Presented below is information most people, especially young people, have either forgotten or are not aware. This post in not in support of Hillary, but in opposition to her. It is my personal opinion, as well as the opinion of millions of other Americans, that electing Hillary to the presidency would be a major mistake and would severely damage our nation further than Barry Soetoro, who calls himself Barack Obama, has already done.
What is below is not the complete text from Wikipedia, only excerpts. For the full text visit Wikipedia.
“The only First Lady to have been subpoenaed, she testified before a federal grand jury in 1996 regarding the Whitewater controversy, although no charges against her related to this or other investigations during her husband’s presidency were ever brought.
She took responsibility for security lapses related to the 2012 Benghazi attack, which resulted in the deaths of American consulate personnel, but defended her personal actions in regard to the matter.
Bill Clinton’s Republican opponent in his 1986 gubernatorial re-election campaign accused the Clintons of conflict of interest, because Rose Law did state business; the Clintons countered the charge by saying that state fees were walled off by the firm before her profits were calculated.
Hillary Clinton received sustained national attention for the first time when her husband became a candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination of 1992. Before the New Hampshire primary, tabloid publications printed assertions that Bill Clinton had engaged in an extramarital affair with Arkansas lounge singer Gennifer Flowers. In response, the Clintons appeared together on 60 Minutes, where Bill Clinton denied the affair, but acknowledged “causing pain in my marriage”. This joint appearance was credited with rescuing his campaign. During the campaign, Hillary Clinton made culturally disparaging remarks about Tammy Wynette and her outlook on marriage,[nb 5] and about women staying home and baking cookies and having teas,[nb 6] that were ill-considered by her own admission. Bill Clinton said that in electing him, the nation would “get two for the price of one”, referring to the prominent role his wife would assume. Beginning with Daniel Wattenberg‘s August 1992 The American Spectator article “The Lady Macbeth of Little Rock”, Hillary Clinton’s own past ideological and ethical record came under attack from conservatives. At least twenty other articles in major publications also drew comparisons between her and Lady Macbeth.
The First Lady’s approval ratings, which had generally been in the high-50s percent range during her first year, fell to 44 percent in April 1994 and 35 percent by September 1994.
Whitewater and other investigations
First Lady Clinton was a subject of several investigations by the United States Office of the Independent Counsel, committees of the U.S. Congress, and the press.
The Whitewater controversy was the focus of media attention from the publication of a New York Times report during the 1992 presidential campaign and throughout her time as First Lady. The Clintons had lost their late-1970s investment in the Whitewater Development Corporation; at the same time, their partners in that investment, Jim and Susan McDougal, operated Madison Guaranty, a savings and loan institution that retained the legal services of Rose Law Firm and may have been improperly subsidizing Whitewater losses. Madison Guaranty later failed, and Clinton’s work at Rose was scrutinized for a possible conflict of interest in representing the bank before state regulators that her husband had appointed. She said she had done minimal work for the bank. Independent counsels Robert Fiske and Kenneth Starr subpoenaed Clinton’s legal billing records; she said she did not know where they were. The records were found in the First Lady’s White House book room after a two-year search and delivered to investigators in early 1996. The delayed appearance of the records sparked intense interest and another investigation concerning how they surfaced and where they had been. Clinton’s staff attributed the problem to continual changes in White House storage areas since the move from the Arkansas Governor’s Mansion. On January 26, 1996, Clinton became the first First Lady to be subpoenaed to testify before a Federal grand jury. After several Independent Counsels had investigated, a final report was issued in 2000 that stated there was insufficient evidence that either Clinton had engaged in criminal wrongdoing.
Scrutiny of the May 1993 firings of the White House Travel Office employees, an affair that became known as “Travelgate“, began with charges that the White House had used audited financial irregularities in the Travel Office operation as an excuse to replace the staff with friends from Arkansas. The 1996 discovery of a two-year-old White House memo caused the investigation to focus on whether Hillary Clinton had orchestrated the firings and whether the statements she made to investigators about her role in the firings were true. The 2000 final Independent Counsel report concluded she was involved in the firings and that she had made “factually false” statements, but that there was insufficient evidence that she knew the statements were false, or knew that her actions would lead to firings, to prosecute her.
Following deputy White House counsel Vince Foster‘s July 1993 suicide, allegations were made that Hillary Clinton had ordered the removal of potentially damaging files (related to Whitewater or other matters) from Foster’s office on the night of his death. Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr investigated this, and, by 1999, Starr was reported to be holding the investigation open, despite his staff having told him there was no case to be made. When Starr’s successor Robert Ray issued his final Whitewater reports in 2000, no claims were made against Hillary Clinton regarding this.
An outgrowth of the Travelgate investigation was the June 1996 discovery of improper White House access to hundreds of FBI background reports on former Republican White House employees, an affair that some called “Filegate“. Accusations were made that Hillary Clinton had requested these files and that she had recommended hiring an unqualified individual to head the White House Security Office. The 2000 final Independent Counsel report found no substantial or credible evidence that Hillary Clinton had any role or showed any misconduct in the matter.
In March 1994, newspaper reports revealed her spectacular profits from cattle futures trading in 1978–1979; allegations were made in the press of conflict of interest and disguised bribery, and several individuals analyzed her trading records, but no formal investigation was made and she was never charged with any wrongdoing.
Clinton strongly supported the 2001 U.S. military action in Afghanistan, saying it was a chance to combat terrorism while improving the lives of Afghan women who suffered under the Taliban government. Clinton voted in favor of the October 2002 Iraq War Resolution, which authorized President George W. Bush to use military force against Iraq.
Senator Clinton voted against President Bush’s two major tax cut packages, the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 and the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003.
(Clinton did not support same-sex marriage until 2013.)
2008 presidential campaign
The biggest threat to her campaign was her past support of the Iraq War, which Obama had opposed from the beginning.
The nature of the contest fractured in the next few days. Several remarks by Bill Clinton and other surrogates, and a remark by Hillary Clinton concerning Martin Luther King, Jr. and Lyndon B. Johnson,[nb 10] were perceived by many as, accidentally or intentionally, limiting Obama as a racially oriented candidate or otherwise denying the post-racial significance and accomplishments of his campaign. Despite attempts by both Hillary Clinton and Obama to downplay the issue, Democratic voting became more polarized as a result, with Clinton losing much of her support among African Americans. She lost by a two-to-one margin to Obama in the January 26 South Carolina primary, setting up, with Edwards soon dropping out, an intense two-person contest for the twenty-two February 5 Super Tuesday states. Bill Clinton had made more statements attracting criticism for their perceived racial implications late in the South Carolina campaign, and his role was seen as damaging enough to her that a wave of supporters within and outside of the campaign said the former President “needs to stop”. The South Carolina campaign had done lasting damage to Clinton, eroding her support among the Democratic establishment and leading to the prized endorsement of Obama by Ted Kennedy.
Clinton’s admission in late March, that her repeated campaign statements about having been under hostile fire from snipers during a March 1996 visit to U.S. troops at Tuzla Air Base in Bosnia and Herzegovina were not true, attracted considerable media attention.
Upon her departure, analysts commented that Clinton’s tenure [as Secretary of State] did not bring any signature diplomatic breakthroughs as other Secretaries of State had, and highlighted her focus on goals that she thought were less tangible but would have more lasting effect.
Benghazi attack and subsequent hearings
On September 11, 2012, the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, was attacked, resulting in the deaths of the U.S. Ambassador, J. Christopher Stevens, and three other Americans. The attack, and questions surrounding the security of the U.S. consulate and varying explanations afterward for what had happened, became politically controversial in the U.S. On October 15, Clinton took responsibility for the question of security lapses.
On December 19, a panel led by Thomas R. Pickering and Michael Mullen issued its report on the matter. It was sharply critical of State Department officials in Washington for ignoring requests for more guards and safety upgrades and for failing to adapt security procedures to a deteriorating security environment. Four State Department officials at the assistant secretary level and below were removed from their posts as a consequence. Clinton said she accepted the conclusions of the report and that changes were underway to implement its suggested recommendations.
Seven previous investigations had failed to find major lapses by President Obama or Secretary Clinton, “debunking a series of persistent allegations hinting at dark conspiracies.” Nevertheless, the Republican House formed a Select Committee to investigate the attacks. It has become one of the longest-running House Special Committee in history, surpassing the length of the Church Committee, which investigated Watergate.
Clinton gave Congressional testimony on January 23, 2013, regarding the Benghazi attack. She defended her actions in response to the incident and, while still accepting formal responsibility, said she had had no direct role in specific discussions beforehand regarding consulate security.
In the run-up to a second round of testimony in 2015, perceptions of the Benghazi Committee changed considerably after Kevin McCarthy (a leading candidate for Speaker of the House), Republican House member Richard Hanna, and an ex-staffer suggested that the committee had a political aim and had succeeded at lowering Hillary Clinton’s poll numbers. This gave the committee the reputation of being politically-motivated. A CNN/ORC poll release three days before the testimony found that “72% of all Americans say they see the Benghazi committee as mostly using its investigative mission for political gain.”
On October 22, 2015, Clinton testified for a second time before the Benghazi Committee and answered questions from committee members for more than eight hours in a public hearing, which began at 10 a.m. and lasted until 9 p.m. (with various breaks in between). The hearing included many heated exchanges between committee members and Clinton, and between the committee members themselves. The New York Times reported that, “Perhaps stung by recent admissions that the pursuit of Mrs. Clinton’s emails was politically motivated, Republican lawmakers on the panel for the most part avoided any mention of her use of a private email server.”
The hearing was widely found to have revealed little new information. Clinton was widely seen as emerging successfully from the hearings, because of what the media perceived as a calm and unfazed demeanor, and a lengthy, meandering line of questioning by the committee.
She began work on another volume of memoirs, and began making appearances on the paid speaking circuit, receiving about $200,000 per engagement, as well as making some unpaid speeches on behalf of the foundation. For the fifteen months ending in March 2015, Clinton earned over $11 million from her speeches, a total that rose to over $25 million when her husband’s speeches were included. For the overall period 2007–14, the Clintons earned almost $141 million, paid some $56 million in federal and state taxes, and donated about $15 million to charity. As of 2015, she was estimated to be worth over $30 million on her own, or $45–53 million with her husband.
Clinton resigned from the foundation’s board in April 2015, when she began her presidential campaign, and the foundation said it would accept new foreign governmental donations from six western nations only.[nb 15]
Several organizations have attempted to measure Clinton’s place on the political spectrum scientifically using her Senate votes. National Journal‘s 2004 study of roll-call votes assigned Clinton a rating of 30 in the political spectrum, relative to the Senate at the time, with a rating of 1 being most liberal and 100 being most conservative. National Journal‘s subsequent rankings placed her as the 32nd-most liberal senator in 2006 and 16th-most liberal senator in 2007. A 2004 analysis by political scientists Joshua D. Clinton of Princeton University and Simon Jackman and Doug Rivers of Stanford University found her to be likely the sixth-to-eighth-most liberal Senator. The Almanac of American Politics, edited by Michael Barone and Richard E. Cohen, rated her votes from 2003 through 2006 as liberal or conservative, with 100 as the highest rating, in three areas: Economic, Social, and Foreign. Averaged for the four years, the ratings are: Economic = 75 liberal, 23 conservative; Social = 83 liberal, 6 conservative; Foreign = 66 liberal, 30 conservative. Total average = 75 liberal, 20 conservative.[nb 16]
Interest groups also gave Clinton scores based on how well her Senate votes aligned with the positions of the group. Through 2008, she had an average lifetime 90 percent “Liberal Quotient” from Americans for Democratic Action, and a lifetime 8 percent rating from the American Conservative Union.
Cultural and political image
Over ninety books and scholarly works have been written about Hillary Rodham Clinton, from many perspectives. A 2006 survey by The New York Observer found “a virtual cottage industry” of “anti-Clinton literature”, put out by Regnery Publishing and other conservative imprints, with titles such as Madame Hillary: The Dark Road to the White House, Hillary’s Scheme: Inside the Next Clinton’s Ruthless Agenda to Take the White House, and Can She Be Stopped? : Hillary Clinton Will Be the Next President of the United States Unless …. Books praising Clinton did not sell nearly as well (other than the memoirs written by her and her husband). When she ran for Senate in 2000, a number of fundraising groups such as Save Our Senate and the Emergency Committee to Stop Hillary Rodham Clinton sprang up to oppose her. Van Natta, Jr., found that Republican and conservative groups viewed her as a reliable “bogeyman” to mention in fundraising letters, on a par with Ted Kennedy, and the equivalent of Democratic and liberal appeals mentioning Newt Gingrich. She has been the subject of many satirical impressions on Saturday Night Live, beginning with her time as First Lady, and has made guest appearances on the show herself, in 2008 and in 2015, to face-off with her doppelgängers.
Clinton has often been described in the popular media as a polarizing figure, with some arguing otherwise. James Madison University political science professor Valerie Sulfaro’s 2007 study used the American National Election Studies‘ “feeling thermometer” polls, which measure the degree of opinion about a political figure, to find that such polls during Clinton’s First Lady years confirm the “conventional wisdom that Hillary Clinton is a polarizing figure”, with the added insight that “affect towards Mrs. Clinton as first lady tended to be very positive or very negative, with a fairly constant one fourth of respondents feeling ambivalent or neutral”. University of California, San Diego political science professor Gary Jacobson‘s 2006 study of partisan polarization found that in a state-by-state survey of job approval ratings of the state’s senators, Clinton had the fourth-largest partisan difference of any senator, with a 50 percentage point difference in approval between New York’s Democrats and Republicans.
Northern Illinois University political science professor Barbara Burrell’s 2000 study found that Clinton’s Gallup poll favorability numbers broke sharply along partisan lines throughout her time as First Lady, with 70 to 90 percent of Democrats typically viewing her favorably while only 20 to 40 percent of Republicans did. University of Wisconsin–Madison political science professor Charles Franklin analyzed her record of favorable versus unfavorable ratings in public opinion polls, and found that there was more variation in them during her First Lady years than her Senate years. The Senate years showed favorable ratings around 50 percent and unfavorable ratings in the mid-40 percent range; Franklin noted that, “This sharp split is, of course, one of the more widely remarked aspects of Sen. Clinton’s public image.” McGill University professor of history Gil Troy titled his 2006 biography of her Hillary Rodham Clinton: Polarizing First Lady, and wrote that after the 1992 campaign, Clinton “was a polarizing figure, with 42 percent [of the public] saying she came closer to their values and lifestyle than previous first ladies and 41 percent disagreeing.” Troy further wrote that Hillary Clinton “has been uniquely controversial and contradictory since she first appeared on the national radar screen in 1992” and that she “has alternately fascinated, bedeviled, bewitched, and appalled Americans.”
Burrell’s study found women consistently rating Clinton more favorably than men by about ten percentage points during her First Lady years. Jacobson’s study found a positive correlation across all senators between being women and receiving a partisan-polarized response. Colorado State University communication studies professor Karrin Vasby Anderson describes the First Lady position as a “site” for American womanhood, one ready made for the symbolic negotiation of female identity. In particular, Anderson states there has been a cultural bias towards traditional first ladies and a cultural prohibition against modern first ladies; by the time of Clinton, the First Lady position had become a site of heterogeneity and paradox. Burrell, as well as biographers Jeff Gerth and Don Van Natta, Jr., note that Clinton achieved her highest approval ratings as First Lady late in 1998, not for professional or political achievements of her own, but for being seen as the victim of her husband’s very public infidelity. University of Pennsylvania communications professor Kathleen Hall Jamieson saw Hillary Clinton as an exemplar of the double bind, who though able to live in a “both-and” world of both career and family, nevertheless “became a surrogate on whom we projected our attitudes about attributes once thought incompatible”, leading to her being placed in a variety of no-win situations. Quinnipiac University media studies professor Lisa Burns found press accounts frequently framing Clinton both as an exemplar of the modern professional working mother and as a political interloper interested in usurping power for herself. University of Indianapolis English professor Charlotte Templin found political cartoonists using a variety of stereotypes – such as gender reversal, radical feminist as emasculator, and the wife the husband wants to get rid of – to portray Hillary Clinton as violating gender norms.
Going into the early stages of her presidential campaign for 2008, a Time magazine cover showed a large picture of her, with two checkboxes labeled “Love Her”, “Hate Her”, while Mother Jones titled its profile of her “Harpy, Hero, Heretic: Hillary”. Democratic netroots activists consistently rated Clinton very low in polls of their desired candidates, while some conservative figures such as Bruce Bartlett and Christopher Ruddy were declaring a Hillary Clinton presidency not so bad after all. An October 2007 cover of The American Conservative magazine was titled “The Waning Power of Hillary Hate”. By December 2007, communications professor Jamieson observed that there was a large amount of misogyny present about Clinton on the Internet, up to and including Facebook and other sites devoted to depictions reducing Clinton to sexual humiliation. She noted, in response to widespread comments on Clinton’s laugh, that “We know that there’s language to condemn female speech that doesn’t exist for male speech. We call women’s speech shrill and strident. And Hillary Clinton’s laugh was being described as a cackle.” The “bitch” epithet, which had been applied to Clinton going back to her First Lady days and had been seen by Karrin Vasby Anderson as a tool of containment against women in American politics, flourished during the campaign, especially on the Internet but via conventional media as well. Following Clinton’s “choked up moment” and related incidents in the run-up to the January 2008 New Hampshire primary, both The New York Times and Newsweek found that discussion of gender’s role in the campaign had moved into the national political discourse. Newsweek editor Jon Meacham summed the relationship between Clinton and the American public by saying that the New Hampshire events “brought an odd truth to light: though Hillary Rodham Clinton has been on the periphery or in the middle of national life for decades … she is one of the most recognizable but least understood figures in American politics.”
Once she became Secretary of State, Clinton’s image seemed to improve dramatically among the American public and become one of a respected world figure. She gained consistently high approval ratings (by 2011, the highest of her career except during the Lewinsky scandal), and her favorable-unfavorable ratings during 2010 and 2011 were the highest of any active, nationally prominent American political figure. A 2012 Internet meme, “Texts from Hillary”, was based around a photograph of Clinton sitting on a military plane wearing sunglasses and using a mobile phone and imagined the recipients and contents of her text messages. It achieved viral popularity among younger, technically adept followers of politics. Clinton sought to explain her popularity by saying in early 2012, “There’s a certain consistency to who I am and what I do, and I think people have finally said, ‘Well, you know, I kinda get her now.'” She continued to do well in Gallup’s most admired man and woman poll and in 2014 she was named the most admired woman by Americans for the thirteenth straight time and the nineteenth time overall. Her favorability ratings dropped, however, after she left office and began to be viewed in the context of partisan politics again, and by July 2015, with her 2016 presidential campaign underway, her ratings slumped to the same kind of closely divided levels as seen in her 2008 presidential run.”
THINK carefully, my fellow Americans, before you cast your vote for such a controversial and untrustworthy candidate for president. Obama has already caused severe damage to our nation. Do not allow Hillary to continue causing even more damage.