Just kidding, the Bill C she is turning loose is Bill Clinton — but what’s the real difference. Bill Clinton has been accused of sexual harassment and assault (including at least one allegation of rape) ten or more times.
The interesting thing to me at this point is that when Trump first brought up the issue of Bill’s war on women in response to Hillary calling him a sexist, the media immediately went into a big debate over whether Bill’s past peccadillos were a legitimate subject of discussion in Hillary’s campaign. Of course they are when you’re campaigning as a champion of all things female, alleging that the other side is waging a war on women, and making your gender a central point in your campaign. If she had in fact asked Bill Cosby to campaign for her, do you think anyone would say his alleged sexual assaults were off limits? Hell no!! So why should it be any different for the other Bill C?
[For an interesting insight into why Bill Clinton gets a pass, here’s a link to an article by Carrie Lukas giving a good explanation. ” The Bill Clinton Effect, Why Liberals Treat Women Worse. http://acculturated.com/bill-clinton-effect/]
But to me all that discussion missed what I think is the more important point. Hillary enabled Bill’s activities. She actively sought to denigrate and destroy the women who accused her husband of sexual assaults. She was part and parcel of the attack machine against Lewinski, Flowers, Jones et al.
For the first couple of days, no one raised this point, and unfortunately, being the lazy SOB that I am, I didn’t run right to the computer to point it out and now others have written on the subject.
Katherine Timpf has an excellent piece on the subject with a couple of good quotes for your perusal:
“But here’s the thing: The real issue isn’t whether or not to attack Bill to indirectly attack Hillary — it’s about directly attacking Hillary for how she herself treated the women involved. Hillary Clinton claims to be pro-women, yet has actively worked to ruin lives of so many of them. She’s running on a “feminist platform” — she’s even dared to say that sexual-assault survivors have a “right to be believed” — despite the fact that what she did to the women who accused Bill went far beyond not believing them. She attacked them. When allegations of sexual misconduct emerged during Bill’s 1992 presidential run, she’s reported to have said “Who is going to find out? These women are trash. Nobody’s going to believe them.” Multiple people also report that she called the women “sluts” and “whores” — you know, for daring to be raped. A private investigator named Ivan Duda claims that, after Bill lost his second governor’s race, Hillary told him: “I want you to get rid of all these b****** he’s seeing . . . I want you to give me the names and addresses and phone numbers, and we can get them under control.” ”
“Some people, thankfully, have begun to notice this hypocrisy. Last month, a reporter asked Hillary if her comment that all sexual assault survivors had a “right to be believed” meant that we should also believe Broaddrick, Willey and Paula Jones (who sued Bill for sexual harrassment in 1994). Hillary’s answer: “Everybody should be believed at first until they are disbelieved based on evidence.” Um. Just one problem: There is absolutely no evidence disproving the stories of Broaddrick, Willey or Jones, and you would think that “feminists” would stand with them and the others against Hillary — but it seems they’re too caught up in the hype of a potential female president to do anything but support her. But I’m not. I’m a woman; I support women — and that’s exactly why I could never support Hillary Clinton.”
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/429138/hillary-clinton-feminist-bill-clinton-sexual-assault.
And here’s more information on Hillary’s participation in slandering Bill’s accusers:
“Feminism died in 1998 when Hillary allowed henchlings and Democrats to demonize Monica (Lewinsky) as an unbalanced stalker, and when Gloria Steinem defended Mr. Clinton against Kathleen Willey and Paula Jones by saying he had merely made clumsy passes, then accepted rejection, so there was no sexual harassment involved. As to his dallying with an emotionally immature (22-year-old), Ms. Steinem noted, ‘Welcome sexual behavior is about as relevant to sexual harassment as borrowing a car is to stealing one.’ ”
Steinem must not have attended any human resources lectures lately. And accusations from Juanita Broaddrick are worse: Clinton persuaded her to have coffee with him in her hotel room during a conference of nursing home administrators in 1978. She alleges that he then forced her on to the bed, where he held her down, bit her lips and raped her. Broaddrick, too, was attacked by the Clinton camp, but as Alex Griswold wrote in Mediaite, “The media and Democrats alike elected not to believe a single accusation” against him, adding that “Clinton’s own stalwart ally James Carville was just as blatant: ‘Drag a $100 bill through a trailer park, there’s no telling what you’ll find,’ he said.””
For another insight into just how much Hillary really cares about women check out the following link.
“Hillary’s aggressive attitude was not limited to those who accused her husband of sexual misconduct: other men received the benefit of the doubt from Hillary when she needed their support politically. When former Sen. Bob Packwood was accused of sexual harassment, Clinton told her friend Blair that she was “tired of all those whiney women,” and that she needed Packwood on health care.”
(In my defense for being lazy, I would point out that during the first Republican debate when Megyn Kelly pointed out some sexist and/or demeaning remarks made by Trump about women and asked how he would respond in a debate with Hillary if she brought that up, I said to friends that he should bring up her trailer park trash, sluts and bimbo comments about Bill’s sexual assault and harassment victims. So this is not a new thought on my part.)
Furthermore, that Hillary is in fact part and parcel of the “war on women” is further evidenced by her willingness to take money from some of the biggest abusers of women’s rights in the world. As even the New York Times has reported:
“But the Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation has accepted tens of millions of dollars in donations from Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Algeria and Brunei — all of which the State Department has faulted over their records on sex discrimination and other human-rights issues.
The department’s 2011 human rights report on Saudi Arabia, the last such yearly review prepared during Mrs. Clinton’s tenure, tersely faulted the kingdom for “a lack of equal rights for women and children,” and said violence against women, human trafficking and gender discrimination, among other abuses, were all “common” there.
Saudi Arabia has been a particularly generous benefactor to the Clinton Foundation, giving at least $10 million since 2001, according to foundation disclosures. At least $1 million more was donated by Friends of Saudi Arabia, co-founded by a Saudi prince.”
I suppose it would be fair to say in her defense on this point that the activities of the Bill and Hill slush fund have proven that they will take money from absolutely anyone including the devil himself if offered.
So please people, let’s put an end to all the nonsense about Hillary being a feminist and fighting for women. Hillary is an egomaniacal, power crazed, money hungry, serial liar who would do or say anything to be the first female president of the U.S.. I have absolutely no problem with a women being president, just not this “looney tune”!