Clinton Could Be a Lot Worse

Lots of people, democrats and republicans alike, seem to have it out for Hillary Clinton. Her innumerable critics call her a liar, a cheater or a sneak. They bring up moments such as the 2012 attacks in Benghazi to call her out on her disability as a leader and, even more so, a doer. A huge scandal that everyone has heard ad nauseam was the use of her personal email to handle government business. But are these faults exaggerated? Is she really as bad as some would have you believe?

I’m not defending her actions. Her role during the Benghazi attacks was indeed neglectful, and using her personal email account to deal with her job was a terrible decision. However, even with these two instances taken into account, I still think she would make a good president.

Ever since her days as the First Lady in the 90s, she has strived for feminism and equal rights in countries that still have a way to go in terms of gender equality. Her visit to Beijing in 1995 at the Fourth World Conference on Women in which she confidently stated that “Women’s Rights Are Human Rights” (a mantra that would be repeated for years to come) set her apart from others and branded her as a passionate feminist and advocator for human rights.

Clinton definitely helped set in motion a large-scale fight for humanitarian benefits. In her recent campaign for president, Clinton’s feminist views have been one of her “selling points,” so to speak. Without a doubt, it has been the deciding factor in her winning the female vote.

Clinton definitely helped set in motion a large-scale fight for humanitarian benefits.

Aside from Clinton’s incredible strides in human rights, she has proven herself to be a remarkable aid to President Obama on his foreign policy decisions. She also started the State Children’s Health Insurance Program, bringing healthcare to millions of low-income families. In 1993, long before the Affordable Care Act was signed, she made an effort (that was unfortunately met with failure) to provide universal health care to all American citizens. Yet still, in the minds of hot-headed critics, these successes and ideas are all irrelevant because of her flaws. But then again, that is the nature of politics. Dragging someone through the mud because of their flaws and hardly acknowledging their accomplishments is an ancient and apparently still commonly used tactic.

But as mentioned earlier, Clinton is far from perfect. Most of her criticisms come from Republicans, yet several major complaints also come from Democrats. The largest mistake Clinton ever made was in 2002 when she voted for George Bush to have the authority to declare war on Iraq. One could argue that was a deciding force in her 2008 election loss. Another criticism from Democrats is her at times obvious political expediency, most notably on her gay-marriage stances. Until 2013, she was a quiet but staunch opponent to gay marriage. To many voters, it seemed as though her switch wasn’t due to her own personal values changing; rather, they saw it as a move done to please the ever-growing tolerance of the Democratic party. But that’s just the nature of politics.

In the end, Clinton isn’t the best; however, she isn’t the worst, either. Her difficulties with expediency and cover-ups are unwelcome, but for the most part, she has proven herself to be an intelligent and capable Secretary of State, and I feel that she will be the better option in the coming election.