Why Would A Women’s Rights Activist Even Have To Make Such A Request Of Hillary In The First Place??
[guest post by Dana]
Hillary Clinton has historically been seen as one of the leading feminists and staunch supporters of women’s rights of our time. Her latest effort in supporting women worldwide was the formation of the “No Ceilings” campaign which seeks to ensure “full and equal participation of women in political, civil, economic, social and cultural life.”
With the launch of her presidential campaign, Hillary is once again receiving the support of feminists, who are for the second time pinning their hopes on her being elected. As she morphs into a “family-oriented” candidate who retains her feminist cred, her supporters blissfully ignore any controversy surrounding her and continue to lay flowers at her feet:
The surprisingly moving video announcing Hillary Clinton’s bid for the presidency shows that Democrats have finally found an authentic version of pro-family politics.
The campaign announcement suggests that this will be a very different sort of Clinton campaign than we saw in 2008, one that emphasizes gender and so-called women’s issues instead of running from them. And whatever you think of Clinton, it’s a triumph of feminism—or, at least, a certain kind of feminism—that issues like family leave and childcare are about to be at the center of a presidential contest.
But make no mistake, they are counting on her to fight hard for the cause:
A sleeping giant is stirring out there — the rage of senior boomer women sickened by setbacks to women’s rights. Younger women are also waking up to the blatant bias being exercised by a new generation of Gen X male leaders.
Hillary Clinton is just the candidate to breathe fire into the giant and unleash a hard-charging neo-feminist movement.
But winning isn’t just about winning over women. Well aware of the perils of being a bulldog feminist, Clinton will be running on a new persona: the kick-ass grandma who will fight for a fair deal for middle-class families and children.
Yet in spite of Hillary’s iconic feminist stature, journalist Raheel Raza still felt it necessary to make an ironic request as she recognized Hillary’s feet of clay:
A prominent Pakistani-born women’s rights activist is asking presidential candidates, including Hillary Clinton, to pledge not to accept donations from foreign nations that oppress women. Raheel Raza, the Canadian journalist behind the documentary film Honor Diaries, is requesting all the presidential candidates, from both parties and both “men and women,” to sign her pledge.
This week, Hillary Clinton announced her candidacy for President,” said Raza in a statement. “As a woman, I congratulate her, but as a women’s rights advocate, I’m concerned about the $13,000,000-$40,000,000 the Clinton Foundation reportedly took from regimes that persecute women, namely Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Oman and the UAE.”
Raza’s pledge is not limited to presidential campaigns, asking candidates to promise to “never take money from regimes that oppress women, even after I leave public office, including any libraries or foundations in my name.”
“If you’re running for President—and if you want women’s votes—you should sign ‘The Pledge to Women’ and say ‘no’ to money from regimes that forbid women to vote or run for office,” said Raza.
The Clintons’ foundation has said that it will continue to accept donations from a specific set of Western nations, though not from the Middle Eastern regimes that persecute women. The related Clinton Global Initative may, however, still allow participation from those regimes, the Wall Street Journal reports.
I’m reminded of Camilia Paglia’s passionately blunt no-holds-barred assessment of Hillary in which she shreds the illusion that is Hillary, feminist icon:
“[H]illary does not have it. Hillary is a mess. And we’re going to reward the presidency to a woman who’s enabled the depredations and exploitation of women by that cornpone husband of hers? The way feminists have spoken makes us blind to Hillary’s record of trashing [women]. They were going to try to destroy Monica Lewinsky. It’s a scandal. Anyone who believe in sexual harassment guidelines should have seen that the disparity of power between Clinton and Monica Lewinsky was one of the most grotesque ever in the history of sex crime. He’s a sex criminal. We’re going to put that guy back in the White House? Hillary’s ridden on his coattails. This is not a woman who has her own career, who’s made her own career! The woman who failed the bar exam in Washington. The only reason she went to Arkansas and got a job in the Rose law firm was because her husband was a politician.”
And she also sums up Hillary, presidential candidate:
It remains baffling how anyone would think that Hillary Clinton (born the same year as me) is our party’s best chance. She has more sooty baggage than a 90-car freight train. And what exactly has she ever accomplished — beyond bullishly covering for her philandering husband? She’s certainly busy, busy and ever on the move — with the tunnel-vision workaholism of someone trying to blot out uncomfortable private thoughts.