I agree with Aristotle and characterize myself as a political animal. I attest that my own drive toward understanding the realities behind our nation’s machinery has been a lifelong endeavor. Most of these pursuits revolve around the most controversial aspects of our two party system.
And what is more controversial than the current political climate of the primaries.
To be honest I vote democratic, and so has my father before me and his father before him. My family began voting the democratic ticket after the emergence of Franklin Delano Roosevelt and the New Deal. I was brought up with the rhetoric of social justice and economic limitations. And, although I still vote for democrats I feel much more inclined to call myself a socialist with libertarian leanings. But whatever I choose to call myself I can still identify sexiest portrayals when I see them. And despite whatever political misgivings you have about Hilary Clinton, her portrayal in the media and online has been genuinely misogynistic and negative.
First, let’s examine Clinton’s involvement in Benghazi. Many have thrown the label of liar around her neck, but where is the evidence. All of Clinton’s public statements line up with the CIA’s intelligence at the time. In fact the CIA didn’t revise their claim of a protest being the cause of the attack until September 24, 2012. Even her private claims, of a protest being the cause of the attacks, to the victims’ families can be plausibly connected to the cluster-fuck of information the CIA was accumulating on the incident for officials.
I personally see the Benghazi scandal as a Republican means to attack Clinton and lower her poll numbers. The Telegraph examines this possible aspect to the Benghazi scandal as well as the inconvenient fact that Clinton was found to have committed no wrong doing in any of the investigations thus far. It is nearly four year after the attacks and nothing new has come to light to implicate Clinton, but the rhetoric is still damning. I find it unlikely that these accusations would still be around if Clinton were not female.
This anti Hilary rhetoric is measurable. The Washington Post wrote an article about the negative characterizations many on Twitter have about Hilary. The Washington Post It shows an uneven number of negative remarks when compared to Bernie Sanders. The article focuses on the sexist angle, but the data also shows the spectrum of negative feelings regarding Clinton. And even if the labels are not overtly sexist. The fact Clinton is the only female currently running and her favorability is in line with a man that spreads hate and fear makes me wonder how genuine some of the criticisms lobbed at her really are.
Now, I’m not a Hilary Clinton supporter. I voted for Bernie Sanders. But that doesn’t mean I can’t cringe at the way Hilary is being treated. If she was a man, do you really think with her qualifications and experience she would be challenged and ridiculed in the manner she has been. I mean, look at her husband and his many infidelities and how that is used to implicate moral wrong doings on Hilary’s part. If Bill can be proven to be a liar and still amass a popularity that is unmatched by previous presidents, then why is Hilary losing popularity and being demonized for something that was never proven?