The New York Times assigned six reporters to interview over fifty women who have dealt with The Donald, and the resulting story proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that he engages in routine sexual harassment, acts like a high school student, behaves like the archetypal male chauvinist pig, and habitually ogled women and made comments about their appearance. Of course, anyone who hadn’t been in suspended animation for the past decade or so would know or assume all this based on the Trump’s activities and words. This is the dilemma in trying to cover an obviously unfit and unqualified Presidential candidate like other Presidential candidates. For a traditional politician, the Times’s revelations would be devastating. In Trump’s case, we have learned so many worse things about his nature during the past six months that his misogyny is both old news and relatively trivial. It’s like a character “Jurassic World” warning that the murderous Indominus Rex has bad breath.
It appears that the Times was also sloppy in its reporting, but never mind: the real mystery is how any Democrats thinks that what Trump has done can benefit Hillary Clinton in any way. Nothing Trump is accused of in the article approaches the conduct that women who were involved with Bill Clinton claim he inflicted on them, only to have their claims dismissed or ignored by the news media and Democrats. That party went on record as believing that personal conduct, no matter how offensive or abusive to women, doesn’t matter, or at least didn’t matter in Bill’s case, because “Bill was on the right side of the issues, especially abortion. Indeed, one famous female journalist wrote that she would sleep with him anytime, just to thank him for supporting abortion.”
OK, I think I get it: this is a form of Ethics Accounting: if you support so-called women’s issues, then you can harass, abuse and mistreat women, or at least other women. Is that the rule? Somehow I can’t see Hillary being able to attack Trump’s treatment of women with that as the defense for Bill and her enabling.
Meanwhile, the Times is obligated to put equal research into investigating the extent to which Hillary assisted Bill as he sought to discredit and intimidate his victims. If it does not, any claims of objectivity become laughable. In the end, which candidate was more ruthless, cruel and unjust? Who victimized women more? And if the facts show what I think they will show, how will those women who say they favor Hillary Clinton justify their position?