There are two women vying to have their name on their party’s ticket for the 2016 presidential elections, and they couldn’t be more different. Thus far an ubiquitous part of the GOP’s candidate’s platforms has been the criticism of one of these women. For a time, it seemed the Republican candidates weren’t campaigning against one another so much as they were tripping over themselves to prove they had a viable chance of taking down the uber-experienced, fundraising machine that is Hillary Clinton.
Her name carries a certain weight with it: the Clinton name is a brand, and a polarizing one at that. The Clintons are integrated so seamlessly into “the establishment” that they are indiscernible from it – they are The Establishment. Hillary is a former Secretary of State (a position which is often is a stepping-stone to the presidency), First Lady, Senator, and a two-time presidential candidate. She has raised nearly one-hundred million dollars for her campaign, and has the third-highest amount raised in PAC contributions of any candidate currently in the running.
Enter Carly Fiorina, a former businesswoman and the CEO of Hewlett-Packard from 1999 to 2005, and the other woman in the political spotlight with regard for the 2016 race. During the first GOP debate, she was relegated to the first round – the 5 o’clock debate that set the stage for the big boys later in the day. Her break out performance led to her appearance on the prime time debate stage during the September 16th Republican debate, where her sharp criticism of Planned Parenthood and Donald Trump drew roaring applause.
Since then, she has taken on another role – Carly Fiorina is the most pointed critic of Hillary of the top GOP candidates.
Her campaign has built upon that foundation. Carly touts herself as anti-establishment, an outsider in Washington, and a fresh start; in short, her platform is built around the idea that she is the very antithesis of Hillary Clinton. If one believes her, then our only shot at avoiding another four years of an Obama-presidency carried out by Hillary is to vote for Carly.
The most obvious reason that Fiorina has, in part, defined her eligibility for the presidency around Hillary Clinton is that this is what the GOP’s base wants to hear, and Fiorina has the unique ability to convey this message because as a woman, she’s insulated against accusations of sexism in a way that her colleagues are not. Her closing remarks at the University of Colorado solidified this: “I may not be your dream candidate, just yet, but I can assure you: I am Hillary Clinton’s worse nightmare…In your heart of hearts, you cannot wait to see a debate between Hillary Clinton and Carly Fiorina.”
But in truth, Fiorina’s criticisms of Hillary Clinton range from weak half-truths, to flat out lies. During the most recent debate, she vociferously claimed that Hillary’s policies would be detrimental to the socioeconomic status of women. She repeated a debunked claim that Mitt Romney had used during his campaign (and later abandoned when confronted with evidence to the contrary) that women did worse under the Obama presidency. She was quickly called out for this claim by reporters after the debate, and her response revealed none of the grace that Romney’s had. Instead of admitting her mistake or attempting to back up her claims with evidence, she doubled down. “No, absolutely not,” she said, followed by, “Wow, this is the same conversation we had after the last debate. Everybody came out and said I was using wrong data. No, I’m not using wrong data.”
When questioned by reporters after misleading the audience during the second GOP debate about Planned Parenthood, Carly’s ad verbatim response was “No, I don’t accept that.”
She boldly stated that she “dared Hillary Clinton” or any other leading Democrat to watch the footage she had seen, and continue supporting Planned Parenthood. The primary problem with that statement is that the footage she was describing simply does not exist. Rather than admitting that her sources are flawed, Fiorina has proved several times over that her comments are political in nature (as opposed to fact-based), constructive statements meant to educate the populace about her platform.
Perhaps Fiorina’s strongest critique of Hillary Clinton is that Clinton relies upon her gender to differentiate her as a candidate. She argues that the presidency has to be earned on one’s own merits. Fiorina herself claims she deserves the presidency based on her merits, but her continued political attacks on Hillary reveal the truth: she is relying on her gender as much as she claims Hillary is. Based on the fact that she is a woman, she has sought to portray herself as “Hillary’s worst enemy”, because she knows the idea of an anti-Hillary, a Republican darling to match the Democrats’, is one that appeals to the GOP’s base.
Carly argues that she is a formidable candidate, and that her presidency is a real possibility.
Perhaps if Carly Fiorina followed her own advice and spoke freely about her platform, her qualifications for the presidency, and her merits as a candidate rather than leveling unsubstantiated attacks at Hillary Clinton, the general electorate would be more likely to agree.
Photo SOurce: Downtrend.com
**All views presented articles are solely the writer’s