Hillary Clinton, Feminist-at-Large
Hello, Steve –
Remember Whack-a-Mole? The theme park game that features insouciant plastic rodents popping out of the hole – Whack! Here comes another one – WHACK!
That’s the image that comes to mind as I ponder Hillary Clinton’s controversial career: Staunch defender of a wayward Commander-in-Chief. Achievement-free senator from New York. Once-inevitable presidential candidate.
And just when you think the drama has thankfully drawn to a close, the curtain rises on yet another act.
In the current scene, Mrs. Clinton is nominated to serve as the Secretary of State. You wonder, exactly what qualifies her to serve as America’s ambassador to the world? During Hillary’s eight years in the White House, she didn’t attend any National Security Council meetings. She didn’t receive the president’s daily briefings. She didn’t even have a security clearance.
These facts prompted candidate Barack Obama to jeer, “What exactly is [her] foreign policy expertise?†Incoming White House counsel Greg Craig proffered this blunt response: “There is no reason to believe…she was a key player in foreign policy at any time during the Clinton Administration.â€
Not only is Hillary Clinton over-hyped and under-qualified, many of the claims in her foreign relations brief are simply false.
“I was deeply involved in the Irish peace process,†Clinton once boasted on the campaign trail. I “pulled together in Belfast, in the town hall,†a group of Catholic and Protestant women so “the hard work of peacemaking could go forward.â€
That claim triggered this rebuke by Nobel Peace Prize winner David Trimbell, who was present at the time: “Hillary Clinton had no direct role in bringing peace to Northern Ireland and is a ‘wee bit silly’ for exaggerating the part she played.â€
During a 1996 Bosnia outing, a hail of sniper fire at the airport forced Clinton’s entourage to run “with our heads down to get into the vehicles to get to our base†– at least that’s what she said during a speech at George Washington University.
But then CBS replayed the videotape showing a cadre of Bosnian schoolgirls happily chatting with Mrs. Clinton and Chelsea on the tarmac – but no whizzing bullets.
During a March 8 CNN interview, Clinton claimed, “I negotiated open borders to let fleeing refugees into safety from Kosovo.â€
But Congressional Quarterly’s PolitiFact.com throws cold water on the boast. The group concludes, “We don’t find evidence to support that†and ridicules her claim as “Barely True.â€
During another interview, Hillary claimed she had advocated for military intervention in Rwanda. But no one else remembers it that way.
“Whatever her private conversations with the president may have been, key foreign policy officials say that a U.S. military intervention in Rwanda was never considered in the Clinton administration’s policy deliberations,†counters National Security Council insider Gail Smith.
I have no doubt that Mrs. Clinton fully appreciates the difference between a French fry and a Belgian waffle. But the stubborn question remains, what are Senator Clinton’s qualifications to serve as Secretary of State?
The truth is, Hillary does have extensive experience working in other countries — but not in the way most Americans would expect. During the Clinton administration, she was Bill’s goodwill ambassador, traveling to the four corners of the globe as a high-profile advocate of the feminist agenda.
Inevitably the abortion issue came under the glare of the media spotlight.
At the 1994 World Conference on Population Development in Egypt, Hillary worked behind the scenes to establish a universal right to abortion on demand. That brought her into conflict not only with Mother Teresa, but also with the Pontiff.
The following year she led the U.S. delegation to China to attend the Fourth World Conference on Women. She delivered the meeting’s keynote speech, making the wrongful assertion that “Women are 70% of the world’s poor.†Clinton narcissistically concluded, “Women’s rights are human rights and human rights are women’s rights.â€
Three years later she appeared at a meeting of First Ladies held in El Salvador. This time she made the bizarre claim that “Women have always been the primary victims of war.â€
Hillary Clinton was also behind her husband’s 1996 selection of women’s rights advocate Madeline Albright as Secretary of State. Bill was reportedly leaning to George Mitchell, but once again Hillary had the last word.
There is little doubt that as Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton will attach highest priority to advancing the global feminist agenda, particularly the right to kill the innocent unborn. Pro-life lobbyist Jeanne Head predicts, “Hillary would promote her husband’s agenda at the United Nations to make abortion a fundamental human right worldwide.â€
We’ll need to keep a close eye on this woman.
| More from Carey Roberts
Stumble It!
December 16th, 2008 at 3:43 pm
Yeah, it seems bizarre the way you describe it, but on the other hand, she’s exactly what the people who elected Obama deserve. The rest of us need to make it a four year campaign for the 2012 election when we can run these degenerates out of the Whitehouse. (If not a lot sooner)
Obama had to overcome a lot of obstacles to be elected President. He’s half black, not a citizen, raised as a Muslim, mixed up with a racist minister, guilty of consorting with Tony “The Pro†Rezko, (admitting it was a “bone headed moveâ€) launched his political career in the living room of Bill Ayers, a notorious terrorist, is likely mixed up in other Illinois corruption, yet, he gets elected without any meaningful scrutiny.
Call me a conspiracy theorist if you like, but it looks to me like Obama is going to be somebody’s flunky. He will do what ever he’s told by the “powers that be†for letting him win the Presidency. People may argue that that’s all the President is anyway, and to a certain extent they have a point, but I think they will literally *own* Obama, the way a pimp owns their prostitutes.
December 16th, 2008 at 5:02 pm
Obama has become President-Elect, not so much by ‘conspiracy’ as by National lunacy. Hilary exemplifies this almost perfectly. She is a self-shown preferer of her own legend over reality. Her fantasies dominate the facts, no matter how often the facts are repeated or by whom. Ask why?
Most Nations have a fantasy about themselves. Generally it is heroic. Hilary personifies it for America and will now get to revise it to the heroine. Now she gets to take the new, improved, polished, cosmeticised and ribboned ‘Narrative’ to the world. The major problem is that it is a whining, snarling, ‘poor me who tries so hard against the massed forces of the wicked Patriarchy’ narrative, developed entirely in the Feminist mind. That strange, demanding, strident jumble of mendacity, fantasy and hysteria.
Obama, also a figment of his own imagination, must be laughing. He will appear almost Stable, compared to her. Will the rest of the world be taken in?
December 16th, 2008 at 5:20 pm
My, don’t we enjoy being a Hillary “hater”!! I don’t see the point in debunking your every claim, but suffice it to say, I think your perspective on Hillary is an exercise in small mindedness. For all the Hillary detractors you cite in your argument, there are countless others who corroborate Hillary’s experience.
Maybe you know more than General Petraeus, but he states Hillary understands the military better than any other Senator. Maybe you understand the role of SOS better than Kissinger, Rice, Baker, Albright, but they think HRC will be a tremendous SOS! Since ‘94, HRC has immersed herself in foreign policy, and is now lauded by both Reps and Dems for her masterly grasp of foreign policy detail. She served on the Armed Services Committee and traveled on many fact finding missions with JMcCain and others.
Maybe you think she hasn’t achieved much in NY as Senator, but apparently 70% of the electorate disagree with you…Maybe they’re looking at the increase in funding for mass transit, or the new military bases, or expanded healthcare for children, or the tremendous support Hillary gave to the wounded veterans coming home from Iraq, or the individual help she gave to so many who were affected by 911. I don’t know…is it possible they too know more than you about Hillary?!?!
As for abortion, are you aware of the speech Hillary gave to a pro-choice crowd in NY admonishing them to be more tolerate and open-minded to the pro-life movement? Hillary sponsored legislation making adoption more readily available, and she has always wanted abortion to be extremely rare, but safe. She is very aware that legislation banning abortion doesn’t “end” abortion. As for being pro-life, this should also extend to children “after” they are born, and to children of other countries who are just as precious…you hypocrite!!!
December 16th, 2008 at 7:15 pm
“Barack Obama is overwhelmingly Britain’s choice to be the next US president, five times more popular than his Republican rival, John McCain, a Guardian/ICM poll shows today. Carried out ahead of the Democratic candidate’s visit to Britain next week, the poll reveals that 53% feel certain he would make the best president, with only 11% favouring McCain; 36% declined to express an opinion.†(Quote from The guardian.co.uk)
Looks like the “lunacy†is contagous.
That’s a much bigger margin than American voters. Obama captured 53% of the vote as opposed to 46% for McCain. I suspect that the Brits who withheld their opinion were probably leaning Obama, but didn’t want to offend the sitting President. Many British people are very well mannered.
There was a very definate conspiracy of silense in the major media here in the states. They were like vicious attack dogs when it came to Palin, but refused to ask any serious questions about Obama’s past. That’s not lunacy, it’s conspiracy, but people don’t like to use that word because of the stigma attached. I suspect the Brits probably fear the same stigma.
BTW, I recently read that as many as 40% of Brits favor doing away with the Monarcy. That’s great news, and I had no idea that there was such a movement underway. Good for them. I think the Monarcy is a relic from the past that the whole world would be better off without.
December 16th, 2008 at 9:08 pm
I long ago gave up on the UK population’s propensities, Merck. When they aren’t binge-drinking themselves into stupidity or creating single-mother ghettos they are at the polls voting in one labour Government (Democrat in USAspeak) after another. They like Obama because he reminds them of Lenny Henry (a black comedian there), just thinner.
As for the Monarchy. That’s an old and tired call for it to go. Guess which side of politics wants that. The same crowd that sees O’Bamy as a Saviour.
Friggin’ Guardian Readers. The Chatterati.
The US Presidency is far and away more ‘Monarchical’ than the British Monarchy. The Queen has no veto over Parliament; she can’t make war; she doesn’t make foreign or domestic Policy; she cannot even speak for herself; and her husband doesn’t stick his Princly private parts into Palace junior staff.
The ‘Monarchy’ as in ‘Power’ disappeared yonks ago. Why anyone would want to get rid of the Figurehead, beats me. But then both coutries have Flag-burners too. Is the ‘Stars and Stripes’ a ‘relic of the past’ that you think should be ditched too? I see the Constitution is treated that way already.
It astonishes me that any American would want the UK to ditch their Monarch. What has she ever done to you? She is a very pleasant and polite old duck. She even sent me a Parchment calling me her ‘Trusty and Well Beloved’ and sent me off to kill her enemies. I rather enjoyed that.
Just how would the “whole world would be better off without” the Queen? I would be interested to hear.
Do you harbour some view that the British Aristocracy are perhaps more ridiculous than the American ones? Have you ever seen a British Lord or Earl wear a Stetson hat? When they visit the relatives over here they wear Akubra hats. Far better. Now THAT’s a hat. At least the British lot mind their own friggin’ business.
I can think of at least half a dozen meglomaniac ‘Presidents’ of ‘Democratic Republics’ that are a right Royal pain in the arse and who should be much higher up the chop-list than Lizzy Q.
December 17th, 2008 at 1:22 am
Is the ‘Stars and Stripes’ a ‘relic of the past’ that you think should be ditched too?
No, but that’s not really a good comparison. The flag doesn’t cost billions of dollars a year in upkeep. Just a few Marines in dress uniform and bugle once in a while.
I see the Constitution is treated that way already.
Then you see well. *sigh*
Just how would the “whole world would be better off without†the Queen?
Don’t know, don’t really care, none of my business. If you guys want to keep the old diamond-encrusted biddy around, that’s up to you.
One question: if you were to be in her presence, do you still have to bow down? (Have to or don’t have to, this is the objection merck and others have.)
December 17th, 2008 at 2:08 am
I don’t have such an obligation, Squiggy, as I am 12,000 miles away and it is hardly likely that Herself will come visiting. But I did have an occasional drink with the Guv Gen over many years and he didn’t go in for all that. In the days when I was a warrior, I was expected to salute, not bow. Have you been watching too many Hollywood versions of British Protocol from Victoria’s day?
But every Nation has its strange protocols; its Pomp amd Circumstance. I doubt you would get far disrespecting your President (or throwing your shoe at him). Have you never seen Mrs Queen when she has been on a walkabout? Crowds are greeted and their hands shaken and no one bows.
The Presidency costs America a fortune. A great deal more than the upkeep of the Queen. And as she pays all her costs herself from her enormous fortune, it is hardly a matter of complaint. The Lefty pollies do nonetheless whenever the Royal Budget is discussed, but seem to forget that she pays more in ‘Royalties’ (sorry, taxes) than they pay out to the Royal household. You guys barely discuss the budgetary lines for the White House. I would bet you get right royally ripped off.
In Oz (and Canada, NZ etc) we have a Soveriegn that doesn’t cost us a penny, let alone a sovereign. You pay a lot more for your elected monarch than I do for my unelected one.
But, back to Carey’s piece. Hillary will cost a fortune. She will put so many offside that the Albright woman will be seen as a real help. She will disrespect all the people who actually work hard to achieve this or that objective, taking undue credit to herself – she has made a start on that before even sitting in the friggin’ chair. What a demoralising boss she will be. She will disrespect the Female Presidents that hold power in Argentina and India, in Chile, even in Ireland. She will even be jealous of Iceland’s female President. She covets Rank. She lacks a sense of proportion. She will disrespect all the male leaders simply for being male. It would not surprise me if after a term in office it is discovered that she has had her hand in the till.
Give me the Queen any day. I don’t know of a soul, Internationally, that doesn’t like and trust Queen Elizabeth. OK, maybe President Mugabe.
December 17th, 2008 at 5:41 am
“At least the British lot mind their own friggin’
business.â€
_______________________________________________________
A person wouldn’t know that by anything you have to say.
There is no sense in trying to explain why the Queen needs to be retired to the annals of history, to someone who so desperately clings to some grandiose notion of British supremacy. It doesn’t take reading very many of your comments to figure that out.
Any reasonable person can readily see that you envy America, in spite of your constant anti-American rhetoric. I guess I can’t really blame you for that.
Back to the article, I’d rather see Clinton as Secretary of State, than Commander in Chief, so I guess we’ll have to do deal with it.
December 17th, 2008 at 6:59 am
1. In response to “kmb08 said,†#3
1. “My, don’t we enjoy being a Hillary “haterâ€!! I don’t see the point in debunking your every claim, but suffice it to say, I think your perspective on Hillary is an exercise in small mindedness. For all the Hillary detractors you cite in your argument, there are countless others who corroborate Hillary’s experience.â€
Since when did stating a few undeniable facts qualify as being a “Hillary Haterâ€. You don’t see the point in debunking his every claim because you can’t, you hypocrite!
_________________________________________________________
2. “Maybe you know more than General Petraeus, but he states Hillary understands the military better than any other Senator. Maybe you understand the role of SOS better than Kissinger, Rice, Baker, Albright, but they think HRC will be a tremendous SOS! Since ‘94, HRC has immersed herself in foreign policy, and is now lauded by both Reps and Dems for her masterly grasp of foreign policy detail. She served on the Armed Services Committee and traveled on many fact finding missions with JMcCain and others.â€
The fact that the “Gang of Four†mentioned above back Hillary doesn’t help your case
__________________________________________________________
3. “Maybe you think she hasn’t achieved much in NY as Senator, but apparently 70% of the electorate disagree with you…Maybe they’re looking at the increase in funding for mass transit, or the new military bases, or expanded healthcare for children, or the tremendous support Hillary gave to the wounded veterans coming home from Iraq, or the individual help she gave to so many who were affected by 911. I don’t know…is it possible they too know more than you about Hillary?!?!â€
New York is a socialist wasteland. Why wouldn’t the people there worship their leader?
________________________________________________________
4. “As for abortion, are you aware of the speech Hillary gave to a pro-choice crowd in NY admonishing them to be more tolerate and open-minded to the pro-life movement? Hillary sponsored legislation making adoption more readily available, and she has always wanted abortion to be extremely rare, but safe. She is very aware that legislation banning abortion doesn’t “end†abortion. As for being pro-life, this should also extend to children “after†they are born, and to children of other countries who are just as precious…you hypocrite!!!
Hillary is cunning enough to understand that calling people extremists who are fighting against abortion is backfiring on the feminist left. They are increasingly being seen for what they truly are, hate-mongers and child murderers.
A recent poll conducted by the Marist College Institute of Public Opinion shows that only eight percent of Americans support the extremist abortion policy of Roe v Wade, namely, that a woman has the legal right to kill her unborn child for any reason and throughout all nine months of pregnancy.
Hillary is merely cunning enough to see the handwriting on the wall.
December 17th, 2008 at 5:12 pm
merck..
You’ve proven nothing, but yes, it is pretty obvious you get your kicks by kicking Hillary. Have at it…it’s an acceptable practice, and she can take all your kicks and then some.
As to the gang of four….yes, it helps my case plenty, and does nothing for yours!
As to RVW, a woman does NOT have a legal right to an abortion throughout all nine months. It is first trimester. I am opposed to abortions, btw, but I also know a law banning abortions certainly doesn’t “end” them. In addition, you need to be just as concerned about the children who are “born”. Why don’t you begin adopting some of the crack addicted babies for a start that nobody wants?!?! Are you also upset over all the pregnant mothers and babies killed and maimed in Iraq?!?!
December 17th, 2008 at 6:26 pm
kmb08 said
1. “It is first trimester.â€
You’re wrong.
Either you don’t know what you’re talking about, or are lying, and in either case, wasting my time.
______________________________________________________
2. “In addition, you need to be just as concerned about the children who are “bornâ€.”
As a matter of fact I do care about the children already born and that’s another reason to speak out against Hillary Clinton. She is partially responsible for the millions of children being raised without a father, by morally bankrupt females who kidnapped their children through divorce, or gave birth to them outside of marriage, for personal gain.
_______________________________________________________
3. “Are you also upset over all the pregnant mothers and babies killed and maimed in Iraq?!?!â€
You better believe I care about those children, but guess what, I didn’t vote for that war, Hillary did!
December 17th, 2008 at 7:39 pm
I overlooked a couple.
4. “I am opposed to abortions, btw, but I also know a law banning abortions certainly doesn’t “end†them.â€
I’m opposed to murders, but I know a law banning murders certainly doesn’t end them.
______________________________________________________
5. “Why don’t you begin adopting some of the crack addicted babies for a start that nobody wants?!?!â€
Those crack babies are a product of the *welfare state* that Hillary and her party champion. Most of those babies are black, and blacks ironically, are the biggest casualties of the war on poverty. The welfare state forced black fathers out of the lives of their children and “crack babies†are just one of the things you end up with.
Most of the children raised by *single mothers* don’t stand a chance. They end up as drug addicts, dropouts and delinquents. The boys end up in prison or dead and the girls give birth to the next generation of crack babies, prison inmates and single mothers.
It’s a vicious cycle that Hillary and her party make their living perpetuating.
December 18th, 2008 at 11:39 am
Kudos to you, Merck, for refuting kmb08’s assertions about Princess Pantsuit’s legislative “accomplishments” and sterling moral character…
It’s about time for the country’s adults to stop being cowed by liberal name-calling masquerading as informed debate…
“Eww … dont be such a HATER!!!” Sounds like a middle school girl’s mindset…
Anyone else tired of this?
As for the Missus Clinton, her truth & accountability “issues” are well documented, which would make her a perfect fit for a position of power in Obama’s America…
December 18th, 2008 at 1:09 pm
Thanks Bambino,
It’s not hard to do. Most of the arguments are pretty weak. It’s just that they’ve gotten away with very weak arguments, over the last forty years, because men didn’t make an effort to refute them. We just let them have their way, and now we’re paying the price.
It’s like letting your kids run amok, sooner or later, you and your children pay the price.
December 18th, 2008 at 4:30 pm
Merck..
Your refutations are very weak. You’ve made your mind up about Sen. Clinton, so enjoy yourself…doesn’t mean much to me. As for truth and accountability, I’ll put Sen. Clinton up against anybody you can pull out of the hat. Given the disproportionate microscopic scrutiny placed on the Clintons, she looks pretty damn saintly!
You are simply wrong about RvW, but I realize you have cheerleaders on this board, so believe what you will. States ban all abortions after the first trimester unless the health of the mother is at issue, but again, believe what you want. As for having love in your heart for babies, I don’t believe it for a minute. Anyone with as much vitriol to spew as you, doesn’t seem capable of genuine love. As to you and your ilk “letting” us have our way….you haven’t “let” us have anything….but you might as well get use to it, and deal with it!!
Since the Republicans had control of congress the last 12 of 16 yrs., I can understand why you’d want to blame someone else for all the ills of the land. I guess you can try at least. Just blame Hillary for every sin of mankind…Yea…that’s the ticket!! Geeeezzz…I’ll leave this board for you and your sycophants to wallow in your hyperbole. Knock yourselves out!!!
December 18th, 2008 at 6:44 pm
Gee. We’ve got our panties all tied up have’nt we.
Do you have any real substance to bring or are you simply a troll in need of attention?
It’s a rhetorical question.
HRC has accomplished nothing of distinction as Senator of New York. The entire time she has been in office she has been given a pass by the media. The same goes for Obama. The mainstream media works that way with liberal Democrats. Especially in NY.
Truth and accountability??
uh huh
1.) “I was deeply involved in the Irish peace process,â€
2.) “Women’s rights are human rights and human rights are women’s rights.â€
3.) “Women have always been the primary victims of war.â€
yea sure honey.
There are PLENTY of other lies.
HRC is ANYTHING but a strong independent woman. It’s easy to sell that lie when the media gives you a pass. Anyone strong and independent does’nt cry like a baby on the campaign trail when things look bleak.
HRC will serve the interests of HRC as Secretary of State.
I hope she does and I hope she f**ks over Obama in a big way. HRC as Secretary of State could end up furthering our cause by doing this.
Yea I made up my mind. Just like you have.
All I need is objective evidence like HRC saying one thing and the facts coming out proving the opposite. All I need to see is a weak crying female to know she is not fit to hold office. She’s only where she’s at because she married a man named Bill Clinton.
All you need to be a believer is a vagina yapping the worn out dried up feminist talking points such as in 1.) and 2.). It does’nt take much at all.
When men give women a pass (liberal Democratic mangina men as well as chivalrous Republican men do this more than anyone) it’s not because they think women are as good as men or equal to men-it’s because they think that women aren’t. Nobody gives an equal a pass.
Wallow in THAT.
December 19th, 2008 at 12:10 am
Leave Hillary alone. What with all the lamp-throwing and sniper-dodging she’s really, really tired.
And you should expect her to be at least as good as Albright (Lord help us).
December 19th, 2008 at 4:47 am
kmb08 wrote: “As to RVW, a woman does NOT have a legal right to an abortion throughout all nine months. It is first trimester.”
Technically you’re right about RvW, but RvW’s companion ruling Doe v Bolton defined “health” so broadly, including “psychological health,” that the effect was to make abortion legal throughout the term of the pregnancy. One result is that the courts ruled state bans on partial-birth abortions were unconstitutional, but a federal ban, with a health exception, has survived.
By including “psychological health,” the court left open a very wide door for discretionary late-term abortions, which at least some doctors are willing to perform.
December 19th, 2008 at 9:44 am
Anyone interested in a fairly comprehensive analysis of Roe v Wade, and other important decisions pertaining to the abortion issue, should read this article.
http://pewforum.org/docs/?DocID=278
The simple fact of the matter is that the landmark Roe v Wade decision paved the way for legalized abortions throughout the entire nine months of pregnancy. The “health of the mother†can be construed to mean anything.
Any woman who wants an abortion, for any reason, can certainly have it done legally, in the same way as any woman can legally kidnap her children in a divorce by claiming abuse. The children are automatically given to the mother without determining if actual abuse ever occurred.
This is an important father’s rights issue. A father’s rights begin at conception, not after a divorce. To say you advocate for father’s rights, and at the same time are a supporter of the “right to choose†is absurd.
Father’s rights begin with an end to abortion.
December 19th, 2008 at 12:26 pm
Anyone interested in a fairly comprehensive analysis of Roe v Wade, and other important decisions pertaining to the abortion issue, should read this article.
http://pewforum.org/docs/?DocID=278
The simple fact of the matter is that the landmark Roe v Wade decision paved the way for legalized abortions throughout the entire nine months of pregnancy. The “health of the mother†can be construed to mean anything.
Any woman who wants an abortion, for any reason, can certainly have it done legally, in the same way as any woman can legally kidnap her children in a divorce by claiming abuse. The children are automatically given to the mother without determining if actual abuse ever occurred.
This is an important father’s rights issue. A father’s rights begin at conception, not after a divorce. To say you advocate for father’s rights, and at the same time are a supporter of the “right to choose†is illogical.
Father’s rights begin with an end to abortion.
December 20th, 2008 at 5:25 am
kmb08………what would be your goals for hillery to achieve in the coming 2 years? i am talking about accomplishments that better the entire human race, not just women. i am interested because i think she can achieve a lot if she can stop focusing on herself and truly work for all of us. i know why YOU adore her. tell me why I should too.