We're 10 months into Donald Trump's presidency, and yet, at every attempt at discussion and analysis regarding the President's policy decisions or crisis management, we're met with the "but Hillary....."
Did I miss something? Is Hillary Clinton actually the President? I just want to double check because I'm beyond baffled as to why conservatives want to continue talking about the woman who WAS NOT ELECTED AND IS NOT CURRENTLY PRESIDENT OF THE U.S.
But, since it appears that conservatives would rather dwell on Hillary's past, and her life as a private citizen, instead of actually having to take responsibility for the Trump administration, I'LL HAVE THAT CONVERSATION WITH YOU SO WE CAN ALL MOVE THE FUCK ON AND REALIZE WHAT AN ABSOLUTE SHIT SHOW TRUMP IS. DEAL?
Let's talk about Hillary because I am not above discussing the flaws any politician I support has/had. Hillary is a career politician, and with decades of skin in the game, certainly has some up for discussion.
1) Is Hillary pro- or anti-women empowerment/policy?
A. "She sold herself out by riding Bill's coattails."
Hillary often gets a lot of pushback for having stayed with Bill Clinton after the Monica Lewinsky scandal. People were shocked and appalled that she stayed, pointing to a notion that a "strong woman" would have left her husband. A "strong woman" wouldn't have stayed in her marriage to advance in politics. I'm not one for shaming a woman who chooses to stay in a marriage, regardless of sexual dalliances. I don't know the Clintons' arrangement. What I do know is that Hillary Clinton is the first woman to have earned herself a nomination as a presidential candidate, so, um... it doesn't really concern me that she made decisions to benefit what was her endgame. Is it weak for Hillary Clinton to put her ambition first? We've never accused a man of the same, to be sure.
B. "She was an attack dog on Bill Clinton's accusers, therefore she's anti-women."
I believe the women that came forward regarding their allegations against Bill Clinton. Do I believe that there have been women who, in the past, have been proven to lie about sexual assault? Yes. Do I believe that those who have been accused have every right to use resources at their disposal for a defense? Yes. However, when a certain individual has multiple claims laid against him, I tend to believe that where there's smoke...there's fire. Regarding whether or not Hillary attacked these women and threatened them into silence? I think there's certainly room for discussion... however, I don't think there is a lot of verified truth to this assertion, aside from accounts that she did in fact hire a private investigator to dig into one accuser's past. Did she call Monica Lewinsky a narcissistic loon tun in a private conversation with a friend? Yeah, she did. Can it be said that she probably reacted in anger toward these women and the allegations? Of course. But Hillary isn't just a politician. She's a wife and a mother. I'm not entirely convinced that other women in the same position, wouldn't defend their husbands first... in or out of the public eye, to be honest. That doesn't make them anti-women. Her actions (mostly hearsay and insinuations) could certainly be painted as negative and not supportive of the alleged victim. This can't be denied. But, these instances were also a direct response to what affected her personal life... which I believe is different than supporting victims in various other circumstances that don't touch your family. More than that, it should once again be noted that, per Hillary's account, she believed Bill's denials, and further, there is no definitive proof she oversaw or even initiated campaign attacks that went after the victims. Her having an emotional reaction regarding a situation that directly affected her personal and political life shouldn't be all that surprising. She's not a robot. I think it's awful that rape and sexual assault victims are put through what they are, when exposing assaults, or going through trials and depositions. Character-shaming turns into slut-shaming turns into wrong. wrong. wrong. But, in the history of every case ever, the defense is always going to lay out all of its cards on the table. It's the ugly truth.
C. What about her policy votes that affect women?
Let's take a peek at a few of her votes: *the are pulled from ontheissues.org
Voted YES on $100M to reduce teen pregnancy by education & contraceptives. (March 2005)
Endorsed Recommended by EMILY's List of pro-choice women. (Apr 2001)
Rated 100% by NARAL, indicating a pro-choice voting record. (Dec 2003)
Expand embryonic stem cell research. (Jun 2004)
Sponsored bill providing contraceptives for low-income women. (May 2006)
Sponsored bill for emergency contraception for rape victims. (Sep 2006)
Rated 0% by the NRLC, indicating a pro-choice stance. (Dec 2006)
Provide emergency contraception at military facilities. (Apr 2007)
1993 health plan included RU-486 & widely available abortion. (Jul 2007)
Fought for years to get “Plan B” contraceptive on the market. (Dec 2006)
Prevention First Act: federal funds for contraception. (Oct 2006)
Advocates birth control but OK with faith-based disagreement. (Nov 2003)
Supports parental notice & family planning. (Feb 1997)
Voted YES on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines. (Apr 2007)
Voted NO on notifying parents of minors who get out-of-state abortions. (Jul 2006)
This are more family-oriented, arguably still important as a scope on women's rights:
Expand Family and Medical Leave Act. (Aug 1998)
Family Leave Act is a good start; paid leave better. (Sep 1996)
Give parents tools to balance work and family. (Aug 2000)
Rated 0% by the Christian Coalition: an anti-Family-Value voting record. (Dec 2003)
Ban high lead levels in children's toys. (Nov 2005)
Obviously this is an extremely small sampling. Hillary, like all politicians has flip-flopped on issues.
And here's a piece from Planned Parenthood, on reasons they chose to endorse Hillary, including:
The concern from those who don't feel supported by Hillary: “But there are a lot of issues that affect low-income women, immigrant women and women of color that her brand of doing things is not going to address.”
And: here's a thought piece that dives into Hillary's issues further (with a quoted segment below).
"But if you’re a woman living paycheck to paycheck and worried sick over the ever-diminishing economic prospects for you and your children, you’re unlikely to be heavily invested in whether some lady centimillionaire will shatter the ultimate glass ceiling. Exacerbating the problem is that Clinton, the person whom feminists blithely assumed that working-class women would deeply identify with (because after all, didn’t they?) was such a painfully flawed candidate. In addition to a political record littered with betrayals of women, people of color, labor, and other key constituencies, she showed arrogance and terrible judgment by giving the Wall Street speeches and setting up her own State Department e-mail server. That was gross political malpractice.
Some of Clinton’s policy proposals were strong, especially her plans for paid family leave and expanded child care. But Clinton never found a way to craft a compelling message that persuaded people that she cared about people like them. It’s telling that she seemed far more relaxed and comfortable making speeches to Wall Street plutocrats than she ever was on a campaign trail. Also problematic was her campaign slogan, the fangurl-ish “I’m With Her.” Why not something more inclusive and democratic, like, say “She’s With Us”? In addition, in this moment of high populism, her many appearances with glitzy celebrities like Lena Dunham and Katy Perry did not help."
NOW .... onto the "HILLARY IS THE MOST CORRUPT PERSON EVER IN ALL THE LAND OF EVERNESS"---
Well here's a good breakdown (high-level) of the scandals Hillary has been involved in.
It covers everything from the Clinton Foundation, Speech $$, Benghazi, Email scandal and beyond.
As far as the Hillary and Bill ran a child trafficking ring and are murderers, I can't even with that.
Now, we can literally write pages and pages more, there are tons of voting records to be had over the decades, I've only given a high-level overview of the scandals, and she's certainly has a less-than-ideal road littered with controversy.... SHE IS NOT A PERFECT PERSON, CANDIDATE, OR WOMAN.
OMG I said it. She's flawed guys. She's done some shit. She's made some certainly questionable decisions. She's changed her mind on issues. She's played the political game. I am not here to deny any of that. I squarely accept there are reasons to have contention with Hillary Clinton. I also don't find any politician free from this.
BUT, FFS, HILLARY CLINTON IS NOT THE PRESIDENT. I REPEAT: SHE IS NOT THE PRESIDENT.
DONALD TRUMP IS. So, when I make a post about the current president, it's because I want to discuss what in the actual fuckety fuck fuck he is doing. I don't give two licks about what a private citizen, who isn't president, is currently doing.
And neither should you.
So now, can you please stop writing: BUT HILLARY, and start answering for the person you DID support?