Those are facsimile arguments of nearly every (usually right wing but not always) Hillary Clinton basher, and most of them don't stand up to even a cursory objective analysis of reality.
1. "Greedy", "Bought by the major corporations", "Corrupt"
- How is she greedy? Because she's wealthy? Punishing people for being financially successful is so childish it's not even worth responding to. Because she accepted speaking fees from Wall St. banks (that's perhaps the most common one)? That represents a problematic double standard; there's a very long list of individuals in this world (including current and former Canadian politicians) who aren't ever popularly characterized as being greedy or "bought" despite having accepted speaking or conference fees from investment banks and other financial institutions. It's also worth noting that the Clintons have spent literally hundreds of millions of dollars of their own personal money on political campaigns; they didn't create the horrendous system of campaign finance that exists in America, yet have been willing to spend massive amounts of their own money to operate within it.
Does having accepted money from financial institutions lessen Secretary Clinton's ability to impose common sense financial regulation reform? We'll see what policies she winds up enacting as president but, for now, all we have to go on are the policies she supports (and the same must be said of any non-incumbent politician on the campaign trail), which include promises to:
> Veto Republican-led efforts to reverse or repeal parts or all of Dodd-Frank legislation (some of the most stringent financial sector regulation in the Western world)
> Enact risk fees on large financial institutions corresponding to the size and risk of particular firms
> Address the Volcker Rule's hedge fund loophole, which is intended to curb banks' speculation using customers' money
> Introduce banker bonus pay docking rules that would restrict executives' pay when their firms perform poorly
> Institute a tax on high frequency trading
Here's a direct quote from Clinton: “Our banking system is still too complex and too risky … While institutions have paid large fines and in some cases admitted guilt, too often it has seemed that the human beings responsible get off with limited consequences – or none at all, even when they’ve already pocketed the gains. This is wrong, and on my watch, it will change.”
Is she just coming to this now because it's politically convenient? No. As a Senator, before the financial crisis, Clinton called for increased regulation of the subprime mortgage market. In the aftermath of the crisis, she lobbied Congress to more stringently regulate the shadow banking system and high-risk derivative financial instruments, curb executive pay, and close tax loopholes often used by those who work in the financial sector.
Despite Bernie Sanders' tough talk on "big, greedy, Wall St. banks and a rigged financial system", there's a decent academic argument to be made that the Secretary has outflanked Bernie on Wall St. reform. Doesn't sound very bought or greedy to me.
I could go on about this one issue alone, but I'll just rest here (I do have to get back to work at some point) and assume that there aren't actually any valid, fact-based counterpoints to any of these in the place of lazy, tired, rote, arguments likely based on seeing a few people write some angry stuff on Twitter or say it on Fox News (or similar).
2. "Her experience as Secretary of State was a complete failure."
> First off, regarding "She flew literally millions of miles to meddle in affairs in Middle East and Asia", that is quite literally and specifically the job of a US Secretary of State. That's like complaining because a garbage collector is collecting garbage on your street.
> Now, it would of course be silly to suggest that Clinton's stint at the State Department was a blissful, easy ride. But it's unreasonable expect that of the tenure of top diplomat of the most powerful country in the world, and one can point to failures of any previous Secretary of State. What's more, it is the very nature of the job that it is likely that there were crises deftly handled or averted that the general public will never hear about. As such, it's impossible to fully assess the tenure of a Secretary of State, Democrat or Republican. Still, we try, of course, although very often when we do, we forget that Secretaries of State do not control foreign policy; presidents do. As such, we can't blame Clinton for Syria (Obama didn't agree with her position), Afghanistan or Pakistan (Obama didn't get on board with her recommendation to pursue Richard Holbrooke's recommendations), and so on. Libya and Egypt wound up being disasters, yes, but it's horribly reductionist to suggest that she should be held solely or even largely accountable for each.
On the plus side, we can credit her for helping democratic forces take root in countries such as Egypt, Tunisia, Russia, and China, vis a vis her efforts to expand technological connectivity to pro-democracy influencers, and technology infrastructure networks that were harder for authoritarian regimes to curtail the use of during information crackdowns. Clinton was a forceful voice in convincing the President to attack Osama bin Laden's compound. She was influential in establishing the US pivot to Asia to serve, in part, as a counterbalance to a reinvigorated and ascendent China. She advocated for the re-engagement in diplomacy with Russia, which paved the way for US-Russia cooperation that was essential to negotiating the Iran nuclear deal. She engineered a forceful outreach to Myanmar, which helped lead to political reforms that are still accelerating today. She initiated the Global Hunger and Food Security Initiative, which moved US foreign policy on global food shortage from reactive and emergency-based, to a proactive, always-on approach, delivering need wherever it currently exists. And so on.
Now, if you have the Benghazi email non-controversy in mind, don't even start—if that's the case, you should just return to the Fox News message boards.
3. "She knows little...about domestic affairs"
> In the slew of ridiculous comments, this is actually perhaps the most ludicrous (and that's a real race to the bottom). People across the political spectrum—allies and enemies, alike—pretty roundly accept that Clinton is about as well versed in policymaking as anyone to have recently sought higher office in the US. Many of her allies anonymously concede that the Secretary would be much better served if she was less of a policy wonk and more of a surface-flashy politician. I'm personally glad that's not the case.
4. "Her greatest selling point seems to be her gender"
>Despite challenging the accusations of sexism previously levied at you on this thread, and then finally apologizing, you've again resorted to very thinly veiled gender-based criticism. Whether unintentional or deliberate, it's still wrong, and you need to check yourself. You may claim, as many like you do, that I am simply "doing the liberal/lefty thing" whereby we characterize any attack on a public figure who is either female or a member of a visible minority as emanating from a racist, sexist, or otherwise ignorant place. That is not the case. You have given the very impetus for me to criticize you, yet again, for being sexist, by claiming that a woman who is a Yale-educated lawyer and two-term US Senator, Secretary of State, two-time US presidential candidate, First Lady of the US (and Arkansas), and soon-to-be presumptive nominee for President of the United States has achieved "nothing."
The final point I'll disagree with, this one without facts (to take a page out of your book) only because it's entirely un-provable and subjective, is to say that yes, of course it matters that she is a female. One doesn't have to resort to the inspiration-based argument; she's made real progress in this regard, including her support of women's empowerment projects such as the "No Ceilings" and "Women in Public Service" initiatives or her repeated attendance as a keynote speaker at women's rights conferences all over the world, including in places where generally abhorrent treatment of women is far too common (despite the diplomatic issues that advocacy may have caused).
Why do many people think that, as you say, "it is time for the US to have a female president"? Because there's never been one, despite women having made up roughly 50% of the US population since its inception. 44 US presidents, hundreds of millions of women in US history, zero female presidents. Really think that's just by chance? Really think that's not a historical injustice that shouldn't be rectified?
P.S. For those of you more thoughtful bystanders wondering why I spend the time to refute all this dribble, there are really two main reasons: 1) I enjoy thoughtful, critical debate, and loathe the opposite, and I think it's good practice (and good fun) to partake in careful and logical refutations of either; and 2) On any particular issue, if just a single fence sitter reads something I write and changes his or her mind or even just thinks differently about something for a minute, I'm happy to have contributed to that slightly expanded realm of thought in some small way. So, as my work days, patience, and blood pressure allow, you'll probably continue to find me doing the same from time to time. I'll work on making them shorter in the future.