Hillary the Hypocrite


Opinion Writer


While Bernie Sanders is threatening to take the lead against Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, Clinton still has a chance to become the 45th President of the United States. The prospect of electing the first female Commander in Chief certainly has its appeal. We all yearn to be represented by leaders who truly understand us and therefore will fight for us.

But ladies, Hillary is not the hero you’re looking for.

Hillary Clinton portrays herself as a champion of women’s rights. I, however, pay heed to the philosophy that actions speak louder than words. In examining her actions, you’ll find that while Hillary Clinton certainly talks the talk, she utterly fails to walk the walk.

In fact, she’s a highly-accomplished hypocrite. For example:

If Mrs. Clinton truly believed in gender equality, she would not act as though she’s entitled to the presidency simply because she’s a woman.

She would not use her gender as a cop-out for a hard question. She would not state that she’s not part of “the establishment”—as she did in a recent debate —solely because she’s a woman.

She would understand that to do so would seem to suggest that a woman can’t be part of “the establishment,” as though being a woman automatically makes you the underdog. I don’t want someone who thinks women are the underdogs to represent me.

I want someone who runs on good ideas and pure intellect. And maybe she happens to be a woman. But it’s not her entire platform.

wild cards
Graphic designed by Colton Walter

It’s ridiculous and unfair for Hillary to use her sex as a reason to vote for her. I was taught that one should neither take credit for nor be shamed for something that he or she cannot control. This includes sex. And yet, Hillary talks about being a woman as though it’s some bold endeavor she’s chosen to take on, and thus she should be rewarded. Imagine the uproar that would—rightly—ensue if a man did the same.

Furthermore, if Hillary was really the heroine for women’s rights she pretends to be, she would not allow herself to be repeatedly stepped on by her morally-dehydrated husband amidst all his sexual pursuits. And she would not hush the victims of these pursuits, as she has done repeatedly.

It baffles me – how can you trust a woman who says she’ll fight for you, for victims of sexual harassment and assault, when she’s hurt, hushed and refused to believe women who have suffered such trauma from her husband?

Kathleen Willey, for example, was a former volunteer aide to Bill Clinton and thanks to him, is a victim of sexual assault. In an interview with host of “The Kelly File” Megyn Kelly, Willey said of Mrs. Clinton,

“She singlehandedly orchestrated every one of the investigations of all these women [who accused her husband of sexual crimes].”

Mrs. Clinton, therefore, helped her husband get off scot-free regarding many cases filed against him by victimized women. Hence, she has a history of hurting the very women she’s promised to help.

“[Voters] have no idea what [Hillary] stands for and who she is,” said Willey. “They’re going to vote for her because it’s cool to elect the first woman president. They should be educated … What happened to me was terrifying.” Allow me to beg you to educate yourself.      

Finally, if Hillary Clinton was truly a role model who empowers women, she would not propose that a mother make a decision both physically and emotionally harmful to herself and fatal to another human being as the solution for a woman in a time of crisis.

She would not defend the loss of millions of baby girls since Roe v. Wade in 1973, nor their fellow million male counterparts. She would mourn them. She would fight for them. She would recognize we deserve better than abortion and would search relentlessly for another solution.

In short, I’m not voting for Hillary Clinton not because I don’t root for my own gender. In fact, that’s the exact reason I would never vote for her.

Hillary Clinton is not the hero she pretends to be; she has proven to be destructive to women. Yes, electing the first female president would be exciting and empowering—but only if she’s up for the job.

Don’t elect Hillary just because she’s a woman—that is something she has no control over. Examine  Hillary’s record concerning things that she can control, however, and you may find yourself severely disappointed. Truly, ladies, we could do much better. 🅼

6 thoughts on “Hillary the Hypocrite

  • February 23, 2016 at 4:36 pm

    Interesting how you switch from using “gender” in some paragraphs to using “sex” in other paragraphs when referring to the gender of Ms. Clinton, in particular those paragraphs referencing President William (Bill) Clinton’s escapades.

    I have not seen nor have I read transcript of the interview of Ms. Willey, but I am certain she does not offer an impartial opinion of either the former President or the former Secretary of State.

    Your opinion piece dismantles the character of Ms. Clinton before arriving at what appears to be your main concern: Ms. Clinton’s position on abortion rights. Given that Mr. Sanders and Ms. Clinton both support a woman’s right to choose, why attack Ms. Clinton’s character in all of the preceding paragraphs?

    Is opposition to abortion your over riding concern? If so, you are clearly in support of either a Republican candidate or an Independent.

    Is that your opinion?

    • February 25, 2016 at 8:13 pm

      Hi, Steven! Thank you for your comment. I very much appreciate you taking the time to share your opinion. I will attempt to respond to all of your comments and inquiries below:
      – Regarding the use of “sex” versus “gender” in this article, I do acknowledge and understand the difference between the terms. However, as Hillary’s biological sex and the gender she identifies with are “female,” I feel that both terms can be used interchangeably in this article. My point was that a major part of Hillary’s platform is being female – which, in her case, is both her biological sex as well as the gender she identifies with. Therefore, I believe the use of both terms is correct.
      – Concerning Kathleen Willey, I agree with you- I, too, am certain she does not offer an impartial opinion of either the former President or the former Secretary of State. Given that she was sexually assaulted by the former President, whose campaign she was assisting, and hindered by Hillary Clinton in seeking justice, I do not understand how one could possibly expect her to hold an impartial opinion of either of the Clintons. That would be a ridiculous expectation, don’t you think?
      – While I do discuss abortion at the conclusion of the piece, this piece is first and foremost about Hillary Clinton. I see the article as highlighting the inconsistencies between Hillary Clinton’s actions and words rather than attacks on her character, but regardless, the piece is about Hillary Clinton and not about abortion. I certainly did include Hillary’s stance on abortion as I believe it to be very relevant to the topic of the article. However, the article mentions much more than abortion, and is an analysis of Hillary Clinton’s hypocrisy and incompetency to lead a country. Thus, I did not mention Bernie Sanders. You are right in assuming, however, that I would be critical of both Mrs. Clinton’s and Mr. Sanders’ stances on abortion. If you would like me to write an article discussing Bernie Sanders’ view on abortion, I would be more than happy to.
      – Finally, as a passionate advocate for the pro-life movement, I would support candidates who share such pro-life views. Thus, I would indeed tend to support a Republican or an Independent, rather than a Democrat, whose stance on abortion, among many other things, I usually disagree with.

      I hope I answered all of your questions. Thank you again for your comment.

  • February 25, 2016 at 11:49 pm

    You state as fact what Ms. Willey allegis. Even for an opinion piece, this is poor journalism.

    Further, your readers deserve to know you would not support any candidate who supports abortion. That is your opinion.

    In terms of Ms. Clinton’s incompetencies, I see none listed, beyond her support of her husband (your opinion) and her use of her gender/sex and her support of abortion.

    To disagree with her (and it would seem a majority of people in this country do not) with regard to abortion is; once more, your opinion.

    Your reader deserves your honesty in an opinion piece. You freely admit to me that you would not support any candidate who supports abortion, yet leave that telling fact from your other readers.

    In my opinion leaving that large piece out renders the entire article as a political hit piece.

    In all honesty, I voted for Mr. Clinton twice. But, I also voted for George McGovern. Sometimes you win, sometimes you loose.

    In any event, keep sharing your real opinion and I will keep reading.

    • February 26, 2016 at 1:06 pm

      I’m sorry you feel that I have not shared my “real” opinion in this article, Steven, but let me assure you that, as the author and holder of these opinions, I intended to, and feel that I have. I am sorry that it seems to you that I have attempted to mask my real opinion in this article, but that is never my intent. That would, indeed, be a poor philosophy for an opinion writer!
      I appreciate you sharing your opinion – feedback is always welcome, valuable, and appreciated, as my goal is not to change minds but to start discussions. I hope you intend to keep reading, but regardless, I am going to keep writing.

  • February 26, 2016 at 8:36 am

    Did you ever consider the reason she gets away with the “sex card” is because of all the draft abortion laws and planned parent hood hearings?

    54 percent of women are pro-choice*, so, presumably, for most women each attempt to restrict abortion rights legislatively is seen as an attack on their sex.

    As we know the overwhelming majority of state lawmakers are male, with women only holding 24.2 percent of state legislative seats*. And the same occurs at the federal level with women holding 19.2 percent of federal legislative seats*.

    In essence, for many women–probably the majority–male legislators are attacking their productive rights and Hillary Clinton opposes those efforts because she understands what it is like to be a woman and the importance of choice, which seems to be lost to many male politicians. Yes, many woman are against abortion, not the majority, but that does not matter because these legislative initiatives are coming from male politicians who are incapable of understanding what it is like to be a pregnant woman in a tough spot or to articulate their thoughts in a way that even shows they have a clue about what being a woman entails.

    The disparity of between the rates of male and female legislators and the plethora of abortion legislation does not make it seem strange that so many women would vote for her due to her sex. For example, Richard Murdoch, an Indiana tea party senate candidate, lost his election to a democrat because he said even in cases or rape women should not have the right to an abortion. Which is the only logical response for people who are pro-life; life from rape is still life and too bad for the mother–if a child was conceived it was God’s plan. That is a paraphrase of what he said.

    I, personally, believe that is crap of the highest order, but, nonetheless, many men and woman believe that. He lost to a democrat because of this statement…in Indiana. If a male, tea-partyer can get up and say this about women, it does not take any great stretch of the imagination to believe that there are women who would vote for Clinton because she is a woman.

    Not to mention also, this history of humanity has largely been one of civic oppression for women–we are four years away from the centennial anniversary of the 20th Amendment which gave women the right to suffrage. Out of 9000 to 12000 years of modern human activity women have not had the right to vote for even 100 and legislators, in the view of most women, cannot stop talking about their sex life. And, again, many wonder how any women could be led to vote for another women just because she’s a woman. And more to the point here, I believe for many woman are not going to vote for her just because she’s a woman, but because they believe her to be a woman who understands.

    As to the investigations and dirty maneuvers, she is still a politician, and democrat or republican, I do not trust politicians.

    Finally, if your piece was actually about Clinton’s character and not your opposition to abortion, you should not have mentioned abortion; it is the only issue she has not flipped on.

    She used to oppose gay marriage, used to support war in the middle east, and says she opposes wall street, but takes millions from it. You literally brought up the single issue which she has not *lied* about.


    • February 26, 2016 at 1:00 pm

      Thank you for your comment, Jacob!
      I very much appreciate that you read the piece and are sharing a thoughtful opinion. One of the best parts about writing these articles is the chance to investigate and explore alternate perspectives. While I’m still going to stick to my guns when it comes to my opinion of Hillary Clinton, as well as the issues discussed in the article, your comment is very thought-provoking and feedback is always welcome. I have a sense that we’re alike in that we both hold strong convictions, and my goal isn’t to change your mind but only to share an opinion, so I hope you don’t mind if I respectfully acknowledge your opinion but do not respond to all of your comments, as I do not believe that would appease either of us.
      Thank you again for sharing.

Leave a Reply