Hillary Better Than Bernie? Clinton and Feminism

All women want to see a female president, but at what price?

The presidential election is 10 months away. The key Iowa caucus and primaries in New Hampshire are only days away.

American feminists have a hard nut to crack. Many feminists remain doubtful about Hillary Clinton’s stance during the Lewinsky scandal, but many followed feminine solidarity, remaining loyal to the feminist ideals. Gloria Steinem, the author of “My Life on the Road,” explains that her support for Clinton in 2008 was not a result of her lack of recognition for Barack Obama, but a result of her deep belief that it was time a woman became U.S. president. When, if not now? Despite her affection for Sanders, to whom she referred as an “honorary woman” back in 1996 when she praised him for his contribution to feminism, she will remain loyal to Clinton in the 2016 presidential election.

Lena Dunham, the hipster queen, agrees and actively supports Clinton’s campaign by encouraging the millennial generation, which is significant in this year’s election, to vote for her. However, as reported by The New York Times, Dunham also has her concerns. She allegedly expressed them at a private event in New York by questioning Clinton’s attitude toward the female victims of her husband’s abuse of power. Is Clinton the mythical Athena, a woman born out of her father’s head to guard the patriarchy?

Recollecting events from almost 20 years ago might not exactly be fair. I think that feminist concerns can be expressed in a more straightforward manner: During the Lewinsky scandal, Clinton simply demonstrated the excessive ability to compromise. She proved that she is able to sacrifice her personal happiness for the sake of a political career. She will do what it takes to continue playing the game against the big boys of politics.

Therefore, who should Socialist feminists support? It appears that there is no obvious choice. The Democracy Now debate hosted feminists whose opinions were quite divided. Liza Featherstone, the author of a well-known book about the abused female employees of Wal-Mart, thinks that Bernie Sanders is a far more genuine supporter of feminist ideals in his fight for public health care and an increase in the national minimum wage to $15. Featherstone thinks that Clinton represents elite feminism, and her becoming the first female president would not stop the oppression of female staff at Wal-Mart, where, by the way, Clinton once worked as a director.

On the other hand, Suzanna Walters, from the gender studies faculty at Northeastern University, presents a strategic approach toward the 2016 presidential election. She claims that Clinton is a central candidate with a slight inclination to the left, and with a chance in the general elections that Sanders does not have. This is a popular view among liberal Democrats. Even if Bernie became president, he would not be able to force any of his ideas through the Senate and House of Representatives. The fact that Clinton is female seems crucial for Walters, and she is not hesitant about admitting it. After all, gender has always played a key part in presidential elections. Hillary might not be a left-wing feminist, but she is prepared to fight for women’s rights, including reproductive rights.

During the last Democratic debate in South Carolina, Clinton behaved rather appallingly, accusing Sanders of wanting to scrap the “Obamacare” program. Surprised, Sanders protested, but emphasized that he would not attack Clinton because his campaign was about his political program rather than about knocking out his opponents.

The right-wing did not appreciate Donald Trump, just like Hillary Clinton’s team did not appreciate Sanders.

At the start of the campaign, polls showed 50 points of difference between the two, whereas now they go head to head. Portraying Sanders as Obama’s critic is important for Clinton, who wants to be viewed as Obama’s continuator in a bid to gain support from black voters. When Sanders became more and more left-wing, which appeases liberals, Clinton suddenly followed his trend and also called for tighter regulation of Wall Street, reforms within the penitentiary system, a more lenient approach to the drug war, and in general, reforms to the entire corrupted electoral system. However, as Sanders rightly pointed out, it is not possible to draw money from Wall Street and regulate it at the same time.

While Clinton was busy giving highly paid speeches for Goldman Sachs, Sanders collected more small donations from ordinary citizens than any other presidential candidate in the entire history of the U.S. This translates into political independence, an example of which could be Goldman Sachs, whose many former employees are now politicians, and which regularly pays fines for violating the law without any further consequences. Clinton claims she agrees with Sanders, that it is not right for massive-scale Wall Street speculations to continue unpunished, while American kids go to prison for the possession of a small amount of marijuana. Have I mentioned that the latest sponsors in Hillary Clinton’s campaign are private prisons?

There are desperate voices from the radical left that although Donald Trump’s four years in the White House would teach America a lesson, it would still be a better option than eight years in Clinton’s swamp. They might have a point.