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.
–Dana
Ahem, hello Dana.
JVW (a1146f) — 4/16/2015 @ 11:08 pmHello.
Dana (86e864) — 4/16/2015 @ 11:08 pmAs I was saying:
If The Nation thinks that a Democrat is running the right kind of campaign, that can only mean good things for potential Republican opponents, right?
JVW (a1146f) — 4/16/2015 @ 11:09 pmI think you’re onto something there, JVW.
It’s so bizarre to me how self-deceived these people are. How do they not connect the dots regarding Clinton and the acceptance of money from oppressors of women? It must take so much effort to resist looking at it for what it is, looking at her for who she really is…
Dana (86e864) — 4/16/2015 @ 11:13 pmA 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.
Wait, so my generation — who grew up with record divorce rates and were oftentimes raised in households run by moms and who were force-fed Boomer feminism from Kindergarten through grad school — has turned out to produce “blatant bias” in our male leaders? Maybe the feminists ought to be asking themselves where they went so wrong in their indoctrination efforts.
JVW (a1146f) — 4/16/2015 @ 11:14 pmRight. What exactly would these setbacks and blatant biases consist of?
This is just more of the mythical “War On Women” nonsense. These “setbacks” and “blatant biases” don’t exist.
Here’s a setback to women’s rights. Hillary! giggling about plea bargaining a child rapist down to a lesser charge by smearing a 12 year old rape victim.
http://freebeacon.com/politics/audio-hillary-clinton-speaks-of-defense-of-child-rapist-in-newly-unearthed-tapes/
So by the time her hubby Billy Jeff, the man she stood behind like Tammy Wynette wouldn’t (for Tammy Wynette it was a song, for Hillary! it was a roadmap) Hillary! was well versed in handling “Bimbo eruptions.”
She had already practiced the technique on child victims of rape.
Steve57 (cd6f9a) — 4/16/2015 @ 11:23 pmOnly an ignorant F’ing IDIOT would buy Rodhams Horse CHIT. Seriously.
Gus (7cc192) — 4/16/2015 @ 11:38 pmgreat post
mg (31009b) — 4/16/2015 @ 11:54 pmi be praying this country repels clintonitis.
*crickets*
Kevin M (25bbee) — 4/16/2015 @ 11:55 pm* by the time her hubby Billy Jeff, the man she stood behind like Tammy Wynette wouldn’t became preezy…
Damn keyboard.
Steve57 (cd6f9a) — 4/17/2015 @ 1:20 amGail Sheehy is a Clinton toady, not a feminist, although she may speak what they are thinking – which has exactly nothing to do with women’s rights and everything to do with their agenda of entitlement and power-grabbing in government and academia.
The myth that Clinton was anything more than an adequate President at best persists, carefully crafted by the media and leftist historians (sorry for the redundancy) based mainly on the results achieved by the Republican Congress and the fact his popularity went back up at the end due to the failed impeachment. The fact is they were the most corrupt people ever in the White House, including LBJ & Lady Bird.
Estragon (ada867) — 4/17/2015 @ 3:42 amI’m a fan of Paglia not least because she knows I don’t give a rip about her sexual orientation and could hold a conversation without beating me with the details.
DNF (208255) — 4/17/2015 @ 4:15 amOh, it’s not even THAT. The real victim(s) of sexual harassment wasn’t/weren’t Monica, it was all the OTHER women who were equivalent co-workers, who did NOT get all the followup special treatment she got with her “Presidential Kneepads”. The cushy job at the Pentagon, the contracts for books and product promotions. Monica traded infamy for largesse, a common quid-pro-quo.
All the other girls who didn’t get those things?
THEY were the ones that were sexually harassed.
It’s amazing to me that I seem to be the lone voice that has ever pointed this out.
IGotBupkis, "Si tacuisses, philosophus mansisses." (225d0d) — 4/17/2015 @ 4:37 amNo, at the least, there’s always Victor Davis Hanson…
IGotBupkis, "Si tacuisses, philosophus mansisses." (225d0d) — 4/17/2015 @ 4:40 amapologies to Helen Reddy…
she is Hillary!, hear ’em snore
so smug she’s written off as boor
and she’s lied so much to go back an’ pretend
‘Cause we’ve heard this crap before
and smart folks really know the score
No one’s ever gonna vote her in again
[Chorus:]
Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 4/17/2015 @ 6:14 amOh yes she’s a fraud
Been a poser all her life
a just and wrathful God
would gift Satan as his wife
If we’re smart she will be shown the door
She is wrong (wrong)
She is insufferable (insufferable)
She has cankles
No, at the least, there’s always Victor Davis Hanson…
And Paul Johnson. Though it ought to concern us that both conservative historians who readily come to mind are, respectively, 61 and 86. We desperately need a young conservative historian, but they may not be making them anymore.
JVW (a1146f) — 4/17/2015 @ 7:12 amWhat?!
If anything I am sickened by the fascism of the women’s rights movement. Feminist critical theory has ruined language, entertainment, sports, politics and sex. Well, they haven’t completely ruined sex but you know what I mean.
Patricia (5fc097) — 4/17/2015 @ 7:23 amDana, this is an excellent post with real depth.
I keep feeling the need to remind people that yesterday’s missing Rose Law firm billing records scandal was the bookend precursor to the missing emails scandal of today. The Whitewater personal self-enrichment scheme of yesterday was their Clinton Global Initiative personal self-enrichment scheme of today. The Lewinsky scandal is important now–not because of the disrespect to the Oval Office– but because it demonstrated how casually they both lie, and also how cavalierly they used and then treated a young, impressionable, and powerless woman in their orbit. “Womans Rights Activist”, my *ss.
It is necessary that all the ugly and telling Clinton baggage and history be exposed anew by those who remember and oppose her for these and so, so many other reasons. That’s because for a large group of American voters, and a good number of the more powerful influencers in both the old and new media, and even some running the campaigns, this stuff occurred 25-30 years ago when they were children or teenagers. Also, think how many legal immigrants have arrived in this country during those intervening years and have become citizens, and who now need to be made aware of the real Clinton history–not the fake one–that being manufactured for Hillary’s 2016 campaign.
elissa (cb946d) — 4/17/2015 @ 8:07 amLiberals and Democrats don’t care about results (except when it comes to their own elections and wallets), so it doesn’t matter to them if Hillary helps accomplish the feminist agenda. What matters is that they can count on her to say the right things. Modern liberalism isn’t about doing anything, it’s about appearances.
DRJ (e80d46) — 4/17/2015 @ 8:24 amWhat matters is that they can count on her to say the right things. Modern liberalism isn’t about doing anything, it’s about appearances.
And, of course, protecting the Obama Agenda of nationalized health care, increased spending, higher taxes, et al., from being undone by a Republican President working with a GOP Congress.
JVW (a1146f) — 4/17/2015 @ 8:29 amFor the same reason, elissa, @6 I felt the need to remind people how Hillary! has been defending “her man” from accusations of sexual assault for 40 years. First in the ’70s when “her man” was her client. And she went after the 12 y.o. rape victim (Hillary! clearly knew he was guilty) and accused her of being unstable and actively seeking the attention of older men.
In other words, she was asking for it.
Then in the ’90s when she stood by “her man,” Billy Jeff, by staffing a war room to assassinate the characters of any of the women “her man” clearly assaulted in some way. I’m basing that on Clinton’s perjurous statements in the Paula Jones case, for which he was found in civil contempt by the judge and subsequently stripped of his law license, and his willingness to settle if Jones would drop her appeal. And Jaunita Broderick accusation of rape against Billy Jeff was entirely plausible.
When she tries to sell herself as someone who has “fought” for women’s rights her entire career, it’s a lie.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/21/clinton.china.asia/
She’s never “fought” for anyone’s rights. She never would let such a minor concern get in the way of her larger concerns. Like making money.
Oh, yeah. All her baggage, her entire ugly history, needs to be brought out into the light of day.
Steve57 (cd6f9a) — 4/17/2015 @ 8:37 amAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA–
*ahem*
Oh, sorry. The notion that a Congress run by the likes of “Weepin'” John Boehner and “Harry’s Little” Mitch McConnell would actually do anything against any of that is always good for a chuckle.
Not that any of that takes away from the fact that preventing the coronation of Her Majesty Queen Cankles I is absolutely Job One for this nation. But still.
PCachu (e072b7) — 4/17/2015 @ 8:45 amJVW,
I think Democrats care more about themselves than their programs. If they really cared about the programs, they wouldn’t wait until right before an election to try to make them happen — which is what they’ve done with everything except ObamaCare.
DRJ (e80d46) — 4/17/2015 @ 11:22 amBut I also agree with you because protecting their programs is more about protecting themselves and their power.
DRJ (e80d46) — 4/17/2015 @ 11:23 amThere is no room in the Liberal or Democrat plan for “everyday” Americans other than how they can be used to further advantage. And that is really what Hillary is talking about when she discusses being their “champion”.
Dana (c2d469) — 4/17/2015 @ 1:19 pmThe GOP should play the tape of her laughing about her rapist client over and over again.
Patricia (5fc097) — 4/17/2015 @ 1:41 pm26.
mg (31009b) — 4/17/2015 @ 2:04 pmAnd then play it again, Sam.
some haikus are old
Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 4/17/2015 @ 2:33 pmtrite and nauseating
just like Hillary!
one more try…
some haikus are old
Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 4/17/2015 @ 2:35 pmtrite daft and nauseating
just like Hillary!
Oh, Puh-leeeze. Sorry, elissa, you’ve been drinking the feminist horseshit-flavored koolaid here.
That girl knew exactly what she was doing, and did so with a calculating intention from the first “Hi! I’m Monica!”…
It’s important for all your reasons except that last, PLUS the sheer, unmitigated hypocrisy of Clinton, the
defenderFounding Father of the female right from workplace harassment, engaging in blatant sexual harassment.No, not of Monica. Of all those OTHER female employees around her that didn’t GET the cushy Pentagon Job that followed, OR the endorsement contracts, or the Book Deal….
Yes, she traded infamy for that, but, hey, who the hell here could pick her out of a lineup now, 20 years later?
IGotBupkis, "Si tacuisses, philosophus mansisses." (225d0d) — 4/18/2015 @ 11:58 am