It took awhile, but it appears people are coming around to the fact that even though Hillary Clinton is trying to position herself as a defender of women’s rights, she really is no champion.
Two weeks ago, Hillary revealed that her presumed 2016 presidential campaign would be based on the fact that she is a woman. Almost no one seemed to notice.
Now, after three weeks of bad headlines involving donations from foreign governments with abysmal human rights records, gender pay gaps and an e-mail scandal, some in the media appear to be second-guessing her woman card credentials.
Amy Chozick of the New York Times published an article that appeared online Sunday titled “Hillary Clinton faces test of record as women’s advocate.” Her point is that as Clinton tries to “reintroduce” herself to voters as a champion of women’s rights, her namesake foundation takes money from foreign governments that deny women basic human rights.
Saudi Arabia, for example, has given the Clinton Foundation $10 million since 2001. In 2011, the State Department — still under Hillary — denounced Saudi Arabia for its “lack of equal rights for women and children.” As Chozick noted, common abuses against women in Saudi Arabia include “violence against women, human trafficking and gender discrimination.”
I know the Left will say all those things are problems in America as well, but not in the same way. The government and culture do not institutionalize such discrimination here in America the way Saudi Arabia does.
On the same day Chozick published her article, the GOP posted a research document highlighting other abuses from the countries that have given the Clinton Foundation money. Linking to various human rights reports dealing with Qatar, the document points out that the nation, which also gave the Clinton Foundation money, does not give women equal allowances for transportation, housing and subsistence.
Kuwait, another country that donated to the Clinton Foundation, does not give all women equal rights to property under the law and follows the oppressive Sharia Law when it comes to women’s rights. Oman, which also donated, has different standards for men and women when it comes to housing loans, which leads to fewer approvals for women. Similarly, Algeria discriminates against women in inheritance claims.
When asked how a President Hillary Clinton would be able to take a 3 a.m. phone call (a campaign point she made against President Obama’s inexperience in 2008) from one of these countries that gave her foundation millions, her spokesman only said “all set here.”
Seth Mandel, writing for Commentary Magazine, used Chozick’s article as a jumping off point for his own, titled “Hillary’s undeserved reputation as a champion of women is imploding.” In it, Mandel argues that Hillary was expecting “unadulterated adulation” as a women’s advocate, but finds herself buried in women’s issue scandals.
But the donation scandal noted by Chozick and Mandel is only the latest in a long history of Hillary’s failure to stand up for women. As I wrote two weeks ago, her success is linked to her husband Bill’s political ascension and expansive political machine. One can’t say for sure, but it is highly likely there would not have been a Senator or Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had she not been married to Bill Clinton throughout his political career.
Then there’s also the issue of how Hillary treated women in the 90s who accused her husband of lewd acts. She reportedly called Monica Lewinsky a “narcissistic loony toon.” She called Gennifer Flowers “trailer trash.” Other women, including Juanita Broaddrick and Connic Hamzy, accused Hillary of waging a campaign to discredit them. Kathleen Willey said she felt Hillary threatened her at a campaign event. She even reportedly tried to push the idea that George H.W. Bush was not faithful to his wife in order to take the heat off of Bill during his first presidential race in 1992.
And if that wasn’t bad enough, we can’t forget that the median salary for women in Hillary’s senate office was 72 cents to the dollar of men’s. And women at the Clinton Foundation, on average, earned 63 cents to the dollar that men earned in 2013 and held fewer leadership positions. A spokesman for the foundation assured the Washington Examiner those numbers would be different in 2014 data.
Hillary’s actions speak louder than her words. She can claim to be an advocate for women and girls around the world, but voters can see what she’s actually done: take money from governments that mistreat women, pay women less in her own office (according to the same metrics she uses to admonish the national wage gap) and call women who get in her way names and work to paint them as less than credible.
All the words in the world can’t undo those actions.
