Veeery interesting.
After Hillary accused Donald Trump of being a sexist, which, of course, he indubitably is, Trump, who believes that when hit one should hit back twice as hard, immediately pointed out, in his typically clumsy, sloppy but somehow effective way, that for someone married to Bill Clinton to play “the woman’s card” was, shall we say, hypocritical. Then fate took a hand: Bill Cosby finally faced a few bars of music in court, and some journalists and pundits began musing about the differences and similarities between Bill C. and Bill C. (I flagged this problem for the Clintons over a year ago.)
Then elder pundits did some figuring, and realized that a large number of younger voters, the Democratic Party’s base, don’t know very much at all about Monica, Paula, Kathleen, Juanita, Gennifer and Dolly, Bill Clinton’s impeachment, or loss of his law license, in part because the news media has been an active Clinton family enabler for over a decade, and in part because our education system fails to educate. Thus a decisive component of the Hillary cheering section just think of Bill as a revered former President elder statesman, and did not gag, as I did, when this guy of all guys was made the centerpiece of the 2012 Democratic National Convention themed to decry the “war on women.”
But wait! There’s more! When Trump carried his new vendetta to the Today Show, lovely, light-weight, biased co-host Savannah Guthrie revealed herself to be both ignorant and a tool by calling the Monica affair “alleged.” Mary Bruce on Good Morning America also referred to Bill’s infamous womanizing as “alleged sexual misconduct and infidelity.” Ignorance or Clinton protecting? Bill’s infidelity is as “alleged” as O.J.’s skills with a knife.
Finally, a feminist, Democrat, usually reliable Clinton ally on the Washington Post editorial staff, Ruth Marcus, Trump is right: “Bill Clinton’s sordid sexual history is fair game.” for Hillary opponents.
Which, of course, it is.
Observations:
- Hillary Clinton’s hypocrisy in representing herself as a champion of feminism when she repeatedly helped her husband discredit and intimidate women who accused him of sexual misconduct has always been a target for the right critic. I’m sorry it was Donald Trump, but to paraphrase Gozer the Gozerian, (and Glenn Reynolds) she chose her Destructor. Regardless of the agent, this is justice.
- Justice is to be desired by all.
- The Cosby drama and its Clintonesque features— a popular figure using celebrity, position and power to engage in serial sexual misconduct without consequences—occurring just as Bill’s infamous woman problems are again being scrutinized, may help focus Hillary fans on the essential cynicism and core rottenness of her candidacy. We can hope.
- That said, Cosby’s conduct certainly appears to a more vicious sexual predator than Clinton, though Clinton’s conduct for a President may be worse than Cosby’s conduct for a comedian—I’ll have to ponder that one when I have nothing better to think about. Juanita Broderick alleged a rape; Kathleen Willey has accused Bill Clinton of sexual assault, and Paula Jones claimed sexual harassment. Bill Clinton may have been a rapist, but he was not, as far as we know, a serial rapist. Somehow I missed the the Starr report’s Monica Lewinsky testimony that Clinton personally told her that “he had had hundreds of affairs” before the age of 40, and Dick Morris, for what it’s worth, has written that his ex-boss entertained “hundreds of women”during his time in the White House alone. These are allegations. I would not be at all surprised if they were accurate, however. It’s fair to say both Cosby and Clinton are sexual predators, and I’m not sure I care which is “worse.”
- On the other hand, Bill Cosby’s enabling wife isn’t running for President while claiming credentials as a feminist champion. Bill Clinton’s enabling wife is.
- The tenor of feminism in the Clinton Administration years was much more forgiving, and perhaps more corrupt, than it is today. Because Bill Clinton was a pro-abortion ally, Gloria Steinem and other leaders of the women’s movement promptly abandoned their principles to take his side against Paula Jones (in stark contrast to their complete support of Anita Hill, whose accusations against Clarence Thomas were mild by comparison.) Similarly, they refused to hold Clinton to their own declared standards of what constituted workplace harassment—inequality of power, hostile working conditions (for other female interns and staff) and the rest. Bill was President then, however. Now he’s just an old guy who gives speeches. Younger feminists may wonder why Hillary helped this dog abuse his female prey….and well they might.
- Bill Clinton has never been held fully accountable for his miserable, corrupting, dishonest conduct in the Lewinsky scandal. Maybe his day of reckoning has finally come. If so, good.
- Hillary Clinton has never been held fully accountable for her dishonest, hypocritical role in shifting blame for her husband’s conduct in the Lewinsky scandal to a bogus “vast right wing conspiracy.” Maybe her just desserts have finally arrived. If so, good.
- The Democratic Party has never been properly punished for its willingness to forgo all principle and integrity in order to protect a President with high poll numbers. Maybe judgment day is at hand at last. If so, good.
- The fact that Donald Trump is an unqualified, boorish embarrassment as a Presidential candidate does not mean he should not garner praise when it is warranted. His focusing too-long delayed attention on Bill’s character, and through him on the outrageous insincerity of Hillary Clinton, all while educating younger voters about just how slimy this pair is, deserves vigorous applause.
Ethics Alarms 
Allow me to qualify the above. Clinton, a notorious womanizer, did many good things as President. I can’t think of a single one at the moment (except balancing the budget) but that may be due to the fact I’m drinking a very expensive ale (The Traveler – Handcrafted Belgian Style India Pale Ale) in honor of the new year. Still…
There is at least one more Clinton victim that claims rape. Eileen Wellstone at Oxford in 1969 says that Bill raped her. That makes him a serial rapist. Don’t forget that he supposedly has a black son, Danny Williams, produced with a hooker, that he shuns. Danny says he wants to be acknowledged by his daddy.
Missed both of these. Too bad Gloria Allred wasn’t in full bloom in 1995-2000.
With so many others upon which to dwell, one Clinton/Cosby connection that hasn’t drawn much ink is Cosby donating between $1001 and $5000 to the Clinton Slush Fund, I mean, the Clinton Foundation.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/05/14/bill-cosby-clinton-foundation_n_7284906.html
No word on the funds being returned though, but that would require a modicum of integrity, a quality in rather short supply in Clinton circles.
Bill Clinton returning a donation because the donor was a sexual predator???
Mr. Marshall;
Scumbag extraordinaire that he is, Cosby is a piker compared with other donors like Algeria, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, Oman, Qatar, et al.
Not returned perhaps out of professional courtesy? Not so far-fetched when you consider Marion Berry was re-elected Mayor of Washington D.C.
$5000? That was probably just airfare for Jeff Epstein’s jet.
You know, I saw that Cosby cover this morning and thought, “I wonder if someone will mock up a version with Bill Clinton on it. That would be appropriate”.
And here it is. Bravo.
Not mine—it’s been tweeted around. No idea who did it.
“A pox on both their houses” (In this case Hillary and Cosby). Trump finally did something right.
Is it feasible for Hillary to sacrifice Bill by playing one or both of the following two cards?
– I was blinded by love for this man. (And therefore didn’t see him as a sexual predator.)
– I am as much a victim in the Monica Lewinsky case as Monica. (I did see him as a sexual predator but was too afraid of him to speak out.)
feasible? No, not possible. In both scenarios, that might have had some substance if she had gotten a divorce or indeed recanted any of her succor but as a spouse who has never before been anything less than supportive, she has none. In the second case in particular, any reason for fear would not hold water — accusations of abuse have never been part of the script. Any back-tracking at this point would boomerang since it would show up a presidential hopeful as blind, foolish and – most of all – weak. Hillary is many things, but not those: she is wide-eyed, shrewd and a wily user of power and position. If anything, she is today the stronger of the two, if infinitely less capable.
The appearance of weakness doesn’t seem like it would be a detriment in the party of victim-worship.
Victims require (seemingly) strong protectors, superpeople who never make mistakes or do wrong, whose every syllable is truth, and who already know how to set the table for a White House dinner.
Sure. Both are lies, and Hillary communicates in lies. It’s feasible, it’s just unethical.
“– I was blinded by love for this man. (And therefore didn’t see him as a sexual predator.)
– I am as much a victim in the Monica Lewinsky case as Monica. (I did see him as a sexual predator but was too afraid of him to speak out.)”
So the American electorate is supposed to elect as the first woman president what? An abused woman who refuses to leave her abuser? Great. The mind boggles.
These two probably have so much dirt on one another, neither would dare step out of line. It would be a beautiful epic battle to watch, though.
For the sake of the country, I dearly wish that Bill Clinton’s sexual escapades- and Hillary’s cover-ups- were their only sins. A lot of malfeasance and outright criminality has been laid at both their doors since before they even went into public life.
much written here is less about women, or feminism, or any equitable equal points given to the ‘other’ sex/ gender..the 2nd one….so presume that political party affiliations and damnations are playing out here ….are they ?
anti-Hillary Clinton [notice Trump is ID’d with last name, as is Crosby but Hillary is first name, as one does a lower status person or child….just to separate her from her husband who is not running for any office ?]
“Younger feminists may wonder why Hillary Clinton helped this dog abuse his female prey….and well they might.” written above indicates no thought or understanding of a “wife’s” position to a man in power –president of corporation, business, country –her duties, other’s influences and intimidations to what she may or may not do. You may think of Bill Clinton as mostly a “dog” but most dogs dont abuse female dogs. And he did a bit more in presidential powered office, some of which you may even be using as helpful to you now.
to assume total freedom of expression to women – as one who also Depends on that man-husband- [or father too] because of global, traditional, social rules, work opportunities & family-values that are imposed on women by men — is erroneous. omen have not and do not now have equal say or power or infuence, tho such words of wishful-thinking are repeated for effect.
Women know what punishments are: often total, iimmediate and dangerous, plus humiliating if speaking out occurs. Social,cultural forces are tremendous and effective. So women – as seen, noted in alll media too – are playing around their men to just stay balanced, while ‘in place’.
same with most rape cases and sexual harrassment at work, and even at home when the man earns the subsistence for family – while he lives at home or not.
most women totally ‘get it’ that they must play subservient and pander to both public social rules, cultural ‘norms’ and patriariarchies in any form, admitted or not. so what is new here ? Hillary is perhaps no exception. So, how about your wives ? have you asked them to speak openly ?
Initial points before I deal with all the substance:
1. It’s Cosby, not “Crosby.”
2. Hillary’s campaign uses the “H” as her logo, not “C,” and she “self-identifies” as Hillary for the same reason Jeb Bush, whom I call “Jeb,” uses Jeb and not Bush. There’s another rather prominent Clinton. Bobby Kennedy called himself “Bobby” when he was running for President.
3. Warning: Gotcha’s will get you banned, especially when they are unfair and crap, like this one.
Please use capitals and standard punctuation here. This isn’t a text message. There are literate commenters here.
much written here is less about women, or feminism, or any equitable equal points given to the ‘other’ sex/ gender..the 2nd one….so presume that political party affiliations and damnations are playing out here ….are they ?
Strike One. Alleging bias to an objective substantive analysis is an ethics foul. The post is about hypocrisy and the propriety of flagging it. If Trump was running as a feminist despite his sexist conduct, attitudes and rhetoric, my comments on him would be similar. “Presuming” bias means you are lazy and engaging in up front ad hominem rather than addressing the substance of the post. Bad.
“anti-Hillary Clinton [notice Trump is ID’d with last name, as is Crosby but Hillary is first name, as one does a lower status person or child….just to separate her from her husband who is not running for any office ?”
Addressed in earlier comment. Not quite Strike Two, just unfair and silly criticism.
“Younger feminists may wonder why Hillary Clinton helped this dog abuse his female prey….and well they might.” written above indicates no thought or understanding of a “wife’s” position to a man in power –president of corporation, business, country –her duties, other’s influences and intimidations to what she may or may not do.”
What? Hillary, supposed feminist, aided and abetted abuse, sexual harassment and the smearing of victims of a sexual predator. There’s no such “duty.” What’s the matter with you?
You may think of Bill Clinton as mostly a “dog” but most dogs don’t abuse female dogs.
Why don’t you get up do speed on modern slang and pop culture before you make a fool of yourself? “Dog” is a very common slang term for men like Bill Cosby and Bill Clinton. Yes, Cocker Spaniels also don’t get elected President.
And he did a bit more in presidential powered office, some of which you may even be using as helpful to you now.
Strike Two! Either galactically stupid or offensive. This is the King’s Pass—so Clinton (you say) did some good things, and thus his predatory activities, obstructing justice, etc., are more excusable than if he didn’t? And you’re a feminist? And I’m not allowed to be appropriately critical because I may have benefited? Can you even spell ETHICS?
to assume total freedom of expression to women – as one who also Depends on that man-husband- [or father too] because of global, traditional, social rules, work opportunities & family-values that are imposed on women by men — is erroneous.
B-U-L-L-S-H-I-T. I hope I make myself clear. Hillary earned a good living on her own, has a law degree, is not “dependent” and was not then. If she had honor, scruples, principles, and integrity, she would have acted like a human being and not a minion pf her husband.
women have not and do not now have equal say or power or influence, tho such words of wishful-thinking are repeated for effect.
ALL women do not. Hillary had such power, if she chose to use it.
Women know what punishments are: often total, iimmediate and dangerous, plus humiliating if speaking out occurs. Social,cultural forces are tremendous and effective. So women – as seen, noted in alll media too – are playing around their men to just stay balanced, while ‘in place’.
You are pathetic. You also excuse, no doubt, the partners of daughter-raping boy friends. Whatever the obstacles to some women taking charge of their lives, none of it applies, or has ever applied, to Hillary Clinton.
“most women totally ‘get it’ that they must play subservient and pander to both public social rules, cultural ‘norms’ and patriariarchies in any form, admitted or not.”
That’s funny: most women I know think this is the utter, cowardly, rationalization it is.
Wow. What an angry, name-calling reply. No dissent is apparently allowed here. Only one world-view allowed?
You write politely: “What’s the matter with you ? ” + “why don’t you get up do [sic] speed” + “before you make a fool of yourself” + “Can you even spell ETHICS?” + “you are lazy” + “B….S….”.
And your small misspellings are excused too. But is the demeaning and offending done here also “ethical” and appropriate in your terms ? Yes, this is your blog and you own it.
And I am just a fool with different views and experiences than yours, so I cannot be valid or even intelligent Right ? I did not write personally but with a woman’s point of living and view. I don’t know who are “most of the women I [you] know.” I know many other ones.
So,am I am disbarred or eliminated now for replying to your reply ?
MJ, this is about what I expect when someone starts with a comment like your previous one. Dumb posts with disconnected logic will be so designated. I love original, well-argued comments; detest knee jerk, incoherent ones.
Maybe you don’t know baseball, but you should note that your silly comment got only two strikes, not three.
Thank you for using caps this time. That gives me hope.
Wow! Jack is being more than fair, civil, and patient with you. Lesser men, like me, would have said either “what are you babbling about?”, because of the difficult-to-decipher babbling, or maybe “make me a sammitch”, for the simpering & bellyaching.
That reminds me; A feminist once asked me how I view lesbian relationships. Apparently, “in HD” was not the right answer.
Hillary is a feminist when she wants to be; an old-fashioned coat-tail riding wife in real life. She has accomplished virtually nothing in her checkered career (except perhaps increasing her personal wealth exponentially and creating scandal) — and she did it all as Bill Clinton’s wife. Question: what would Hillary Rodham have “accomplished” on her own?