May 23, 2016

"The black and white spot runs for about 20 seconds and features women's voices, including Juanita Broaddrick, who accused Bill Clinton of rape."

"Bill Clinton is shown with a cigar in his mouth. The ad ends with Hillary laughing and the words: 'Here we go again?'"

It's a new era of communication, and it's changing all the time. Can Hillary keep up? Or will some combination of ignoring and sneering not be enough?

114 comments:

Xmas said...

It's a gut punch video for sure. It's the old "Attack your opponent where they're strongest" ploy.

cubanbob said...

Ugly but true. And there lies the problem for the Clinton's.

Bob Boyd said...

Juanita Broadderick and Kathleen Willey were telling their stories on Hannity today. It was compelling, affecting and believable. I think Paula Jones came on later, but I didn't hear that part.
Hannity played the tape of Hillary saying all women who were sexually assaulted or raped deserve to have their stories heard and deserved to be believed.
I wonder how many other shows will have them on.

Ken B said...

A fizzle as an ad IMO.

coupe said...

When the Communist Party merged with the Democratic Party, they've been searching for a viable candidate.

They needed an election where the two system candidates were so bad, that they would destroy each other before the public.

The only man left standing would be their Marxist candidate.

Jim Gust said...

Trump is knocking Hillary out too early. She would be the easiest candidate to beat by far. He should be waiting until she has the nomination.

Trump will have a much tougher time against Biden/Warren, the most likely Democrat ticket now.

David Begley said...

Trump spends $1,000 on Instagram and gets $10m in value on paid media and Althouse blog.

Hillary is finished.

MikeD said...

Ken B also thinks LBJ's "Daisy" ad was spot on.

Fabi said...

I assumed that Trump would "go there", but I didn't think it would be that shocking to see it in a video. Bill smoking a cigar and leering at the camera is iconic. Her outro cackle is devastating.

Ann Althouse said...

It's a deliberately cheap, impressionistic ad that's meant to make us talk and that impells those who don't know the story to do their own research.

This kind of interactivity makes it much more effective than an old fashioned, expensive, passive ad.

traditionalguy said...

Hillary may get some sympathy vote at this rate. She wants us to make up to her for Bill's power over her and over women everywhere. And that Trump abuser of women too.

But she also wants to be elected President by running as a quasi-VP getting credit for Bill's record of good economic times.

It is all about Bill Clinton all of the time. Hillary Who?

Paul said...

This is why the traditional "the media will cover for the dem nominee and drag him-her across the finish line" thinking is obsolete.

traditionalguy said...

The Professor nailed it. The ad is powerful because either you read in stuff between the lines or it makes no sense. And once you have done that, it becomes your idea.

A woman wrote that ad.

madAsHell said...

Yeah....Trump may be peaking early. I didn't think I would see something like this until AFTER the Democrat convention in Philadelphia.
But, he sure has cut her legs out, and taken her war-on-women card out of play.
Trump, you magnificent bastard!!

Virgil Hilts said...

Ann is correct, and the cigar touch just adds to the point. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. But for those who actually read the Starr report, a cigar is something you . . . [sorry, I just can't go full Laslo].
How may Bernie young female Bernie supporters know about the cigar?
I remember on the Tonight Show (while the cigar story was just beginning to break in right wing chat groups), Fred Willard did a live report from Martha's Vineyard where Bill and Hillary were vacationing. He made a joke about a run on cigars at the local smoke shop and then said something like "Um. . .You might not get this joke now, but you will in a few days."

David said...

"Can Hillary keep up?"

Can the audience?

Will we even want to 4-5 months from now.

Mary Beth said...

That laugh is horrible. It makes me want to be on the watch for flying monkeys.

Jim said...

It is raw, and without the usual political bs. Those of us who lived then know it already, perhaps others, for whom this is ancient history, will pay attention.
This is just the beginning. I hope both of the clintons are destroyed by this and what is to come. And that people see that the press, over the past decades, has covered for the clintons. Bill Clinton is an icon of the democratic party. an elder statesman. disgusting.

Fabi said...

Hillary committed a yuge strategical error a few days ago when she announced that she wasn't compelled to defend Bill's actions. That's an embossed invitation for Trump to fire for effect.

eric said...

Seemed to short to me.

But maybe it's meant to have you go, "What the hell was that all about?" and look up the details for yourself.

cubanbob said...

Jim Gust said...

Trump is knocking Hillary out too early. She would be the easiest candidate to beat by far. He should be waiting until she has the nomination.

Trump will have a much tougher time against Biden/Warren, the most likely Democrat ticket now.
5/23/16, 10:02 PM "

Trump has a mountain of material to work on Hillary with. As for Biden/Warren, another Dem mental masturbation. Plugs the Plagiarist A/K/A Slow Joe who was considered so dumb so he was picked as Obama's life insurance and a fake Indian fake populist elitist bankruptcy lawyer who looks and sounds like fingernails scratching on a blackboard are not exactly the ones to stop Trumpy. Hillary might just get her worst nightmare, she barely wins and the Republicans remain in control of Congress and the Republicans finally man up and appoint special prosecutors and the prosecutions and impeachment begins.

walter said...

recycling clips from 1999? That's at least 5 years before he invited them to his wedding...

Terry said...

Since it has been almost twenty years since the impeachment hearing, I feel obligated to remind voters just how shabbily dishonest the Clinton's are.
Bill left the stain on the blue dress. Everyone knows that. DNA tests proved just what it was.
Bill certainly knew what he had done, but he insisted on a DNA test anyway. He had hoped the evidence was a bluff. If the test came back negative, he would have continued his liar's fantasy about Lewinsky being a crazed stalker, and the DC press would have let him lead them on the dance. I would like to know what Bill told Hillary about Lewinsky and when he told her. We know Bill is a narcissistic, pathological liar. If we knew what Bill told Hillary about Lewinsky and when, we could judge just how insane she is.

Gusty Winds said...

So Donald Trump has to teach millennial feminists about the hypocrisy of 1990's feminism that gave a free pass to the Clinton's?

I can't believe University benefactors would filter such important historical information from those they "educate".

Gusty Winds said...

Today's intellectual left would like to prove to all of us that Lincoln Was gay, rooming with his law partner, and using Mary Todd as a bearded tool to fuel his ambitions.

But god forbid anyone tell the Bernie supporters about the cigar.

Gusty Winds said...

When Trump was playing Mr. Guy with the Clinton's over the last few years, inviting them to his wedding, calling Bill...he was keeping their guard down, and setting them up like bowling pins.

walter said...

AH..yes..more Trump genius.

YoungHegelian said...

Remember how in 2012, our brilliant Republican betters thought that the man to get behind for president was the one Republican in the country who couldn't criticize Obamacare?

Well, this time, i think the Democrats may have just found the one woman who can't run on a Republican #WarOnWomen platform.

Bay Area Guy said...

I vividly remember the Clinton years like it was Yesterday - all those "Bimbo Eruptions". It was remarkable to see the mainstream media simply play the role of Praetorian Guard for the Clintons. They dismissed and/or ignored Juanita Broderick like she didn't even exist. Ditto Kathy Willie. After ignoring them, then came the smears.

On the other hand, Clarence Thomas was pilloried and Sen. Robert Packwood was chased out of Congress.

Such a double-standard by the feminists - tar and feather all sexual harassers, but defend Clinton at all costs.

So, the bill may have come late for the Clintons, but Hillary's gonna have to pay it.

I believe you, Juanita

Martha said...

Hillary! knew all along about Bill's other women. They had an understanding—Bill could express his lascivious self as long as he left no identifiable proof behind. Sex as Bll practiced it was not really "sex". Hillary! was furious at Bill only when the DNA on the blue dress was identified as Bill's.

Gusty Winds said...

Revolutions are won by leaders who don't play by established rules dictated by the establishment.

The Colonials were supposed to stand in a straight line and let the English mow them down. No fair shooting at the Red Coats by hiding in the bushes.

Washington wasn't supposed to escape across the Delaware. He was supposed to wait like a gentleman until the next day and get his ass kicked.

Mitt Romney took it like man!

Mr. Trump, can't you just put the blind fold on a light a cigarette?

The one tell that proves Bernie is an idiot, is that he let Hillary off the email scandal in the first debate, thinking it was high ground. NOW he wants to fight, from the bottom of the hill.

Trump is softening the high ground defenses of his opponent with with artillery, then he will storm the beach.

No canons needed. Just a cigar.

AllenS said...

Remember Bill Clinton's statement during the 1992 campaign that voters would get "two for the price of one" if they elected him? Well, that statement is coming back to bite Hillary in the ass.

aritai said...

Interesting that your pTb is repeating nothing that your yellow journalism has said, in a form which is sharper and more targeted, and only after warning the adversary that if you choose to attack me or my family in this way, using innuendo already in the yellow press, prepare for unlimited warfare. What they sow is what they reap. This same set of rules applied to his adversaries in the primaries. The survival of the fittest. if his opponents couldn't deal with it in the primaries, they wouldn't have been able to deal with it in the general, so it was better to get rid of them earlier, even when it meant downright dirty behavior and violating the nostrum "thou shalt not attack a fellow republican or use plain and earthy language" which made sense when the press was not another name for the democratic machine. No wonder they are pissed. This totally disarms them and denies them the ability to pick and elect their candidates, vice just reporting the facts in a non-biased way. Did Bill Clinton abuse Women and Deny Ms. H. use of the women card? Yes he did,just deserts for a truly terrible man and wife when it comes to abusing women.

Gahrie said...

On the other hand, Clarence Thomas was pilloried and Sen. Robert Packwood was chased out of Congress.

Such a double-standard by the feminists - tar and feather all sexual harassers, but defend Clinton at all costs.


Even more so when you consider that Packwood was actually far better for feminism than Clinton ever was.....

MathMom said...

I dunno - it's hard for me to understand what the women are saying, so it loses its punch for me - and I know the stories!

It's not hard to understand the cackle, but I think I would have used part of the audio recording of her account of the time she defended the rapist of a 12-year-old girl, laughed about his guilt, and got him plea bargained to time served. Then the cackle. That cackle is the stuff of nightmares.

Unknown said...

Hmm maybe trump is making a play for Bernie to take it or at least get it contested, it does seem early.

Unknown said...

C'mon it is a pretty crappy video. Do you really think tens of millions of women voters are going to change their mind because of this video? I bet your bottom dollar that the Dems have a ton of nasty stuff on Trump being readied to roll-out as soon as either Sanders or Clinton are awarded the nominee.

There is also the ticking time-bomb of Trump's tax filings and if he is a multi-billionaire then why does he need money from other billionaires (which is what the billionaires are asking).

Saint Croix said...

Michael Moore stuff. This is exactly how Moore makes "documentaries." Don't sweat the truth, take things out of context, manipulate, manipulate, manipulate. It's very heavy-handed. The idea, of course, is to demonize Bill and Hillary. Demon music, demon smoke. The guy who made this is as demonic as they are.

If Bill Clinton is a rapist, Donald Trump likes rapists.

He doesn't care if it's true or not true. He has no feelings for Juanita Broaddrick, for Bill Clinton, for Hillary Clinton. All he sees, all he thinks about, is the power in front of him. It reminds me of Mike Nifong, the prosecutor who demonized the Duke Lacrosse team, when he knew the case was weak. All he could thing about was his own election and the helpful racial optics. It also reminds me of Barack Obama, using the Trayvon Martin case as a bullhorn to spike racial agitation and get people voting for him. Did that ploy lead to race riots and damage our country? Of course it did. Will the racial agitation of Donald Trump do the same thing? Of course it will.

Rape is a horrific crime. What rape is not is a tool to be used to acquire power. I hope our rape-using feminists are paying attention, because they invented this game. I will not support this. I will not vote for this. "Have you no decency, sir?". I am so glad we have a third party option.

Jim said...

Best comment I have read, in the Sac. Bee paper(california). Bill Clinton always chooses someone other than Hillary, shouldn't you?

Brando said...

I don't much care if it works but I like to see that this question is not ignored. We have an ex-president (and possible future first "gentleman") who quite plausibly committed rape and a possible future president helped cover it up. The press should have investigated this fully in '99, and at the very least should investigate it now.

Humperdink said...

Some might say Trump hit a new low in the political wars. Good thing he didn't mention pubic hairs on a coke can.

Oso Negro said...

Whatever the final outcome of 2016, it seems that Donald Trump fully intends to supply red hot pepper enemas to the Progressive Left. All that stuff hung up in there that really could not be digested - such as the feminist/Clinton apologist duality. It seems he intends to get it all out there.

Curious George said...

More, please.


And every Trump ad should have the cackle.

Humperdink said...

The Morning Rino crew on MSNBC were nearly speechless at Trump's new ads. It was fun to watch.

I can't wait for the Trump response if Hillary babbles about the new transgender bathroom regs.

Brando said...

"The Morning Rino crew on MSNBC were nearly speechless at Trump's new ads. It was fun to watch."

I don't watch his show but I'd heard Scarborough was a big Trump booster. Has he changed his tune, or was it sarcastic outrage?

Tommy Duncan said...

So what do we call this?

Asymmetrical warfare?

Guerrilla warfare?

A paradigm shift?

A redefinition of the boundaries of discourse?

A stale politician meets a dynamic businessman?

Hillary's feet of clay?

Humperdink said...

Brando asked: "I don't watch his show but I'd heard Scarborough was a big Trump booster. Has he changed his tune, or was it sarcastic outrage?"

Nope, he was never a big Trump supporter. In days gone by, he marveled at how Trump played the media.

This morning he was lamenting the introduction of Vince Foster into the campaign. Just shaking his head during most of what I saw.

damikesc said...

Can Hillary keep up?

No.

Hillary may get some sympathy vote at this rate. She wants us to make up to her for Bill's power over her and over women everywhere. And that Trump abuser of women too.

The problem, though, is her ENABLING him to do so.

Yeah....Trump may be peaking early. I didn't think I would see something like this until AFTER the Democrat convention in Philadelphia.

There is no lack of similar problems with her. Corruption will be a prime target.

Bill left the stain on the blue dress. Everyone knows that. DNA tests proved just what it was.
Bill certainly knew what he had done, but he insisted on a DNA test anyway.


Either that or he REGULARLY jizzed on the dresses of women.

C'mon it is a pretty crappy video. Do you really think tens of millions of women voters are going to change their mind because of this video? I bet your bottom dollar that the Dems have a ton of nasty stuff on Trump being readied to roll-out as soon as either Sanders or Clinton are awarded the nominee.

Trump's flaws are more public already. There is just less to hammer.

How many people have REALLY looked in to the CGI? How many have REALLY looked at what she was paid to give speeches? How many have REALLY looked at how supportive she was of women?

There is also the ticking time-bomb of Trump's tax filings and if he is a multi-billionaire then why does he need money from other billionaires (which is what the billionaires are asking).

He can always refuse until she gives up her speech transcripts, etc. This isn't a game she is likely to win.

Michael Moore stuff. This is exactly how Moore makes "documentaries." Don't sweat the truth, take things out of context, manipulate, manipulate, manipulate. It's very heavy-handed. The idea, of course, is to demonize Bill and Hillary. Demon music, demon smoke. The guy who made this is as demonic as they are.

Am I supposed to empathize with poor old Bill and Hillary?

Comanche Voter said...

My late brother==a pretty much life long Berkeley resident--would have thought that Bernie Sanders was way too far to the right to be acceptable. But he did have an interesting take on what Billy Jeff should have said and done when news of the Lewinsky dalliance first came up. Rather than go on national television, poke his finger in the audience's eye and say, "I did not have sex with that woman" as he did, my brother said there would have been no trouble if Clinton had said, "I banged her like a cheap Chinese gong---so what?"

Move forward 20 years and the Trump and Trumpista ads are going to keep on banging Hillary--like a Chinese gong. She doesn't come cheap, and I'm certain that some of the Chinese have found a way to contribute to the Clinton foundation. But that gong is going to keep gettimng struck. Pass the popcorn and hold on for a wild ride.

tim maguire said...

Another potential classic as a Hillary tag line: At this point, what difference does it make?

Ken B probably thinks that would be a winner for Hillary.

Fabi said...

@Unknown -- The ad itself doesn't have to change the minds of millions of women. It only needs to get millions of women discussing the incidents. As a famous aircraft carrier once said: Mission Accomplished.

It's also psychological warfare against Hillary, two weeks before the California primary. He's driving her crazy. This is way outside her ability to process.

tim maguire said...

madAsHell said...Trump may be peaking early.

Has Trumped peaked at all yet? I see no evidence of that.

Unknown said...
Hmm maybe trump is making a play for Bernie to take it or at least get it contested, it does seem early.


That's a possibility--keep the Democratic primary going as long as possible. I think there's a real chance Hillary will get pushed aside in favor of Biden after she beats Bernie. But Bernie has to be beaten first to keep his supporters in line.

Brando said...

"Nope, he was never a big Trump supporter. In days gone by, he marveled at how Trump played the media.

This morning he was lamenting the introduction of Vince Foster into the campaign. Just shaking his head during most of what I saw."

He was going on a bit in some article about how he predicted Trump's win, but it wasn't clear who he was backing. If he's not for Trump I'm guessing he has no dog in this fight.

I don't know about the Vince Foster stuff but the Broaddrick case deserves more scrutiny. Far as I could tell, the media looked at it and said it was a "he said she said" and the "best" argument Clinton's allies had was that she waited so many years to come forward. Does that fly today where so many on the left believe Woody Allen and Bill Cosby are rapists based on new allegations of decades-old acts?

If this does blow up, the Dems will have to think very carefully--do they really want to go forward with this albatross of a candidate?

Johnathan Birks said...

I doubt the ad will have any great impact on the election, for the simple fact that everyone's already decided how they feel about Hillary. Her supporters will ignore or attack such ads while everyone else says "tell me something I don't know". She has tremendous name recognition for a first-time candidate, but she scores very low on likability and trustworthiness.

I don't see any way those negatives go away, and this email inquiry will either result in indictments or a slow, damaging series of leaks. Will this help Trump, whose favorables are even worse than Hillary's? That's why they play the games.

Michael K said...

"It's also psychological warfare against Hillary,"

Trump is inside her head and has been for months.

Tommy Duncan said...

Trump had no choice but to retaliate with this ad after Hillary's devastating Venn diagram. Tit for tat.

Michael McClain said...

We live in an era where the truth is deemed an attack. We are cursed to live in interesting times.

Alex said...

Bill Clinton always had poor taste in women. All the women he raped, plus Hitlery and Lewinsky! Not a single babe amongst them.

AprilApple said...

It's the media who ignore and minimize Bill and Hillary's crimes.

Michael K said...

"everyone's already decided how they feel about Hillary."

There are a lot of young women who don't know the history of Bill and bimbos.

It will all come up again.

Humperdink said...

@Michael. That and the Clinton campaign has no clue as to what Trump will do next. No clue at all.

Curious George said...

"tell me something I don't know".

Hardly. Many many current voters weren't even born yet.

Bruce Hayden said...

I think by the election, we are all going to know and hate that cackle, maybe combined with her saying what difference does it make. It makes me think of the evil witch that Dorothy ultimately had to kill in Oz. The big difference is that evil witch was skinny, and Hillary is far from it.

Which reminds me that my partner a couple days ago told me what cankles are. Ankles that usually come with great weight, except that hers are supposedly from complications from her pregnancy wth Chelsea. Except that she would probably get them now anyway with her being as fat as she appears to have gotten. My partner then went on to comment that Hillary has a good tailor, noting how her pants suits are inevitably designed to minimize the appearance of this. Thus the band of light blouse bracketed by lapels and the like to draw the eye to her center, ignoring the vast stretch of mono color to either side. Even with the best thealth care money can buy (decidedly not via ObamaCare that she voted for and will continue), it still has to be unhealthy. I think at a minimum, we are probably talking diabetes and high blood pressure, and maybe the lack of energy that we see from her. Doctors here probably have a better dea here than I do. We have gotten out of the habit of thinking that Presidents can die in office now, with over 50 years since the last Presidential death, but that is a real possibility with the next President, with her cankles and the age of all the main possibilities for the next President being several years past the age for Medicare.

Mike said...

Today's intellectual left would like to prove to all of us that Lincoln Was gay, rooming with his law partner, and using Mary Todd as a bearded tool to fuel his ambitions.

But god forbid anyone tell the Bernie supporters about the cigar.


Nice, Gusty. Very true. As is your assertion that "they didn't teach me that in womyns' studies!"

Hagar said...

General Washington escaped across the Hudson; he attacked across the Delaware.

Unknown said...

Ass fat is not life-threatening; if anything, it's protective. Hilary has always been "pear-shaped," and that's a recipe for a good, long old-ladyhood. Her mother was how old when she died--90-something.

Bruce Hayden said...

I do think that this is asymetric warfare. But Trump also seems to be inside her OODA loop. Trump reacts much more quickly than does Hillary and her campaign. When we were talking about this yesterday, I was thinking of Sherman's March to the Sea, or Patton's drive across Europe, then pivot to relieve Bastogne. And maybe our victory in the first Gulf War. Montgomery tried to match Patton, but wasn't quick enough, and hence the danger of trying to take the "Bridge Too Far".

The question though for me is whether Trump can upsize and grow, and still keep his nimbleness. Hillary and the Dems have a formidable ground organization already in place, with hundreds of thousands already enlisted to register voters and then get them to the polls. think of it as the brilliant company grade and maybe field grade officer thrust into flag rank without the chance to go to War College, etc. it can be done, and has been done. But asymmetrical warfare only works to an extent against overwhelming opposition, and that is where Trump will need to better use all the assets available to Republican nominee.

EsoxLucius said...

Rape is the fault of the perpetrator's spouse? Sounds like John Barron reaching out to women. And didn't Ivana accuse him of rape?

Bruce Hayden said...

Not sure it is all ass fat on her. Any more, she looks pretty wide side to side around the waist - precisely, I think, what she is trying to hide with that tailoring. Which makes it hard to really tell though, with it drawing your eyes to the center, away from the sides. But, it could be just wide hips flaring out her jackets. I will agree that 10-20 years ago, she had a pear shaped figure, but maybe not so much any more. We shall see.

Fabi said...

@EsoxLucius -- You're about four moves behind.

Brando said...

"Rape is the fault of the perpetrator's spouse? Sounds like John Barron reaching out to women. And didn't Ivana accuse him of rape?"

It's not Hillary's fault if Bill is a rapist, but it is her fault if she helps him cover it up and defend him publicly from it, which she has done. It also says something about her if she stays married to a rapist.

Whether Trump raped Ivana (she accused him of it then later retracted) I'm sure we'll be hearing plenty about, and the media will delve into it further. But even if Trump is a bad messenger (after all, he's long been friends with this accused rapist) it doesn't excuse the Clintons and it's good the message is getting out there. Maybe the party that relies so heavily on women should consider whether it wants this mess for a nominee? It's not too late to draft Biden!

Fen said...

"Rape is the fault of the perpetrator's spouse?"

I'll take Libtard Strawmen for 250 Alex

Hillary is responsible for the sexual harassment and sexual assault of many loyal Democrat women because 1) she knew ("bimbo eruptions") and did nothing to stop him and 2) she tried to slime them and cover it up so that she "could remain politically viable for the future" and 3) by enabling her husband's rapes, she ensured more rapes would occur.

And the hypocrisy is rank considering her "war on women" angle. I am certain there are no Gods, because if there were, lighting would have struck her several times now.

aritai said...

Broddrick? He hasn't even gotten warmed up. Wait until he gets into the history of biting lips. Cowboys and American Indians used it to break a horse to the saddle. As did the Arab and native Africans in the slave capturing and supplying people and when they wanted the cooperation of an unwilling teenager, breaking her to the saddle as well, or so he will say bringing all kinds of questions to children to ask "What's a saddle mom/" "dad So there'd have been no slaves in the Americas if the African people of color and the Arabian traffickers hadn't provided the supply?" I can't wait for your pTb to capture all of this in 3 or 4 short catch phrases. "Dad, why did Mr. Clinton bite her lip?" "Because it must have worked before?" Where's my popcorn. Grandma keeps chuckling to herself. The tadpoles are looking for places to hide.

Fen said...

said there would have been no trouble if Clinton had said, "I banged her like a cheap Chinese gong---so what?"

He's right, but not for the reason he thinks. The feminist lobbied for the 1994 Crime Bill, Sexual Harassment in the Workplace section that "plantiff has a right to any and all information that establishes a pattern of sexual predatory behavior in the workplace on the part of the defendant".

What that means is, if I am having a consensual affair with my secretary, and another subordinate employee accuses me of sexual harassment, then that accuser has a right to interview my secretary to determine if she was likewise coerced into having sex. Lying to the court about the existence of the affair violates plantiff's civil rights. Which is why Bill was impeached and lost his law license.

If he had simply told the truth, he would have been clear of any legal troubles. Sure, there would have been a scandal in the papers, but nothing like getting impeached.

robother said...

Hillary's cackle makes this whole thing work as a political attack ad. It reminded me instantly of Hillary chuckling on tape as she recounted getting an Arkansas uncle off for raping his 13 yr old niece. The two of them share a professional class contempt for the victims in their path.

Bruce Hayden said...

Rape isn't usually the fault of the spouse. But here, Hillary worked hard to shame the victims and to cover it up. That was the purpose of the bimbo eruption posey that she ran. That is enablement. Bill knew that if caught, she would clean it up,naps she had been doing almost their entire marriage. What was somewhat interesting at the time is that she had tried to institute controls in the White House to keep Bill away from single women alone. Lewinski managed to bypass them, forcing Hillary and her people to try to destroy her, until the Blue Dress surfaced. By at least one story, that was the big reason for not getting it cleaned (a more recent one blames that on Lewinski's slovenly living habits, not having things cleaned until she wanted to wear them again).

As for Trump's ex-wife, as others have noted, this is standard by women in a lot of divorces, and may be one of the causes of the breakup, with one partner wanting sex, and not the other. The question is whether she will support Trump or oppose him, and I think that we already know the answer - she supports Trump. Greatly unlike a number of Bill Clinton's victims,behold are finally being heard from after all these years, after Hillary and her Bimbo Eruption crew had so successfully suppressed their stories at the time.

ndspinelli said...

Hillary got her ass kicked by a first term Senator in 2008. Hillary has struggled against a not very bright, spit mouthed, socialist. The rules have changed. The game has changed. Her people think it's 1992. Trump is kicking her fat ass.

Big Mike said...

This is kind of fun. Usually the candidates' wives aren't attacked, mostly because by the time one gets to that level of the game the wives have been vetted and know how to appear to be supportive. But now the spouse is Bill Clinton, and he truly is vulnerable in many, many ways.

Is it unfair to attack the spouse? Does anyone doubt that Democrats would attack Melania if they could?

As to whether Joe Biden is a safer candidate, the commentators on this thread should go to YouTube and search for "Biden being creepy." You'll get quite an eyeful of him inappropriately touching the children or spouses of officials being sworn in. It's a mark of how wimpy the average Democrat official is that no one turns from the microphones and says "Joe, take your hands off my little girl or I'll break all ten of your fingers on live camera."

Bruce Hayden said...

I stand corrected. There is a picture of Hillary on Ann's blog page in a ghostbusters outfit, and it has something like a belt. She really does have a waist, and pretty big hips and ass. But she definitely goes in at the waist. Maybe not as good of tailor as my partner thought.

WDOR said...

Alex said...

Bill Clinton always had poor taste in women. All the women he raped, plus Hitlery and Lewinsky! Not a single babe amongst them.

I disagree. Kathleen Willey was quite attractive for a middle-aged woman and Sally Miller was a looker when Bill Clinton had his affair(s) with her. Although not my type, Gennifer Flowers was attractive. Lewinsky was a bit pudgy but wasn't ugly.

You are spot-on with Paula Jones, however.

Humperdink said...

WDOR, Bill took whatever was on the menu.

EsoxLucius said...

Ass fat? Enabling rape? Hypocrisy? Save that for your three time married porky spouting family values to a woman trying to hold her first marriage together. I used to a Republican, but am glad this whole toe tapping, diaper wearing, climate change denying, golden rule un-following group is committing suicide by Lyin' Donald.

Brando said...

"As to whether Joe Biden is a safer candidate, the commentators on this thread should go to YouTube and search for "Biden being creepy." You'll get quite an eyeful of him inappropriately touching the children or spouses of officials being sworn in. It's a mark of how wimpy the average Democrat official is that no one turns from the microphones and says "Joe, take your hands off my little girl or I'll break all ten of your fingers on live camera.""

Right, but compared to a guy with Clintonesque accusations? If we apply the "Cosby standard" the man is untouchable, and his wife is dragged in with him for enabling it. Biden looks like a boy scout by comparison.

If I were a Democratic superdelegate, I'd push for an open convention where they can do the smoke filled room bit and consider any option (though they'd have to buy off the Sanders folks--if they don't nominate Sanders). Hillary is a walking time bomb. Even if she wins, how long before she's impeached?

Brando said...

"Save that for your three time married porky spouting family values to a woman trying to hold her first marriage together."

I'm no fan of the Donald, and his own hypocrisy in all this is quite clear, but it is right to bring up these issues because if Bill Clinton did rape a woman (even forty years ago) there needs to be some accounting. The Dems have made plenty of hay with their "women's issues" arguments and the Left has made heroes of "mattress girl" and the like, despite having much weaker stories than Juanita Broaddrick--should not the Clinton accusations be taken seriously, or at least ask why he gets some pass?

And as for Hillary "trying to hold her first marriage together" it's fine to stick with a marriage through rough spots, and whatever happens between her and Bill are their own business. But if Bill is actually victimizing other women--and there's enough smoke to suggest fire here, or at least warrant better investigation--then it's no longer just their business, and like any good feminist she had her chance to show where she stands.

Fabi said...

EsoxLucius may be Amanda and Chuck's future love child.

shiloh said...

Dems still have a major structural electoral advantage, especially as minority populations increase in swing states. Is Trump the "Rep" to overcome this deficit? Rhetorical.

Keep hope alive!

M Jordan said...

Trump is going after more than Hillary here. He's attacking political correctness in all it vileness. He's also attacking a media systemically structured against conservatives. I'm really starting to believe he is mad genius, though each day brings a new round of madness where the genius, at first, is hidden.

tim in vermont said...

Esox Lucias, care to explain why 5 witnesses lied under threat of prison to back up the rape allegations, yet none of them are in prison?

Or is divorce worse than forcible rape? Live up to your own professed values.

tim in vermont said...

Shill-o is back defending the woman who took 100K from river polluter Tyson Chicken who was regulated by her husband.

Now she is just bragging about how Democrats are diluting everyone's vote with illegal immigrants.

The solution to pollution is dilution!

shiloh said...

t in vt is back displaying his reading comprehension deficit as I in no way defended Hillary. Just pointed out the obvious Republican electoral problem.

If voter turnout & GOTV is normal for a presidential election, the Dem nominee, whomever he or she may be should win fairly easy. Recent, useless polls notwithstanding.

This is the cons/Althouse reality as they/she delusionally try to figure out how this election will be different.

cubanbob said...

There is also the ticking time-bomb of Trump's tax filings and if he is a multi-billionaire then why does he need money from other billionaires (which is what the billionaires are asking).

He can always refuse until she gives up her speech transcripts, etc. This isn't a game she is likely to win."

He should refuse until the Clinton's release their tax returns, their foundation's financials along with their speeches and to frost the cake J F Kerry's long awaited DD 214 form and Obama's college applications and grades.

damikesc said...

Rape is the fault of the perpetrator's spouse?

Nobody is saying she's responsible for him raping others.

Her defending and protecting him, though, is damning.

And didn't Ivana accuse him of rape?

She says no. But an accusation from a woman who said it didn't happen are far more plausible than an accusation from a woman who said it did happen.

Save that for your three time married porky spouting family values to a woman trying to hold her first marriage together.

Try and do better next time. This is weak.

Trump did not rape anybody. Accusations have been credibly made and never recanted that Bill did rape somebody. Hillary attacked women who had the misfortune of deciding to fuck her husband --- but she ALWAYS defended him because, obviously, if a husband cheats on his wife, it must be the slut's fault, right?

Mary Beth said...

EsoxLucius, you have the clueless Hillary supporter act down perfectly.

EsoxLucius said...


Faced with loosing the argument, once again you turn personal. Where is the moderation?

Brando said...

"He should refuse until the Clinton's release their tax returns, their foundation's financials along with their speeches and to frost the cake J F Kerry's long awaited DD 214 form and Obama's college applications and grades."

I just assume whatever is in Trump's tax returns and Clinton's Goldman speeches must be so terrible it's actually better for them to let people imagine the worst.

MadisonMan said...

Faced with loosing the argument

Tighten up your spelling.

shiloh said...

"Where is the moderation?"

Althouse is too lazy/cheap to switch to a platform where she could moderate/ban posters.

Plus she enjoys the kindergarten ad hominems that only a 95/5 conservative echo chamber can provide.

It works out well for all concerned as cons need a release for all their pent up political frustrations. And the few libs are somewhat amused re: the daily one-sided conversation.

Indeed, as Althouse is very efficient at kowtowing to her majority con bloggers.

EsoxLucius said...


Here's what Trump has promised: 1) a Mexican wall, 2) a Muslim ban, 3) renegotiating trade deals, 4) pay off bonds to China with its imbalance in trade?, 5) force steel makers in Europe, China, and America to buy Appalachian coal. In short, five things beyond the power of the presidency. He's not running for president, and shame on the American public for not knowing civics and thinking that he is. It is often said that we haven't seen this kind of candidacy before, but this is the playbook of Richard Mourdock and Sharon Angle. They weren't interested in wining Senate seats either, just the Republican funds. I'm no fan of Hilary, but the GOP has to make it easier than this.

Brando said...

"It works out well for all concerned as cons need a release for all their pent up political frustrations. And the few libs are somewhat amused re: the daily one-sided conversation."

Outside of some trolls and primal screamers, most commenters here have worthwhile discussions and strict moderation would slow down and ultimately ruin that back and forth. If someone has nothing but personal insults to offer, ignore them. Address others on the merits (or lack thereof) of their arguments.

shiloh said...

Let the record show Brando in no way disagreed that Althouse is a con echo chamber.

Brando said...

"Let the record show Brando in no way disagreed that Althouse is a con echo chamber."

I do disagree with that--it does have more conservatives than liberals, but there's plenty of disagreement both between left and right and even among the right. The threads would be a lot shorter if that weren't the case--why bother commenting if everything you would say has already been said?

shiloh said...

Let the record show that Brando and I disagree that Althouse is a con echo chamber.

btw, re: free speech Althouse has gone to strict moderation at least 3 or 4 times since I started perusing this blog Oct. 2010 and ironically it's usually because a resident con has gone off the rails re: their personal attacks against Althouse.

ok, ok, logic dictates it almost has to be a con who goes off the deep end when said blog is 95/5 con.

But not to worry as the next time Althouse goes to strict moderation it will probably only be for a couple mos. 'cause she really, really loves her resident cons!

grackle said...

I don't watch his show but I'd heard Scarborough was a big Trump booster.

Some folks are mistaking some pundits’ acceptance of Trump as a serious candidate as support for Trump. Recognizing the reality, that Trump, despite all the ridicule heaped at first on his candidacy, was actually a strong candidate, is not the same as ‘boosting.’

Mika was off this AM. I’m not surprised. Mika is smarter than Joe and the rest of the Morning Joes. She was very depressed yesterday at the prospect of seeing Hillary having to deal with these women whose stories were effectively locked out of the public consciousness by the MSM back when Hillary was First Lady and chief “bimbo eruption” destroyer. Mika I think was hoping that the Bill Clinton sex scandals would remain safely stuffed down the memory hole that used to exist in the pre-internet era. It’s only that Monica Lewinsky had the presence of mind to save her semen-soaked dress that her story wasn’t permanently branded as a lie by all the Mikas of the news cycle.

And here’s this that I find particularly satisfying: Parts of the MSM are aware that they are being used by Trump but they cannot help it – it is what they do. They would love to destroy Trump as they have destroyed many others but the MSM is an institution and in my Sociology 101 I learned that institutions have a difficult time with change, that institutions tend to hang onto self-defeating or inappropriate behavior even after it can clearly be seen by others as detrimental.

So they keep banging away at Trump using the old techniques. After all, concerted effort from the MSM seem to work to get Slick Willie off the hook back in the nineties, didn’t it? So … a unified MSM, acting in concert, should be able to destroy Trump – right?

Morning Joe is outraged and is sure that Trump has gone too far this time. Trump’s “unfavorables” did not dominate Morning Joe this AM like it usually does. I think it may have occurred to them that when 80% of Republicans polled say that they want and expect the GOP leadership to support Trump that Trump’s “unfavorables” are a bit suspect in their relevancy. Just last week:

Eight in 10 Republican voters say their leaders should support Mr. Trump even if they disagree with him on important issues. And unfavorable views toward Mr. Trump among Republican voters have plummeted 15 percentage points since last month; 21 percent now express an unfavorable view of him, down from 36 percent in April.

http://tinyurl.com/j95x79z

The Morning Joes new hope is that Trump’s easy manipulation of the MSM will not work in the general election as it did in the primaries. Why? Because the general is “different” than the primaries. Somewhere in Trump Towers they are slapping their knees in laughter.

Char Char Binks said...

B&W is a nice touch. It evokes the wild days when Bill used to rape starlets and strippers with Wilbur Mills and Fatty Arbuckle. Wasn't that a time!

james conrad said...

Devastating ad and, the fact that it's being shown EVERYWHERE in the media proves it's power. Hillary is getting a taste of what 16 Repub candidates learned the hard way, Trump is a formidable candidate and, she better bring her A game. Hillary's problem is, she does not have an A game.

Rusty said...

EsoxLucius said...

"Faced with loosing the argument, once again you turn personal. Where is the moderation?"

You first must bring an argument.
You need to up your game.
We all know who you're voting for Shiloh. No need to campaign here.

n.n said...

The female chauvinists were exposed when they placed their fortunes ahead of women, men, and babies, too. However, they were trapped when they compromised with diametrically opposed special and peculiar interests in order to sustain the Democrat juggernaut.

damikesc said...

Dems still have a major structural electoral advantage, especially as minority populations increase in swing states. Is Trump the "Rep" to overcome this deficit? Rhetorical.

Voting takes time. Making somebody so detestable that the time spent to vote for them isn't worth it ends their desire to vote. Reid used that effectively in NV. Hillary just has more things worth attacking. And since the media has worked so hard to ignore all of these issues, a lot of this is new to newer voters.

james conrad said...

I am not so sure about the so called minority voter gap that Trump is supposed to be bogged down in. I can see where Trump will pivot to them and ask, " So what exactly have you got to show for living on the Democrat plantation all these years?". I am betting that Trump will go directly at these economic issues with minorities in a brutally frank & honest way. He may not win a majority of these voters but hey, he doesn't need to and, it's hard to see that he will do worse than Romney

R. Chatt said...

Quite a few comments have said that Trump is jumping the gun. On the contrary, he has perfect timing. Hitting Hillary hard before the June 6 primaries greatly increases the hopes of Bernie supporters and that definitely increases the chaos in the Democratic camp.

Bernie is predicting a messy convention. When people see the chaos and conflict at the Democratic convention, will that be a brand that people will want? I don't think so.

IMO Trump is a very smart guy.

Drago said...

Shorter Saint Croix: Sure, Bill raped Juanita and Hillary enabled him and attacked the victim but TRUMP DOESNT CARE ABOUT JUANITA!eleventy!!

Saint Croix, filling in for "lifelong republican" chuck.

R. Chatt said...

Sorry for the error on the date, the big primaries I was referring to are on June 7.

flynful said...

Hagar. Washington saved the army by crossing from Brooklyn to Manhattan over the East River. A favorable northern wind kept the British fleet from sailing into the East River to block any escape and dense fog during the night and early morning enabled the army to be ferried away without discovery. Interesting history😃

Brando said...

"I can see where Trump will pivot to them and ask, " So what exactly have you got to show for living on the Democrat plantation all these years?"."

The thing is Republicans have been using that line for several cycles and it doesn't seem to work. Some minority groups have it ingrained that the Dems care about them and are helping them, and that if their lives are miserable it's despite those efforts and not because of them. And they figure the Republicans, despite election year lip service, at best don't care about them and at worst are hostile to them. I don't see the pattern changing much this year.