Hillary Hauls Out Our Former Rapist-in-Chief

This week I was struck by two news items that were offered up to the public -- the first was that Bill Clinton was going to be more actively supporting Hillary’s presidential run; the second that Bill Crosby was indicted for rape. I found the juxtaposition of these two “Bills” both amusing and ironic. A formerly revered comic and alleged rapist may be on his way to jail, and a formerly not-so-revered ex-president and alleged rapist is on his way to the campaign trail on behalf of his wife (the enabler of his various sexual predations). The disparate treatment being accorded these two dirtbags cast a serious cloud over not just our criminal justice system, but of our culture in general.

Of course there are a couple of outstanding differences in the two cases -- one guy was just an entertainer, the other was president of the United States. Cosby’s stuff was kept under wraps for many years; and now that it has surfaced in his dotage, he may well go to jail for his conduct. Clinton’s conduct, which, in many respects, was equally unacceptable (and his womanizing indiscretions were well known throughout his entire adult life), will not result in any punishment of a criminal nature. And, in his case, shameful as that conduct is, it won’t even result in a loss of friends, let alone his personal liberty.

Clinton’s reaction to his adolescent sexualizing was equally amusing to me. When accusations were being hurled at him -- public accusations -- Clinton observed that these slings and arrows might damage his reputation, but they would not affect his “character.” And, of course, in a somewhat perverse sense, he’s right -- you can’t affect something that doesn’t exist. And Clinton, while a charming con man, is a man without content, courage, or character. And the really sad part of this is that the worthless charmer could probably be re-elected tomorrow. Indeed, if Hillary, an angry, incompetent witch, had 1/10th of his charm, she would almost be a shoe-in for the presidency (while a Republican victory should be a no-brainer, given the last eight years under Obama and Hillary, the Republicans can almost always be counted on to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory).

What adds to the amusement inherent in this situation is Hillary’s recent statement that a woman’s assertion of having been sexually assaulted should be taken seriously -- as indeed it should be. However, when such charges were leveled against her husband -- by a plethora of women -- she not only failed to take them seriously, she immediately went after the women making such charges and sought to ruin them. When confronted by this bit of hypocrisy on the campaign trail by a woman who was paying attention, Hillary’s weak response was:

“Well, I would say that everybody should be believed at first until they are disbelieved based on evidence”

Of course, this response was not just weak, it was meaningless. Bill’s accusers were never controverted by any evidence stronger than his denial, which no one took seriously. Indeed, Monica’s stained blue dress clearly indicated who should be believed when Bill Clinton was involved.

Given Bill’s disgraceful behavior in this area, you would think that sexually assaulting women would be the last subject that Hillary would want to open up. But, true to form, demonstrating once again another of her failings -- i.e. lack of judgement -- she tried to use it against Trump in response to one of his silly off-the-cuff comments utilizing a sexual innuendo. Even some lefties so the absurdity of this approach -- Ruth Marcus, a left-wing reporter writing for the Washington Post, had this to say:

“‘Sexism’’ isn’t the precise word for his predatory behavior toward women or his inexcusable relationship with a 22-year-old intern.Yet in the larger sense of things, Bill Clinton’s conduct toward women is far worse than any of the offensive things that Trump has said. Trump has smeared women because of their looks. Clinton has preyed on them, and in a workplace setting where he was by far the superior. That is uncomfortable for Clinton supporters but it is unavoidably true.”

This from a lefty in one of the consummate lefty publications. Trump may shoot off his mouth, but at least he keeps his pants on when he’s doing it.

Another interesting aspect of this “assault-on-women” thing is the double standard. When a conservative crosses the sexual line in the moral sand, the press gets up in arms. It’s like he fell from grace (apparently due to the right’s connection with family values). When a lefty gets caught in the wrong bed, the media (and, of course, lefties) treat it as a sign of his enhanced masculinity (the left having no grace to fall from).

Bill Clinton’s conduct with women was more than disgraceful -- it was criminal, and he should be in jail. Hillary’s supporting him in the great multitude of his meanderings (enabling him in the first instance, and defending him on his being caught) is no less disgraceful. And, certainly, no feminist would consider supporting a husband who has been as compulsively unfaithful as Bill Clinton as an understandable act of standing by your man (which, you will recall, Hillary informed us that she was not). No, I believe that Hillary could not be on weaker ground than to accuse the Republicans of engaging in a war on women. Maybe she should consider cleaning up her own house first.

This week I was struck by two news items that were offered up to the public -- the first was that Bill Clinton was going to be more actively supporting Hillary’s presidential run; the second that Bill Crosby was indicted for rape. I found the juxtaposition of these two “Bills” both amusing and ironic. A formerly revered comic and alleged rapist may be on his way to jail, and a formerly not-so-revered ex-president and alleged rapist is on his way to the campaign trail on behalf of his wife (the enabler of his various sexual predations). The disparate treatment being accorded these two dirtbags cast a serious cloud over not just our criminal justice system, but of our culture in general.

Of course there are a couple of outstanding differences in the two cases -- one guy was just an entertainer, the other was president of the United States. Cosby’s stuff was kept under wraps for many years; and now that it has surfaced in his dotage, he may well go to jail for his conduct. Clinton’s conduct, which, in many respects, was equally unacceptable (and his womanizing indiscretions were well known throughout his entire adult life), will not result in any punishment of a criminal nature. And, in his case, shameful as that conduct is, it won’t even result in a loss of friends, let alone his personal liberty.

Clinton’s reaction to his adolescent sexualizing was equally amusing to me. When accusations were being hurled at him -- public accusations -- Clinton observed that these slings and arrows might damage his reputation, but they would not affect his “character.” And, of course, in a somewhat perverse sense, he’s right -- you can’t affect something that doesn’t exist. And Clinton, while a charming con man, is a man without content, courage, or character. And the really sad part of this is that the worthless charmer could probably be re-elected tomorrow. Indeed, if Hillary, an angry, incompetent witch, had 1/10th of his charm, she would almost be a shoe-in for the presidency (while a Republican victory should be a no-brainer, given the last eight years under Obama and Hillary, the Republicans can almost always be counted on to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory).

What adds to the amusement inherent in this situation is Hillary’s recent statement that a woman’s assertion of having been sexually assaulted should be taken seriously -- as indeed it should be. However, when such charges were leveled against her husband -- by a plethora of women -- she not only failed to take them seriously, she immediately went after the women making such charges and sought to ruin them. When confronted by this bit of hypocrisy on the campaign trail by a woman who was paying attention, Hillary’s weak response was:

“Well, I would say that everybody should be believed at first until they are disbelieved based on evidence”

Of course, this response was not just weak, it was meaningless. Bill’s accusers were never controverted by any evidence stronger than his denial, which no one took seriously. Indeed, Monica’s stained blue dress clearly indicated who should be believed when Bill Clinton was involved.

Given Bill’s disgraceful behavior in this area, you would think that sexually assaulting women would be the last subject that Hillary would want to open up. But, true to form, demonstrating once again another of her failings -- i.e. lack of judgement -- she tried to use it against Trump in response to one of his silly off-the-cuff comments utilizing a sexual innuendo. Even some lefties so the absurdity of this approach -- Ruth Marcus, a left-wing reporter writing for the Washington Post, had this to say:

“‘Sexism’’ isn’t the precise word for his predatory behavior toward women or his inexcusable relationship with a 22-year-old intern.Yet in the larger sense of things, Bill Clinton’s conduct toward women is far worse than any of the offensive things that Trump has said. Trump has smeared women because of their looks. Clinton has preyed on them, and in a workplace setting where he was by far the superior. That is uncomfortable for Clinton supporters but it is unavoidably true.”

This from a lefty in one of the consummate lefty publications. Trump may shoot off his mouth, but at least he keeps his pants on when he’s doing it.

Another interesting aspect of this “assault-on-women” thing is the double standard. When a conservative crosses the sexual line in the moral sand, the press gets up in arms. It’s like he fell from grace (apparently due to the right’s connection with family values). When a lefty gets caught in the wrong bed, the media (and, of course, lefties) treat it as a sign of his enhanced masculinity (the left having no grace to fall from).

Bill Clinton’s conduct with women was more than disgraceful -- it was criminal, and he should be in jail. Hillary’s supporting him in the great multitude of his meanderings (enabling him in the first instance, and defending him on his being caught) is no less disgraceful. And, certainly, no feminist would consider supporting a husband who has been as compulsively unfaithful as Bill Clinton as an understandable act of standing by your man (which, you will recall, Hillary informed us that she was not). No, I believe that Hillary could not be on weaker ground than to accuse the Republicans of engaging in a war on women. Maybe she should consider cleaning up her own house first.