Hillary 2016: Build It Up or Tear It Down

It is not a secret that the Clinton family have seen their share of scandal. With the fresh announcement of Hillary gunning for the 2016 nomination, old skeletons will begin to re-surface. It is important that as a candidate, former Secretary of State, Senator and First Lady; that she be examined closely in a political sphere. A win for Hillary could be a large step for women, their advancement and future opportunities. Or it could be disastrous and used to tear down every step that has been built for women in the professional field. 

Hillary has been the top contender for the Democratic nomination, however her stances are not as widely known. It takes a great deal of digging to find her voting record and past statements on important social issues. As previously reported with Rand Paul, I have looked over the list of major social issues that the Presidency faces to see just where Hillary stands. Unfortunately, recent statements are not as widely available as they are prior to 2007. A link below provides the information I came across when searching.

OnTheIssues-Hillary Clinton

Woman In The White House?

Just as the election of President Barack Obama was a milestone for minorities across the country, an elected female president could be the type of milestone our country needs next for progression. At what cost though? Hillary's spotty record could prove to be a barrier hard to overcome and difficult to gain the trust needed for a solid following. Her run could be seen as the lesser of two evils. Democrats have faced difficult waters through Obama's Presidency, especially in approval ratings. Now back at a 50% approval rating[1], the Obama administration saw the loss of 70 House seats total since taking office, 63 of which have been turned over the the GOP.[2] With Hillary being the top contender for the White House, if the Democrats were to get the win again, she may also be appointing 4 new Supreme Court Justices. Two were appointed during the Reagan Administration and two during the first Clinton Administration.[3]

Hillary as President brings about this question: What if it goes badly?
With the recent scandal involving her private email used during her time as Secretary of State, also her involvement with Benghazi and the affairs during her husband's presidency; trust may be hard to come by. If during her time as our next President, such scandals were to erupt again it would most definitely be a set back for women as a whole, being she is the example. She is the rule, not the exception. 

Stepping Out Of The Shadow:
In order to escape the skeleton's of the first Clinton Administration, Hillary must really have something to bring to the table. As a self proclaimed "Feminist and Traditionalist", her ideas towards women's rights as well as civil rights have been unclear and undefined. As of late, she has announced that she had re-evaluated and changed her mind of the idea of gay marriage. As wonderful as that may be, it is also startling to see her history of "changed mind". Prior to exiting the White House, the Clinton's began a large foundation that has been accused of accepting funds from countries that are known to be some of the most oppressive towards their women, and countries that she had criticized prior, such as Qatar and Saudi Arabia.[4] This is also a conflict of interest because these funds had been accepted during her time as Secretary of State. This insight is quite troubling. Would Hillary take the easy road, or the "right" road when push comes to shove?

Less Means More:
One of the few issues Hillary has remained clear on is her stance on teen abstinence and abortion rights. When asked her view on the beginning of life, she took a clear stance on the separation of church and state: 

"But for me, it is also not only about a potential life; it is about the other lives involved. And, therefore, I have concluded, after great concern and searching my own mind and heart over many years, that our task should be in this pluralistic, diverse life of ours in this nation that individuals must be entrusted to make this profound decision, because the alternative would be such an intrusion of government authority that it would be very difficult to sustain in our kind of open society. And as some of you’ve heard me discuss before, I think abortion should remain legal, but it needs to be safe and rare."[5]

Although her ideas do not line up 100% with the Democratic party, particularly on conception at fertilization, her choice not to meddle in those waters are admirable.

America Needs A Champion:
One of the slogans that came forth in her announcement today was "America Needs A Champion". She seemed to specifically target the middle class, showing that she wants to be a President for the common people. She seems to have strayed away from the women and minority involvement on her campaign however. Hillary has stated in the past that she is adamant on women and human rights. This is not as transparent in recent years. In 1995, Clinton was quoted at the UN Conference saying:

“We must respect the choices that each women makes for herself and her family. If there is one message that echoes forth from this conference, let it be that human rights are women’s rights, and women’s rights are human rights.”

Although her platforms have not been revealed, one can only hope that she will build us up, and give us a road to travel for future endeavors.  

Rand Paul, Libertarian or Tea Party Agenda?

On April 7th, Rand Paul announced his campaign for the United States Presidency. For many, this seems like a victory in the making. His attractive fiscal policies and non-intervention foreign policy seems to be what would make him a good president. The point of contention becomes his stance on controversial topics such as immigration, abortion, and civil liberties. We know the name, we know the affiliation but who is Rand Paul and what kind of president would he be?

Before we understand where Rand Paul stands on current issues that the presidency faces, we must understand him as a person and candidate. Dr. Paul has a religious background as an Episcopalian and grew up in Pennsylvania. Dr. Paul attended Baylor University and Duke University Medical School until graduation in 1988. He pursued a surgical internship and medicine into 1994 when he began his entry into politics. [1] He was no stranger to politics as his father Ron Paul, is a familiar household name. Dr. Paul's official entry into politics came after his involvement with the Tea Party Movement in 2008, and his run for Kentucky U.S. Senator in 2009. One of his key attributes has been his many encounters with controversy, and his history with flip-flopping on his stance.

One of my largest issues with Rand Paul is his identification with the Libertarian party. Libertarians promote maximizing autonomy and freedom of choice. Paul's stance on multiple key issues clash with the very ideals of the true libertarian ideology. His inability to separate his faith from his political platform is alarming.

Listed below is a link to OnTheIssues.com and a compiled list of direct quotes from Rand Paul on his positions. Based on his position towards women in multiple facets, where will he stand for over 160 million of the citizens he will represent?

OnTheIssues-Rand Paul

Civil Rights:

Q: What about the "war for women"?
PAUL: Well, you know, I think we have a lot of debates in Washington that get dumbed down and are used for political purposes. This whole sort of war on women thing, I'm scratching my head because if there was a war on women, I think they won. You know, the women in my family are incredibly successful. I have a niece at Cornell vet school, and 85% of the young people there are women. In law school, 60% are women; in med school, 55%. My younger sister's an ob-gyn with six kids and doing great. You know, I don't see so much that women are downtrodden; I see women rising up and doing great things. And, in fact, I worry about our young men sometimes because I think the women really are out-competing the men in our world. I think the facts show that women are doing very well, have come a long way. So I don't really see this, that there's some sort of war that's, you know, keeping women down. [2]

This is a perturbing statement because it blatantly ignores issues that are currently being addressed in Federal as well as State governments. One of the most publicized problems is the wage gap. By insinuating that women are "out-competing" men, we are ignoring one of the major issues in the work force. Men are still being paid on average 22% more than women. On average, women only make 78% of what a male earns in his salary, performing the same job. This does not account for the larger gap for women of color and minority background either.[3] Dr. Paul's failure to acknowledge that women still face relevant struggles is evidence to show that his presidency will not be used to advance any interests of women in the workforce. The very problem that plagues American is present in the White House as well. There is a 13% gap between male and female earners in the White House.[4] The saying "Not in my back yard" may apply however it's going on in their backyard so why would it cease in ours?

The issue not only becomes fair wage, but the hiring practices of businesses as well. Dr. Paul has also publicly stated his opposition to affirmative action. Without practices in place to protect the hiring interests of minorities, how can we assure a level playing field? 

Violence Against Women Act:
In 2013, Congress sought to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 which included:

Amends the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 (VAWA) to add or expand definitions of several terms used in such Act, including :

1. "culturally specific services" to mean community-based services that offer culturally relevant and linguistically specific services and resources to culturally specific communities;
2. "personally identifying information" with respect to a victim of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking;
3. "underserved populations" as populations that face barriers in accessing and using victim services because of geographic location, religion, sexual orientation or gender identity; and
4. "youth" to mean a person who is 11 to 24 years old. [5]

Dr. Paul voted "No" on the re-authorization of VAWA. When answering his constituents as to why he voted no, he elaborated that the act included; "legislation would increase benefits available under VAWA to specifically include victims of stalking and “cyberstalking,” as well as same-sex couples, and illegal immigrants who are victims of any sort of violence."

Paul's reasoning behind rejecting VAWA stems from the inclusion of gender non-conforming individuals as well as illegal immigrants. The very same people that he would represent, but do not advance his interests.

Same Sex Marriage:

Paul supports the CC survey question on banning same-sex marriage

The Christian Coalition voter guide [is] one of the most powerful tools Christians have ever had to impact our society during elections. This simple tool has helped educate tens of millions of citizens across this nation as to where candidates for public office stand on key faith and family issues.

The CC survey summarizes candidate stances on the following topic: "Federal Marriage Amendment to prevent same sex marriage" [6]

Although Dr. Paul has agreed to leave the legislation of same sex marriage up to the states, he has been quoted as saying that same sex marriage “offends myself and a lot of people.” Which begs the question of the protection of the LGBT community. If Dr. Paul is unable to separate his personal feelings towards same sex marriage with the legality behind it, the lines of separation of church and state not only blur, they are erased.

Contraception

[During an appearance at the College of Charleston], a young woman in the audience asked if Paul, who sponsored an anti-abortion bill in 2013 that defines life as beginning at fertilization, is opposed to Plan B, the emergency contraception commonly known as the morning-after pill.
A number of social conservatives--plenty of them in Iowa--have condemned the morning-after pill as an on-demand abortion drug, sometimes confusing the contraceptive with RU-486, which can be used to induce abortion.
Noticeably uncomfortable with the question, Paul first gave a terse answer: "I am not opposed to birth control," he said. After a pause, he elaborated. "That's basically what Plan B is. Plan B is taking two birth control pills in the morning and two in the evening, and I am not opposed to that." [7]

Dr. Paul voted in support of an anti -abortion law proposed in 2013, that would propose an amendment to what defines "Personhood". If States were to adopt the re-vamped meaning of personhood, access to certain types of birth control such as IUD's would be limited or barred. Personhood measures would ensure that the law interprets life beginning at fertilization therefore deeming the fetus a full-fledged person. 

Abortion:
Attached is a questionnare filled out by Dr. Paul in 2010 when seeking the Senator seat for Kentucky:
Political Action Committee- May 18, 2010

Dr. Paul has made his stance on abortion very clear. Until recently, abortion under all circumstances was considered to be immoral and should be banned when describing himself as "100% pro-life". Since his survey in 2010, he has committed to the stance of leaving abortion to the doctors discretion in medically life threatening cases such as ectopic pregnancy.

Dr. Paul has stated that he would leave the discretion to the doctor, and also in the case of same sex marriage to the discretion of the state. However, in his 2010 survey, his specifically supports the removal of state and local tax funds to the "abortion industry", which would remove funding from all local clinics that provide abortion services. He instead would like to allocate funding to clinics that provide "abortion alternatives" and do not even discuss abortion as an option. Does that sound like freedom of choice or coercion? Local clinics do not only provide abortion services, but a wide range of necessary medical care that would then be denied due to the removal of funding.



Dr. Paul's identification with the libertarian party is misleading and should be a large concern on behalf of women. His platform specifically excludes any resolution to the current issues that women face. As a president, Paul's representation should broaden beyond the christian male, but instead is exclusive to those who are already at an advantage.