Many maintain that Sen. Bernie Sanders has low odds of becoming the presidential candidate for the Democratic Party, much less winning a general election. In spite of this, his platform and voting records are, by a considerable margin, the most thought-out and useful for women of any presidential candidate; many of his proposals are already in place in other developed democracies. The best example of this is paid family leave: Sanders has a clear way of paying for it, while Hillary Clinton’s plan is vague and doesn’t clearly outline who would foot the bill. It would be hard for Clinton to compete on policy alone. Thus far, her main edge over Sanders has stemmed from her name recognition and influence within the Democratic Party. A former advisor to President Obama, David Axelrod, even called the initial harsh penalties lobbied against Sanders for having access to Clinton’s voter data as “putting finger on scale” for Clinton.
While Clinton is a woman, that doesn’t automatically make her the better candidate for women. The way you earn the title of president is by having a strong record throughout your career, not by having run previously or having establishment connections.
According to The Washington Post, the Clinton Foundation has notoriously accepted donations from countries with questionable records on women’s rights, including Qatar, Oman and Kuwait. She served on the board of directors for Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. for six years and maintains tight ties to the company. Wal-Mart has notoriously fought against a living wage — an omnipresent issue that affects men and women in equal measure.
More recently, she has demonstrated yet again her consistent double standard as it pertains to sexual assault and her own husband’s indiscretions.
As Michelle Goldberg wrote in Slate Magazine, the recent sexual assault allegations lobbed against Bill Clinton may hurt Hillary more than her husband, especially since treatment of such allegations has changed since the 1990s. If a situation similar to the Monica Lewinsky scandal happened today, there would be more discussion of how it was wrong to take advantage of a subordinate and less fuss over the sex itself. While Clinton shouldn’t necessarily be held accountable for her husband’s actions, making him a part of her campaign and passing judgment on the veracity of sexual assault claims made against Bill Clinton makes it part of her campaign.
Clinton was recently endorsed by Planned Parenthood. Planned Parenthood knows the person in the White House has the power to influence the degree to which they receive federal funding.
More than likely, the person most willing to extend funds to the organization would be a Democrat. But this endorsement of Clinton seems a little early considering Planned Parenthood hasn’t endorsed anyone in the presidential primaries in its 100-year history. It’s the easy way out: While this may have little to no influence on Clinton, clearly the establishment’s candidate in this race, such an endorsement would have helped Bernie Sanders in a substantial way.
In an ideal world, providers like Planned Parenthood would not be necessary because health care would not be a luxury reserved for those who can afford good care.
Ultimately, access to health care shouldn’t be something debated on the Senate floor or in presidential primaries, but as long as universal health care isn’t provided, Planned Parenthood’s services will be necessary.
Because she’s a woman, it’s easy to ignore Clinton’s myriad weaknesses on women’s rights. It’s important to pay attention to policy, not just the loudest voice in the room.
Nicole Dan is a UF political science sophomore. Her column appears on Mondays.
