Hillary Clinton should not become first female president


Hillary Clinton is a former first lady, senator and secretary of state. She has women everywhere idolizing her for her power and accomplishments, yet every time I hear that there is a possibility of her running for President again in the 2016 election, I cry inside. The fact that there is a legitimate possibility of her being elected causes me to become even more disappointed in the American people as a whole.

Americans seem to be on this kick of wanting to elect the first of something. The first black president, the first woman president. They want to make history, but they don’t have a clue about the actual politics behind the people. It makes me sick. This proves that we haven’t gotten past racism and sexism; I say this not because I did not vote for Obama or Clinton, but because those who did voted so without understanding their policies. Obama has already served two terms, but people need to wake up and realize that the first woman president cannot be Hillary Clinton.

The first reason Clinton does not have my respect is an obvious one. It begins with how I viewed her when I was a child as the news of her husband’s affair broke. I found her pathetic; through the idealistic eyes of a child, I wondered why she could stay with a man who so publically destroyed their marriage. Looking at this as an adult I understand why she stuck by his side: for power. She married Bill Clinton for power, she stayed with him for power, and she has finally achieved the power she wanted. Could she have done this without him? Sure, she probably could have, but not nearly as successfully. Needless to say she never gained any of my respect back — even when I did realize her motives — instead, she just became even more pitiful.

Her approach to women’s activism has always rubbed me the wrong way too. Men and women should have equal rights, but we are not the same. Any woman who sarcastically says “I suppose I could have stayed home and baked cookies and had tea,” as Clinton has, clearly has no respect for those women who do choose to do so. Besides making her seem like all she wants is power, this attitude shows that she disdains femininity itself.

Manipulative and power hungry pretty much sums her up, which would be tolerable — she is a politician, after all — until you add her incompetency into the mix.

No one seems to know for sure what exactly happened in Benghazi, Libya. There are contradictory reports from different sources. As then-Secretary of State, Clinton’s responsibilities included foreign affairs, so the safety of diplomats was her responsibility while Libya was in the middle of a civil war. To have the death of four American citizens happen on her watch in a country she should have been closely monitoring is inexcusable. What was she doing? Why wasn’t there more security? And who came up with the idea to blame it all on a YouTube video?

Besides being an advocate of big government and overseas military intervention, Clinton cannot even take genuine responsibility for her failures. Had she done so, she never would have said “what difference does it make” in reference to how the attacks started. There is no reason, then, that Hillary Clinton should be the nation’s first female president.

Samantha Poetter is a senior in political science. Please send comments to [email protected]

  • Katie

    You’re really going to criticize Hillary for staying with her husband? Then conclude that her personal life translates over to her professional decisions? Your article also clearly shows that you don’t understand the feminist/equality movement. Equal rights don’t presume that everyone brings the same things to the table. This article only demonstrates your lack of credibility in politics, not hers.

    • anthony james

      I think you’re the one, Katie, who little understands what the feminist/equality movement was and ever has been about. The “movement” has never successfully defined “equality,” much less offer a cogent diagram of what “equal rights” are and why; the feminist movement has always been about bashing the male gender as a way of promoting itself – been living with it since the 50s! What the author of this article gets “right” is that Hillary is all about power, and her personal corruption while pursuing it!

  • AAA

    Why are you going to criticize her for staying with her husband through everything? Isn’t that what being a Christian is about? Divorce is not allowed according to the bible. Don’t forget that!!!

    • Valley Scharping

      “I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.” -Jesus, Matthew 19:9

      Divorce is permitted on the grounds of marital unfaithfulness. Assumptions about Christian beliefs are not just often incorrect, but very easily resolvable.

      • skeptic

        “For a married woman is bound by law to her husband while he lives, but if her husband dies she is released from the law of marriage.” Romans 7:2

        This part of the Bible actually says women CAN’T divorce their husbands. Turns out Christian beliefs are not very consistent, are they?

        • Valley Scharping

          Quite a fallacy you’ve made there. I’m afraid this rather simple topic requires a bit more reading comprehension and especially no more verses thrown about by a person who openly professes not to believe in them.

          The precepts of Christianity are irreproachable and perfectly consistent. First, the verse does not even mention divorce. Death is the end of all life including marriage; this does not touch the issue of divorce as this is the way of all things. Since divorce is not mentioned, it really has no relevance to a discussion purely about divorce, though I will grant it concerns marriage. Second, you’ve made a common fallacy that because all the exceptions to a rule are not listed, the implication is that the missing exceptions are therefore not exceptions. In this case, the only exception is not mentioned. Do you find that every single passage about marriage should have to mention this exception, even when the subject of the passage specifically does not deal with divorce? You certainly do not. Third, the focus of this passage was the temporality of marriage, not any of other many facets of marriage (like divorce, gender roles, reproduction, etc). This is made all the more clear because the very first clause is not independent of the statement “while he lives.”

          So, to answer your question, they are.
          Lastly, I’d love to argue right and wrong all day, but I’d much rather help you understand both the exegetical process and the personal side of these beliefs and more. Discussion, especially about God and understanding Him, is not just important, but intriguing. I would love to talk more with you, maybe even meet up sometime and talk! You can try to convince me and I you, it’ll be great fun. Find me by my name!

  • Valley Scharping

    Very much agreed!

  • Rick

    I agree wholeheartedly with your article Ms. Poetter. Your parents must be proud of your powers of discernment. Power is the game here. After Bill Clinton finished his second term Hillary immediately ran for Senator in New York. She was overwhelmingly elected by the city’s majority liberal population despite the fact that she had only lived in New York for a few months prior and, most importantly, she had no experience in such matters (unless you include her failed attempt at socializing the health industry).

  • Kelley

    Regardless of content in this article (which I respectfully disagree with absolutely everything), I think this is probably one of the worst written opinion articles I have ever read… The more I read this, the more I feel like I’m reading through a timed response to an essay prompt in an 8th grade “Intro to Government” class.

    • schmeck

      This must be one of the worst written collegian comments I have ever read. The more I read this the more I feel like I am reading the drunken ramblings of an angry child. This child is also on meth.

      • Kelley

        I love meth. & I love your sarcastic retort.

        • ReadyforHillary

          You are so swell 🙂

  • ReadyforHillary

    Oh my goodness, what a sad commentary on someone totally misguided and led by the media and not knowing it. Sad.

    • PJ

      Who again is misguided? Google how many people who are dead due to knowing too much about the Clinton’s and their ways. Disturbing! Wake up!!!

      • ReallyReadyforHillary

        oh youre insane, alrighty then.

        • PJ

          Is that the best you can do? 75 IQ?

          • ReallyReadyforHillary

            Actually, 139.

            If you were close to that you’d understand.

    • PJ

      and your activity on this site is private. What you got to hide?