We’ve all heard the attacks on Donald Trump, but the Democrats aren’t necessarily innocent either. We call Abraham Lincoln “Honest Abe,” so why not call Hillary Clinton “Dishonest Hillary”? It’s suiting since the term “demagoguery” and “untrustworthy” pops up with her name. Hillary Clinton has had a long run in the political atmosphere of the U.S which is dotted with suspicious activity and raises ethical questions.
Let’s begin in the 1990s. Hillary Clinton in 1993 supported universal health care so much that it earned a title of “Hillarycare” during Bill Clinton’s presidency. Her plan was that businesses would provide health care for their workers. Currently, Clinton receives millions of dollars from health insurance companies. Where was the transition from fighting health insurance companies to collaborating with them?
That isn’t evidence for misdeeds or bribery for her to support health insurance companies. But to say a company contributing that much money has absolutely no effect on a candidate is naïve and speculation arrives on the hidden agenda of these companies. It’s dirty money, or more accurately called “soft money” where any amount of money can be donated to a candidate.
During a majority of the Democratic debates, like on Tuesday October 13, Clinton has said that the drug and health insurance companies were her enemies even though she was and still does receive donations from them.
Actually, that was banned. No company is allowed to give massive amounts of money to a candidate — unless of course the company claims itself as an individual and then contributes. That is currently being allowed, and what politician would crack down on that when they’re currently benefitting from it? Regardless, she is also receiving funds from other large corporations. According to Opensecrets.org, Clinton receives hundreds of thousands of dollars in donations from contributors such as Goldman Sachs, 21st Century Fox, Lehman Brothers, and many others.
On the BBC’s article “U.S Election: Who’s Funding Trump, Sanders, and the Rest?” it lists Clinton at the top due to her good standing with lawyers, bankers, health insurance companies, and pharmaceutical companies.
Money aside, Clinton has suspicious activity when it comes to issues like the Benghazi attacks. The former Secretary of State not only lied to the public about prior knowledge of possible terrorist attacks, but she also failed to act in supporting the U.S Consulate in Libya with reserve forces. The case was more or less dropped due to the extreme political nature.
Do we allow our political leaders to get away with criminal activity since they’re in a presidential race? Apparently the answer to that is a “yes” since it’s currently happening.
Whatever the case, Clinton failed in her duty as Secretary of State to properly defend or prepare the consulate.
We’ve all heard that argument time and time again, why is it so important for Hillary to follow communication protocol? I suppose it isn’t important if you don’t mind our next president using a less secure personal email to send messages of top security to and from contacts.
Those issues aside, what about Clinton’s social stances? She’s a champion for gay rights, or is she? She wasn’t in support of her husband signing the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” military act, but she supported DOMA (“Defense of Marriage Act”). She didn’t support marriage equality during her run for office in 2008 either — she only halfway supported same-sex unions.
Her supporters now would respond that she has truly changed on this issue and “came around” or “evolved” on her stance. It appears to be quite convenient during the 2016 presidential race seeing as how marriage equality was signed into law in 2015 without her support. And that’s demagoguery, Clinton’s favorite word for attacking her opponents; it’s when a politician supports an issue only when it’s popular. Now that LGBT rights are viewed favorably by a majority of the country, so does she.
Her more recent suspicious activity comes as recent as April 7, 2016 during another fundraiser in Colorado, a local reporter said Hillary Clinton used a “static noise machine” to prevent the press and public from hearing her speech.
A CBS reporter recorded the sounds before and after the machine was on and there was a distinct interference during her speech. It may have been a private event, but most candidates who have private fundraisers allow time for reporters to ask questions and/or record the event. If Clinton had nothing to hide in her speech, why stop the public from hearing it?
All of these examples have been dismissed and brushed aside. But seeing as how there are a dozen instances where Hillary Clinton has been stuck in a questionably moral or ethical situation, that isn’t usually an ideal candidate for being president of the U.S. One day, these issues will catch up to her. The uncertainty is, will they catch up when she’s president, or when she loses the race? That is up to the American people.
Ehron Ostendorf
Copy Editor