Is Hillary Clinton the Real Champion of Woman's Issues?

Quite often on the campaign stump, Hillary asks the crowd if it's time to elect a woman as president, after a burst of applause, she smiles approvingly. She played the “gender card”. Do you think that Hillary is the right woman to reach that momentous office as the first woman president of the United States?

She proclaims that she is the best candidate to further the goals of women, is she correct in her self-serving assessment? Let's take a look.

When she was a practicing lawyer, she represented a pedophile who was accused of raping a 12 year old girl. Even after her client failed a “lie detector” test and she later admitted that she thought he was guilty, she laughed at getting him off on a legal technicality. The young girl was devastated.

During her stints as first lady of Arkansas and first lady in the White House, her job was to cover up and trash the women who blew the whistle on her “horndog” husband, Bill Clinton. In fact, her duty was to calm the storm by being in charge of “bimbo eruptions”. No matter what these women charged her husband with, unwanted groping, unsolicited exposing of his genitalia, and the charge of rape of Juanita Broaddrick, these women were trashed and branded “trailer trash” and “nuts and sluts” etc. All this by the woman who now is telling women all over the country that she is for woman's rights and who decries the sexual abuse of women.

Just recently, Hillary was speaking before a woman's group and stated the following, “alleged female victims of sexual abuse should be believed first until they are disbelieved based on evidence”. In other words, the man is presumed guilty before any evidence is presented. If that be the case with her, how come this didn't apply to the women who accused Bill Clinton of sexual abuse? Does she engage in a double-standard? Didn't she believe his accusers?

This appeal of vote for me because I'm a woman, is just as fallacious as vote for me because I'm black, or vote for me because I'm a Christian, a Jew or any other religion or ethnic group. A vote should be based upon competence, experience and moral character of the individual candidate, but I guess that doesn't apply to the Clinton's or to the Democrats. Look at what we would up with when a majority of voters chose race over competence and experience in 2008 and 2012. As woeful campaigners as John McCain and Mitt Romney were, I'm sure we would've been better off as a country, if either of those men won, than what we have today, as turmoil engulfs us, as a nation, both domestically and internationally. We are the laughing stock of the world.

Is voting for Hillary because she is a woman, in our best self-interest? It seems that no matter what she has touched over the past 25 years, it has turned out to be a disaster, from Hillarycare, the missing Rose law firm papers, “travelgate”, the Russian “reset button”, the missing millions of dollars at the State Department on her watch, the disaster at Benghazi where 4 Americans were murdered, including our ambassador to Libya, and, of course, her use of an illegal computer server as Secretary of State, the list goes on and on. Gender had nothing to do with any of these boondoggles, it was her arrogance and sense of entitlement that made her think that she (and you could include her husband too) was above the law. That's why, when a Quinnipiac poll asked citizens what was the first word that came into their minds when a name was mentioned, the first three responses when Hillary's name came up were, a liar, dishonest, and untrustworthy. That's a damning indictment against anyone, whether male or female.

So let's stop the nonsense about gender as a basis for voting, and choose the best candidate to be our president and Commander-in-Chief. From my vantage point, that person is not Hillary Clinton.

Conservative commentary by Chuck Lehmann