Having spent too many hours trying to understand the reasons for the incessant negative media output, I can find no rational explanation for why those in the media have taken a disliking to the Democratic frontrunner Hillary Rodham Clinton to put it mildly. She is simply hated because she is Hillary. Certainly most media types do not know her well enough to form a reasoned opinion and negative poll respondents have no clue about who she really is. I have never had a conversation with the former Secretary of State. I probably have read more about her than most and I like her plenty. Then again, I tend to give people the benefit of the doubt. If I don’t know you, I assume you are reasonable until I have reason to believe otherwise. Think about it, if the media could cherry pick mistakes we have made in life, they could readily construct a narrative that would make anyone seem undesirable.
Like any politician, public person, or human being, Hillary Clinton has made her share of mistakes. The worst thing I have read or heard about the probable Democratic nominee is that she and Bill Clinton have made a lot of money and that it is possible that they may have done so by bending the rules or participating in unethical behavior. It’s called business as usual on the Hill. I call these speculations circumstantial hypotheticals. Not much there there. New York Times readers are all too familiar with the many hatchet jobs America’s paper of record has inflicted on Bill and Hillary Clinton—beginning with the egregious Whitewater exposé. The investigation was based on a malicious New York Times article that former reporter Jeff Gerth later admitted was filled with factual errors that he blamed on his editors. Six years later after spending more than $50 million of taxpayers’ dollars, the Office of the Independent Counsel released a report declaring there was insufficient evidence to bring criminal charges against President Clinton and the First Lady.
There were Filegate, Travelgate, and now the overblown Emailgate and about a dozen or so other innuendos and speculations about Hillary Clinton misdeeds. It is understandable that people would believe something must be there, wondering why she is constantly accused of wrongdoing. She gets accused because she is hated and feared by many conservatives. Now that Hillary Clinton is within striking distance of becoming the first woman President of the United States, her enemies are frantic in their desire to deny her this historic moment. Her detractors in the media are practically begging Joe Biden to enter the race, despite the emotional strain he is under dealing with the still fresh grief of losing his son Beau. I doubt if his candidacy will be a difference maker, but it could be disruptive if President Obama chooses to endorse a candidate. His press spokesman Josh Earnest has all but declared that choice would be the vice president.
I have been a big Hillary Clinton supporter since the days I stood on Broadway in upper Manhattan in the freezing cold handing out campaign materials for her Senate campaign. I knew about her then what I know now—that she has a passion for young people in distress that grew during her time working with Marian Wright Edelman and the Children’s Defense Fund. The media would have you believe there was a serious falling out between Clinton and Edelman when President Clinton signed the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act (welfare reform). Her husband Peter Edelman resigned from the Clinton administration in protest. However those breaches have been mended and they will support Hillary Clinton’s candidacy. Hillary’s book, “It Takes A Village,” received rave reviews from top newspapers for her thoughtful advocacy on behalf of children.
Hillary Clinton is unarguably the most qualified candidate to run for President in my lifetime. Elected twice to the United States Senate, served on the Armed Forces Committee, Secretary of State, she has a lifetime of public service. She can only be disqualified on character issues. Dare we suggest that some of her attacks are motivated by sexism? That’s like suggesting some attacks on President Obama are motivated by racism. Haven’t we put both of those isms to rest?
I want to see Hillary Clinton as the first woman President because she is a fighter. She can take the heat. If you don’t trust her, then hold her accountable. If she is bad as some make her out to be, make her a one term President. She is the best hope to beat the Republicans if Democrats rally around her. And that is priority number one.
Written By Charles E. Lewis Jr., Ph.D
Why the Hate for Hillary? was originally published @ Congressional Research Institute for Social Work and Policy » Charles Lewis and has been syndicated with permission.
Sources:
Our authors want to hear from you! Click to leave a comment
Related Posts
There are many reasons that I can’t, in good conscience, rally behind Hillary. I don’t know her personally, so I have to look at her behavior and record in order to draw a conclusion based upon that. She was against gay marriage. She voted for the Iraq war. She bought a house in New York state so that she could run for the senate there, where she had the greatest probability of getting elected, and not where she actually held residence. You acknowledge that she “bent the rules”, and readily excuse that behavior without examining WHY she bent the rules. She also bent the rules while Secretary of State, and in neither instance did it demonstrate good judgement. I don’t expect a president to be perfect, but I do expect them to have high ethical standards. You have to ask yourself if you would support anyone else with the same history, and divorce her gender from the equation. I want a woman in the White House. I welcome that change. But I want the right woman, not just the most electable one.
What I want to know is why people have such a difficult time getting behind Bernie Sanders? He has ALWAYS been an advocate for those who have been marginalized by society. He marched beside Martin Luther King, Jr. He supports a living wage of $15 an hour for minimum wage. Hillary will not pledge to support that. He wants to break up the big banks and remove their ability to crush the economy by their behavior. Hillary will not pledge to support this. He refuses to say anything negative about any other candidate, and instead turns the questions back towards social injustices, and how he intends to work against those injustices. And finally, Bernie Sander’s stated goal is to advance principles that help those we most need to help, and doesn’t care who it is that implements them, as long as they commit to standing behind those principles. All that Hillary needs to do is agree, and I would gladly vote for her.
Thank you for you thoughtful comment. As an older person, I have been a supporter of Hillary Clinton since her days in the White House as First Lady. As I stated in my post, Republicans generally and conservatives specifically, refuse the accept Bill Clinton as the legitimate President because he received 43 percent of the popular vote and was immediate the subject of a six-year, $50 million investigation based on a flawed New York Times article. Hillary Clinton led an unsuccessful effort to devise a universal healthcare law and was viciously attack because she was not an elected representative. The attacks have never ceased but to date she has not be formally censured or charged with wrongdoing.
I believe her policies are pretty much in line with those of Senator Sanders. She supports a $12 national minimum wage and a $15 minimum for New York State because of the higher cost of living. She fully supports the Dodd-Frank reforms but has not supported the return to Glass-Steagall. I believe she is still the strongest candidate the Democrats have to win the White House in 2016. I believe Senator Sanders is too far to the left. I do not believe the American people will elect an avowed socialist.
I’m 55 by the way, (and a Social Worker) so I consider myself an older person as well. I appreciate Hillary’s hands on approach to health care reform as First Lady, but, if I remember correctly, both the House and Senate held Democratic majorities at that time, so I wouldn’t say that her ideas were negated by politics.
I disagree that Sander’s is not a viable candidate, and polling data shows that his message is resonating more each week with the American public at large, and not just the younger demographic, although you would have us believe otherwise (as does major media, who you say is responsible for the doubt in Clinton’s candidacy). 90% of Democratic voters view Hillary as untrustworthy, not because of the media, but because of her own actions. Responsible people take responsibility for their actions. So why did it take MONTHS for Hillary to admit her mistake? Polls in many key states show that Sanders would do as well, or better than Hillary, against Republican opponents. Bernie has also narrowed the gap in Iowa to 7%, and I predict that he will overtake Hillary in the near future in that bellweather state. And he’s accomplished this with NO political contributions from Wall Street or major corporations, but from a shoestring budget of individual supporters at a grassroots level. Why? Because his ideas resonate with the American public, avowed socialist or not, and that message will take time to filter because he doesn’t have a war chest even close to Clinton’s. These are cold, hard facts, and not generalities.
I’m sorry, but I must respectably disagree with your article.
Hillary Clinton monetized child poverty.. Period. http://beverlytran.com