Hillary’s Legacy

HillaryTwo years before the real campaigning begins, America’s class of politicos is convinced former First Lady Hillary Clinton will take up the quest for the jackass nomination. After stints as both a U.S. Senator and Secretary of State, Clinton is no doubt cozy with all of Washington’s big players. Her husband’s standing will make it easy to tap into high-dollar revenue streams; much like in 2008. The only thing left is the pesky announcement. When it comes, expect to hear a collective screech of liberal elation. The family dynasty most synonymous with chic progressivism will ignite a wave of support so massive, leftist writers will be beside themselves trying to scribe an accurate representation of their glee.

The media is not letting shyness get in the way of its anticipation of another Clintonian presidency. The New York Times’ faithful duo of ravage feminism, the alluring Maureen Dowd and ghoulish Gail Collins, are positively enamored over Hillary in the Oval Office. In a usual column laced with Republican pejoratives, Dowd point blankly hopes for “Conquistadora Hillary” to march in and wipe the GOP “from the Earth.” Bill is, of course, riding on a horse behind her so as to not diminish his wife’s assertive power. Wild Willie had his time in the spotlight so naturally it’s time for his better half to take the reins. Few pundits match the Hillary fawning as much as Gail Collins. She stays enamored over a potential 2016 run by praising Clinton’s “terrifying work ethic” and sacrifice to her family’s aspirations. Collins, in the ultimate form of journalistic flattery, describes Hillary’s suprahuman ability to recover from tragic accidents as “a steely resolve” that makes “the world swoon.” If Gail has misgivings about William J., it’s only because she isn’t wearing his wedding ring.

To ready her for the national run, some publications are analyzing Clinton’s time as Secretary of State as a precursor to a much larger role in the state. National Journal correspondent Jill Lawrence recently made the case for Clinton’s “global feminist” legacy following her tenure at Foggy Bottom. In Lawrence’s words, the Clinton State Department put women “at the center of U.S. foreign policy.” Her tireless efforts included working to reduce child marriages in Yemen, turning Egyptian women into online activists, and teaching African mothers how to better compete in the global marketplace. Clinton’s advocacy for a larger role of women on the world platform was unprecedented and, according to Lawrence, newly appointed Secretary John Kerry has big shoes to fill.

The report paints the possible presidential nominee as a crusader for the plight of the unprivileged sex. When considering the actual record of the 67th Secretary of State, this is hardly an accurate characterization. Getting past all the superfluous announcements and speeches, it’s not clear if Clinton was a net positive benefit for women as head of the State Department. She talked a good game; but then so does every bureaucrat craving fame and attention.

The biggest foreign relations triumph for women in the past four years did not come from Ms. Clinton. It was former Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta’s lifting of the ban that prevented females from entering military combat. Egalitarians of both sexes were elated over the news. The long oppression of women not being allowed to come home in a decorated casket after fighting in immoral wars was finally overturned. Anticipation was high after the pronouncement as the better sex would finally prove it was just as capable of bloodthirsty firefights as its counterpart. With that unwitting support, the first two female Marines to try their hand at the physically brutal Infantry Officer Course failed. Even the spineless David Frum recognized that women are at disadvantage to men physically and psychologically when it comes to being combat infantry. Being able to brandish an M16 in the name of empire was the biggest accomplishment (or defeat) women saw in the last half-decade, and Hillary Clinton had little to do with it.

One of Clinton’s biggest achievements as Secretary of State was the delisting of Iranian resistance organization Mujahideen-e Khalq (MEK) from the department’s list of terrorist organizations. The group, which spent lavish sums of cash lobbying for political support, is responsible for the murder of at least six Americans. During the Iranian hostage crisis, members of MEK openly called for the execution of the captives. The reason the once-designated terror group is so lauded today in Washington is because of its opposition to the Iranian government. In the Iraq-Iran War, MEK joined forces with Saddam Hussein and helped the dictator quell an uprising in his own country. Still, Clinton found the need to excuse the group despite its alleged involvement in assassinating nuclear scientists in Iran at the behest of the Israeli government. From a women’s rights perspective (an oft-used but muddled term since rights apply to all humans), MEK’s cultish practices among membership should raise a brow. According to Human Rights Watch, members are compelled to divorce their spouse upon joining, both physically and emotionally. To feminists who see the family unit as a confining weapon of the bourgeoisie, perhaps this is a victory.

Should Clinton actually decide to try for the Oval Office again, the neoconservative branch of the Republican party will be ecstatic. More Ares than Hera, she lambasted the Bush administration as a Senator for its reluctance to deal with Iran’s supposed pursuance of nuclear weaponry. Seven years later she still stands ready to turn Tehran into a war zone over nukes. There is also that inconvenient vote for the Iraq War which brought forth no weapons of mass destruction. If continued belligerence over imaginary arms is a triumph of women’s lib, so are abusive mothers.

Modern feminists are supposed to take pride in independence and self-sufficiency. Yet given the Clintons’ history, labeling Hillary a symbol of women empowerment is grounds for total mockery. The lingering fact of Bill’s rampant infidelity and Hillary’s decision to stay a Mrs. will always be a smudge on her record. Of course bringing up such a topic is taboo in our politically correct society. Private lives are set to be off limits when it comes to politicians. I have always found that claim to be a easy slip. How else judge a man, or woman, then by their personal actions? Politicians are naturally slimy creatures. Is it really that crazy to assume private behavior manifests itself in public action? Hillary stayed a Clinton to maintain her status as political royalty. Everyone knows it, but most are shamed into silence.

Clinton has always been a shameless member of the ruling class, never hesitating to plot her next move for state glory. Her crimes against veracity would be enough to disgrace any normal man into nomadic living. Before she came out in support of homosexual marriage, she called the marital union of a man and woman “the fundamental bedrock principle” which transcends “back into the mists of history.” When she spoke on behalf of internet freedom abroad, her department tacitly supported security regulations of cyberspace at home. As she was questioned in a Congressional hearing over the true cause of the disaster at the consulate in Bengazi that left four Americans dead, Clinton cried in an agitated voice “what difference does it make” followed by “it’s our job to figure out what happened.” The two comments, clearly rebutting themselves, were given a free pass by the empathetic press corps. Such hypocrisy is the definer of Hillary Rodham Clinton. She appeals to women across the globe even as her official actions turn wives to widows and mothers to grief-stricken heads of empty households.

A senile fellow once told me he knew so much about Bill Clinton that he referred to him openly as a lying pig. The man’s close association to the White House brought the ire of the FBI and had resulted in his monitoring. With such a colorful distrust of the Clintons, it’s likely my doddering acquaintance, for all of mental failings, would not be fooled into supporting Hillary as Woman-in-Chief. Then again, he also blamed the Clinton administration’s bombing of Kosovo and Iraq sanctions for the terrorist attacks on September 11th. Maybe he was not so crazy after all.

Tags: , , , , , ,

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.