Hillary Clinton: The False Female Empowerment Candidate
By: Philip Kaplan
Out of fairness, I’m willing to give Hillary Clinton a pass on her stomach-turning legal defense, in the 1970s, of a man who had brutally raped a young girl. I will not hold that against her because as a lawyer myself, I understand the ethic of zealously representing one’s clients no matter how horrible they are, and I’ve certainly defended my share who were less than stellar human beings.
I am not willing, however, to give Hillary a pass on the following: 1) That she spent decades publicly smearing and attacking the credibility of all the women who had accused her husband of sexual harassment and rape, and that she did so purely from selfish political ambition. 2) That she has accepted millions of dollars from Islamic countries that deny women basic human rights and stone rape victims to death for “adultery.” 3) That she repeatedly soft-pedals on the threat of radical Islam, despite its proven terrorist threat. 3) That she has the nerve to look America in the eye and expect us to believe that her soft approach to radical Islam has nothing to do with the money she has accepted from such countries. 4) That she dismisses anyone who does take such threats seriously as “Islamophobic.”
It gets worse.
Not only does Hillary seem to be indifferent to women, as shown by her disgusting treatment of her husband’s accusers and her open-arms, open bank account approach to misogynistic terrorist countries, but she seems to be indifferent to human beings in general, male or female.
How else could she explain putting our national security at risk by leaking classified emails out of– best case scenario– extreme carelessness and a total disregard for proper procedure?
How else could she explain accepting big corporate campaign donations, supporting trade deals and policies that benefit large corporations at the expense of the American worker, while our nation’s men and women continue to suffer as our economy and job market are getting cannibalized?
How else could she explain rigging the Democratic primary election against Bernie Sanders and then brazenly re-hiring the disgraced Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, her rigging co-conspirator, to work on her campaign?
Hillary Clinton does not care. She is in it for the money. She is in it for the power. She simply does not care about people, regardless of gender.
So perhaps her most gag-inducing persona is that of the “female empowerment candidate.” Vote for her, she tells us. Vote for the first woman president! Break the glass ceiling!
Excuse me, but do I dare ask what kind of role model Hillary is for young women? What’s her message to girls? You, too, can be as ruthless, greedy, amoral, power-hungry, dishonest, and indifferent to human suffering as any male politician?
Hillary takes every opportunity to remind us of the fact that she’s a woman. Moreover, her campaign has long relied on the tactic of accusing her opponents and critics of sexism. Hillary’s camp has perfected the media attack narrative that Donald Trump is a “sexist,” despite Trump’s worst sin being that he has occasionally said mean things about individual women.
But this reveals an underlying truth about Hillary Clinton, particularly with regard to the issue of “female empowerment”: She isn’t concerned with women’s rights or with the actual, tangible, real-world issues and problems facing women, their finances, and their basic physical safety. What she is concerned with is the superficial manipulation of the gender debate in order to score political points. She’s concerned with cheap identity politics and the gamesmanship of getting offended. She’s concerned with victim feminism as a cover.
The only female empowerment she cares about is her own.