HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, as it currently stands, no matter if you like her or not, will go down in history as the most qualified person to ever run for President of the United States of America. Clinton won the presidential primary, solidifying herself as the first woman to ever secure the nomination for a major political party. Avowing this achievement, Clinton herself stated, during the 2016 Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia, “I can’t believe we just put the biggest crack in that [political] glass ceiling yet.”
However, I am affronted with the former First Lady. Secretary Clinton, the woman who, during her presidential campaign, was not shy in claiming the mantle of history, and asserted herself as the champion for women, families, and children, did not have any part in last weeks #WomensMarch.
Many say this is because Clinton’s name was not listed as an honoree for the march.
THE FOUR WOMEN behind the now historic #WomensMarch, Tamika Mallory — activist, writer, and consultant living in New York City; Carmen Perez — executive director of the Gathering for Justice Non-profit; Linda Sarsour — executive director of the Arab American Association of New York; and Bob Bland — fashion designer, entrepreneur, and organizer, are the ones to credit for nixing Clinton’s name from the march’s honoree list.
Instead, the list of honorees included names like Angela Davis — academic scholar, and political activist; Dolores Huerta — labor leader, and civil rights activist; Gloria Steinem — feminist, and social/political activist; Harry Belafonte — singer and political activist; and Ladonna Harris — social activist and politician.
I don’t take umbrage with the fact that the former First Lady was not listed as an honoree. I’m glad she wasn’t. All of the names mentioned above, are of women who have a history of being revolutionary in political circles.
Secretary Clinton is the antithesis of revolutionary.
HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON IS THE STATUS-QUO, representing most of what Americans [everyone] are fed up with in politicians: money, power, and the appearance of being “brought” by Wall Street.
I agree that Secretary Clinton has worked long hours and sacrificed much of her personal life on behalf of [her political ambitions] the American people, however, every single honoree mentioned above has essentially done the same thing. Not to mention, without secret service protection, or the fortification of the Democratic establishment, and in absence of an intent to run for the highest office.
Much, if not all, of Clinton’s actions for the past two decades have been politically expedient, for her hankering of becoming the first woman Commander-In-Chief.
THESE ACTIONS INCLUDE Clinton’s sudden desire to be an outspoken champion of LGBTQIA rights. And her sudden disdain for The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), a 12 nation trade agreement that, while Secretary of State, Clinton majestically supported and said “sets the gold standard in trade agreements.”
Yet, during the Presidential Primary, after Senator Sanders and Donald Trump convinced the public that the TPP was “bad for American workers,” Clinton herself flip-flopped, taking an antithetical position in regards to the TPP.
SALIENT LANGUAGE OF THE TRADE DEAL WASN’T even amended since Clinton’s early support of the TPP. The unpopularity of the trade deal, during the Presidential Primaries, is the former diplomats sole reason for opposing it.
Does flip-flopping on major issues for personal [political] gain make you a revolutionary figure?
Quick answer: no.
So, why should Clinton have been an honoree at a March that stands on the platform of women who hold true to their values and beliefs, regardless of popularity?
IT’S FIDDLING TO SAY that because www.womensmarch.com’s mission statement mentions “Women’s rights are human rights” that Clinton should’ve been listed as an honoree. Indeed, the then First Lady gave a now infamous speech, back in September of 1995, mentioning that “Women’s right are human rights” but she isn’t by far the first individual to birth that thought.
The statement “Women’s rights are human rights,” predates back to at least the mid 80s, as Cecilia Medina, an expert on law from South America [Chile], in a paper on feminism in 1985 is quoted as saying “Women’s rights are human rights.”
books.google.com/...'s%20rights%20are%20human%20rights%22&f=false
The phrase can also be seen/heard by Laurel Fletcher, an academic, during a 1993 law conference, “Human Rights Violation Against Women.”
drive.google.com/…
In short, the case that the #WomensMarch “stole” Clinton’s mantra of “Women’s rights are humans rights” is null— largely because Mrs. Clinton herself did not birth that thought.
MANY REPORTS, INCLUDING BY THE DAILY MAIL, argue that Clinton may not have been invited to attend the march. Moreover, as Linda Sarsour, an organizer for the #WomensMarch, put on her Facebook page, prior to Trump’s inauguration, “even for women who were die hard supporters they want to know when she’s [Hillary Clinton] gonna decide not to attend the inauguration of a man [Donald Trump] who disrespected her and millions of women across the country.”
www.dailymail.co.uk/...
This illustrates a narrative that the former Senator of New York was tasked with an ultimatum: either attend the inauguration of a man that led the pact in wanting to “lock her up,” or stand and march alongside women throughout the streets of Washington, D.C.
My thought is that the two events were significant in importance, and that, Secretary Clinton should have showed up for both — even if she wasn’t formally invited to the march.
I see the alleged non-invite argument as non-germane.
Clinton, technically speaking, has been a “private” citizen since leaving the State Department in February of 2013, making an invitation to a public event needless.
The twice failed presidential candidate’s attendance at the #WomensMarch would have, not only whole-fully retained Clinton’s image of being a champion for all things women, but would’ve been great for American history.
Young girls, women, Clinton doubters, and individuals 20–30 years from now, would read and see Mrs. Clinton, a woman who lost the presidency to a man that said “grab them by the pussy,” and think “Hillary Clinton really was a fighter; Hillary Clinton never gave up.”
FURTHERMORE, her presence at the march would’ve confirmed what Clinton herself has stated time and time again, during her presidential campaign: that her mother taught her resilience.
“The real test is whether you get back up, you dust yourself off, and keep going,”
— words that came out of the former Secretary of States mouth [quoting lessons from her mother, Dorothy Rodham], during an interview with CNN’s Chris Cuomo, while at a campaign stop in Park Ridge, Illinois.
Not attending the #WomensMarch, in my opinion, means that Mrs. Clinton herself has failed “the real test.” Why didn’t she adhere to her mothers advice of dusting herself off and getting back up, by being apart of a monumental day for 21st century women?
Quick answer: because the former First Lady, turned Senator, turned Diplomat, only engages in politically expedient activities.
REPUTATION ASIDE, there wasn’t much for Clinton to benefit from appearing at the #WomensMarch.
However, one would hope that, politics aside, the so-called face of the fight for women’s rights would feel inclined to show up to a modern day march for women.
I, like you, was mistaken.