pile on instead. Her opponents tried a whole host of attacks on Hillary.”It should be noted Hillary was the most powerful candidate at that time, and any kink in her armor would naturally be exploited by her competitors as historical politics would reveal. But she and her supporters twisted the traditional flow of politics, arguing it as a form of sexism, with Hillary portrayed as a victim of traditional patriarchal behavior – the boys picking on the girls.
As columnist Kathleen Parker wrote,
“Yet the spin coming out of the Clinton campaign is that the men were ganging up on Hillary. Sorry, but when girls insist on playing hardball with the boys, they don’t get to cry foul – or change the game to dodge ball – when they get bruised.”
The same campaign staff that had successfully created the perception that Hillary was as tough as nails and could stand as tall as any male leader, crumbled under a minor crisis, portraying Hillary as a victim, unable to escape a sexist paradigm, and in desperate need of help, both emotional and financial.
— When dealing with sexist attitudes, Hillary portrayed herself as somebody who was more than prepared to handle the bigotry that was lining her path to the White House and beyond.
On the talk show The View, Hillary stated,
“You know, I have been to 82 countries, and I have met with the leaders of a lot of countries that are not exactly in the forefront of giving women their rights. And I’ve never found that to be a problem.”
Again, if this is true, then why is she focusing again on the sexist and “misogynist” attitudes found here within the media and society during her campaign?
Considering the sexism in this country is pretty benign compared to some countries in the world, it would be no stretch to say she is misleading herself and others in believing she would have no problem with sexism on a more serious level. If she can’t handle it here without getting flustered, how can she confidently state she can handle it on a more malevolent level somewhere else?
— Hillary told the now famous story of coming under sniper fire while visiting Bosnia in 1996 with daughter Chelsea. Claiming she made the trip herself to the war-torn country because the trip was too dangerous for her husband, this story was an attempt by her and her staff to validate her foreign policy experience. But soon after, many began questioning its legitimacy with such questions as:
** If security for the president of the United States – which is the best in the world – found the trip extremely dangerous for him, why would they decide to send his wife and child into this hostile environment?
** If the president’s wife and child came under sniper fire during a trip to Bosnia, how come nobody in the media could recall such a powerful and dominating headline?
The Washington Post’s Michael Dobbs was the first to report the story as a bold face lie. Immediately, Clinton and her staff demanded a retraction, claiming there was evidence of a real threat that day. Dobbs and the Post refused. Only after CBS ran video of Hillary and Chelsea being warmly and openly greeted on the tarmac at the airport did Clinton and her staff back off the sniper story.
Clinton’s excuse? It wasn’t a nefarious lie; she claimed she had just “misspoken”.
— Her second act of “misspeaking” came shortly after the first when she began using a “true” and tragic story concerning our country’s failing healthcare system while on the campaign trail.
The story, told to her by one of her supporters, consisted of an uninsured pregnant woman who was denied health care at two local hospitals for herself and her unborn child because she lacked insurance. Eventually, both the baby and the woman died.
While the death of the mother and child is true, lack of health insurance was not related to the cause of death for either. As Clinton began repeating the story again and again on the campaign trail, the media began checking further into the story.
It was discovered that the woman actually was employed and insured – contrary to what Clinton was saying – and that neither the child nor the mother was ever denied access to either hospital for treatment. It appears she had gone to the first hospital for a routine exam when the doctors discovered her child had died and would have to be delivered stillborn. She suffered serious complications after the birth and was transferred to another hospital that doctors felt could manage her deteriorating condition by offering her BETTER care. However, the woman was besieged by setbacks and eventually died from complications.
Clinton and her staff claimed they tried to verify the story, but found it difficult. The media however, found no problem finding the woman’s family and the hospitals involved when trying to verify the story. Both family and the hospitals said they were never contacted by Clinton’s staff.
In part two, I’ll continue with more mistakes made by Clinton and her staff which, when summed up, shows numerous contradictions and distortions of the truth, rather than overt sexism, played a key role in her downfall from undisputed leader, to hoping for a miracle in the next few weeks.
(Note: Thank you, to those that sent well wishes to my wife and I. It was greatly appreciated.)