Millions of Americans voted for Barack Obama because they wanted to be able to say they helped elect the first black president. Clearly Hillary Clinton is hoping to ride a similar wave into the White House as the first female president.
However, now that she is finally close to winning the Democratic nomination, Clinton’s record as a champion of other women is coming under scrutiny like never before.
Even the New York Times was forced to take notice:
It was supposed to be a carefully planned anniversary to mark one of the most important and widely praised moments in Hillary Rodham Clinton’s political career — and to remind the country, ahead of a likely 2016 presidential campaign, about her long record as a champion for the rights of women and girls.
Instead, as Mrs. Clinton commemorates her 1995 women’s rights speech in Beijing in back-to-back events in New York, she finds herself under attack for her family foundation’s acceptance of millions of dollars in donations from Middle Eastern countries known for violence against women and for denying them many basic freedoms.
This was not how she intended to reintroduce herself to American voters. (…) Even her most strident critics could not have predicted that Mrs. Clinton would prove vulnerable on the subject.
The Beijing speech has been a touchstone for Mrs. Clinton since she stepped down as secretary of state in early 2013. But the more she recalls it, the more Republicans seek to diminish it. “She made one statement in Beijing that wasn’t very profound — that women are human beings,” said Bruce Fein, a lawyer and supporter of Senator Rand Paul, Republican of Kentucky.
While far from devastating, this NYT article will raise questions in the minds of the very kinds of people who reflexively support Clinton.
Is it possible that liberals with a conscience, especially women, may quietly stay home in November rather than cast a vote for Hillary, even if they forfeit the chance to “make history”?
Credit: New York Times