“The Clintons are pissed off that Weiner’s campaign is saying that Huma is just like Hillary,’’ said the source. “How dare they compare Huma with Hillary? Hillary was the first lady. Hillary was a senator. She was secretary of state.”She wasn't any of those things in 1992 when she sat by her man on "60 Minutes" and claimed to be doing something more than whatever it was Tammy Wynette was singing about in "Stand By Your Man." And what Bill had done was worse than what Weiner seems to have done. Bill had sex with other women. Weiner merely sexted. And Bill was sitting there lying about it and Hillary backed him up big time, whereas in the recent Huma-and-Anthony TV stunt, the misdeeds are admitted.
If Hillary is pissed off, I would think it's because she doesn't want people reminded of her old stand-by-your-man routine:
“Hillary didn’t know Huma would do this whole stand-by-your-man routine, and that’s one of the reasons the Clintons are distancing themselves from all this nonsense,’’ the source said.I put up the old 1992 interview in my post about Weiner yesterday, and we watched the whole 10 minutes and laughed a lot. I scoffed: "This is the first female President of the United States?!"
I encourage you to watch the whole thing. Watch Bill bullshit to avoid telling an outright lie, and watch Hillary nod as her man wriggles through — lip bite at 6:15 — and marvel at her delight in his equivocations — her smug smile at 6:38! At 7:02, Hillary does a little "zone of privacy" riff that should feel irksome to women's rights advocates, since it's the key phrase in the law relating to women's bodily autonomy and Hillary is using it to say don't look at the selfish, women-exploiting things my husband has done.
After that, Bill is very animated and smiley, waving his hands about, theorizing about privacy, and at some point we see his big hand resting on and weighing down Hillary's demurely clasped hands. When did his hand get there? I ask out loud and scroll back to see how he managed to plunk it there. It's just suddenly there at 8:01 after a cut to Steve Kroft's face. CBS made that cut! We weren't allowed to see him segue from expansive explaining gesture to holding the woman down. At 9:03, after another cut, Hillary says they will not say anything more, no matter how much they are pushed.
And Kroft pushes, suggesting that they have reached — to use the classic adultery-tolerating buzzwords — "an understanding" and "an arrangement." Bill's all "Wait a minute, wait a minute" — and his big mitt is back on top of Hillary's hands — "You're looking at 2 people who love each other. This is not 'an arrangement' or 'an understanding.'" And then, in a very sincere, whispery tone: "This is a marriage. That's a very different thing."
Here's where Hillary jumps in (9:38) — with a harsh, Southern-accented twang and waggling her head around — "You know, I'm not sittin' here like some little woman standin' by her man like Tammy Wynette. I'm sittin' here because I love him and I respect him... and if that's not enough for people then, heck, don't vote for him."
The soft gentle man, and the sharp modern-but-not-modern woman. That moment was the triumph of a lifetime for Hillary. It made everything happen. It got her man elected President. That's so much more than anything Huma accomplished in her balky wan press conference with Weiner. Hillary is rightly pissed.
ADDED: Meade — who's sittin' by me right now — reads the post out loud and says "Bring in the comments... I think it will be great." So go ahead. Do comments. I have to moderate them, so there may be a delay and comments must relate to the text of the post to be approved.
पोस्ट्स
३६ टिप्पण्या:
The only reason HRC is pissed is because this is has come up as she is readying her bid for 2016. Huma will be by her side sans Weiner and the MSM will do it duty to help elect the first female president and will tell us the many ways that this is not anything like 1992.
It makes me want to watch 'Primary Colors' again. When I first saw the film, I completely sympathized with this odd, Southern power couple who, even if I didn't agree with their way of going about things, had to do difficult things to get the power to make the world a better place.
Now, I just look at both of them as horrible con artists.
But really, what difference, at this point, does it make?
The past is very inconvenient to the ex-first of Arkansas and the U.S., in this regard. Too bad it probably won't matter.
Akroyd's and Belushi's version is better.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0AMMJF5-gMY
Bay-bee
What difference, at this point, does it make?
That line is nauseatingly repeated, but it certainly fits.
On a side note, I might watch 'Primary Colors' again to see if my feelings for the fictional couple have changed, as my affections for the actual couple have.
How dare they point out the obvious!?
How dare they utter the truth!?
One of the things that stands out in the similarities is that the Democrat political machine requires women to subordinate their feminist principles and marriage vows for the goal of achieving power as a show of loyalty.
Who cares if Bill Clinton cheated on Hillary and made her look the fool with his Patriarchal "Powerful Men Have Strong Appetites" sexual narcissism? He's a lefty, so he must be supported at all costs.
The press Canonized Hillary when the truth came out, setting her up as some sort of Saint, when she was actually in charge of the political team that dealt with the "Bimbo Erruptions" for Bills campaigns, because she knew about his philandering all along.
Notice the press doing a similar soft focus fluff job on Huma, making her out to be some sort of wonderful Saint for putting up with the Ambitious Politician with Strong Sexual Appetites, instead of the fool she looks for staying with a douchebag weirdo who thinks it's appropriate to send pics of his dick to other women.
The underlying theme to me is the old revolutionary Commie strategy that The cause is never The Cause; the Revolution is The Cause.
ITs just another demonstration of Power over Principles demanded by todays Democrat Party.
Look at the Mayor of San Diego, Proud Democrat, who sexually harassed and/or assaulted many women and the Parties response was to tell women that if they didn't support the Mayor, they would get no support in return and the women complied, so they would get power from the Democrats at least, until the dam broke on the scandal.
Yes, many similarities, indeed.
according to an unnamed "top state Democrat."
So is the leaker someone who is pro-Clinton, or pro-Weiner? I can't tell. Maybe they're just tired of the whole lot of them. I would be.
It's funny to me, though, that the officiant at the Weiner/Abedin wedding was Bill Clinton and then all this scandal ensues. Perfect coda.
It would be a breath of fresh air if Weiner would just own up to his love of sexting, and Abedin being okay with it in the context of their marriage.
I think that you're spot-on, Professor, and thank you for opening comments for this.
As a woman and a wife, the fact that these people claim the mantle of women's rights literally makes me feel ill.
Back in the old days, marriages were made for lots of reasons, few of which had anything to do with romantic love, particularly for the nobility. They were made to ensure succession, to re-affirm or establish treaties, to end wars etc.
Hilary and Huma seem to have marriages in the same tradition. Their marriages require that they allow themselves to be publicly humiliated as doormats in exchange for something, probably power or at least access to it.
Everything old is new again.
Bill said that oral sex wasn't sex. I would have been alright with that if Hillary had said, publicly, that she agreed with him.
Was there ever a time when a candidate for office had to show some small amount of experience or some quality that suggested the potential for success in that office? Surely there are people who didn't run for office because they, themselves, knew that they weren't qualified. Whatever happened to those people?
Stand by your Slick Willy in 92, stand by your Weiner in 13. The more things change...
The biggest difference between then and now is Hillary was riding shotgun on the greatest political talent of her generation. All Huma has is a shrill, vitriolic and psychologically warped man-child.
“The Clintons are pissed off that Weiner’s campaign is saying that Huma is just like Hillary,’’ said the source. “How dare they compare Huma with Hillary? Hillary was the first lady. Hillary was a senator. She was secretary of state.”
How dare they compare Huma with Hillary when the payoff is so low?
Huma wants to eventually have political power herself and, sadly, being the "victim" of a philandering husband gets women incredible "electoral authority". Even if the women have the means and intellect to NOT be victimized by this and to leave if wanted...if they stick around, it works out well for them.
Compare Huma to, say, Jenny Sanford. Jenny left when Mark's infidelity became known to her (remember, they weren't living together when Mark went to Argentina) and while she hasn't been overly public with her issues, she is keeping his feet to the fire to honor what few commitments he has left.
Jenny Sanford SHOULD be a feminist role model. A woman who didn't have to ride a husband's coattails to political power and didn't allow herself to be demeaned when the husband was a sleaze.
Huma is 100% guilty in this. She is allowing Anthony to do this. She is standing by him while he urinates all over her. I don't see how anybody can possibly feel bad for her --- but, no doubt, plenty of women will feel bad for her. He did this AFTER he left the Congress for doing THIS EXACT THING. He was "embarrassed" horribly --- but kept doing it. Does anybody seriously think he has stopped?
As an aside, if NYC votes for him, they deserve everything that will end up happening. Electing a man to a position of power with, apparently, zero self-control seems like a poor plan.
If this was a Republican, we'd hear more about the Republican "War on Women". Add into that the low heat blowback on Filner and you have evidence of a party that DEEPLY disrespects women --- and have enough female enablers to allow them to get away with it.
Huma doesn't NEED Weiner. Hillary didn't NEED Bill...unless both women's only real goal was power and not, you know, self-respect.
It was amazing how young the Clintons looked in the photo you posted earlier. Amazing that they could be so clearly calculating as well. They are both predatory, and have been wise enough not to try to consume each other.
Look for Weinerdog to drop out of the race soon. Not nice to piss off a Clinton. Bad for your present, bad for your future.
Most amazing is how our political system consistently elevates people like this.
"Now, I just look at both of them as horrible con artists."
The Clintons remind me of nothing so much as the Thénardiers from Les Miserables.
Weiner did far more than sext. He claimed he was hacked, let his followers identify a hacker, and encouraged them to go after that hacker. It's a travesty that he isn't rotting in jail and perplexing that even his critics have forgotten his real crime.
The lack of shame is is astounding, both on the part of the Weiners and the Clintons. Moreover the the lack of shame in the Dem Party to run them back out for elections after their chronic moral failures is stunning. Finally that the votes elect these morally bereft candidates is very disheartening.
Can the GOP beat Clinton in '16?
Secretary Clinton is upset because her husband's sex scandals, and her complicity in helping him stay in office (if not lie to the American public), have faded largely into yesterday's news. While they will inevitably be brought up again, if she runs for higher office, lacking currency, they will have little hold on the public eye.
But if Bill and Hillary Clinton come to be seen as the archetypal Democrat power couple, responsible for starting a trend followed by many lesser, but sleazier, politicians, that will bring a new currency to old offenses, and that will tarnish her legacy.
The Clintons can't allow "the Clintons did it" to become a "get out of jail free" card for sex scandals.
I think Patrick hit the nail on the head. Marriages of convenience are still very prevalent among the monied and powered, and actually a strong argument can be made that that is the norm for those strata. and the right thing for them to do as a whole. They have their eyes on bigger prizes and goals.
Romantic marriage is nice and what most of us have, or at least strive for, but rarely is it the right combination for the ambitious. It is truthfully for the bourgeois class, of which I happily consider myself a member.
Huma should have said "Hell, at least he didn't get a blowjob from the internet like Bubba". My man's sexual infraction only involved sending pictures of his genitals out over the internet.
I've never understood how Huma could get into the position of power she had under Hilary. She was Chief of Staff. Then, when Weiner resigned he wound up with a no-show but high paying job.
For a year Huma held both her govt job (in a no-show status but getting a paycheck) as well as working for a Clinton associated firm at a good amt of money.
Prior to all that, a woman who had never earned more than $30-40m per year bought a $450m Georgetown townhouse and had a clothing budget that would gag a horse?
Neither of her parents had any money.
Where is her money coming from? Why does nobody investigate?
Is it coming from the Saudis? Huma was born in the US but lived in Saudi Arabia from about age 2-18. Her mother still lives there, teaching in a university. (Dad is dead)
Saudi's have the perfect carrot. "Hey, Huma, get us this info and we will give you lots of money." And stick "Hey Huma, do this or your mother loses her job, gets arrested ete, etc"
Perhaps she is a money conduit from the Saudi's to the Clintons.
Whatever is going on, one thing is certain: We can't count on the press to investigate or care. No, all they care about is how stylish Huma is.
John Henry
Alright. Comments!
I'm working on a blog post on this right now, and here's the lede: "The talk has been that Huma's like a second daughter to Hillary, but if that scuzzy bitch and her skeevy husband's troubles were to disrupt Madame Secretary's 2016 presidential plans, you'd see Democrat Party crime bosses coming down on the Weiners faster than a pack of Tiparillos on Monica Lewinsky."
In fairness to Huma, Hillary had more to work with in Bill. Weiner was a bad choice in a husband if you're politically ambitious. He's just not likeable.
That said, Huma didn't learn much from Hillary. I'm holding it against Hillary that Huma is such a bad protégé.
Remember that many Democrats thought they had lost their best candidate in 1988 when Gary Hart was forced to drop out, and Bill Clinton quite skillfully played to that.
Also, the guy in the 1992 primary who hid the bigger secret from the voters was Paul Tsongas, who died 2 days before what would have been the end of his first term. His function in the race was to cancel out Jerry Brown, and you've got to figure someone recruited him to do that.
The big mystery of the 1992 election is how the Bill Clinton campaign convinced Ross Perot to stay in the race.
Ross Perot hated adultery, and fired people from his company for it. Yet somehow he was persuaded to get into the race, and to reenter it after he dropped out, to the ultimate benefit of Bill Clinton.
The official story was that Perot hated GHWB, but he ran again in 1996 when GHWB was long gone. That marks him as a ringer.
To paraphrase Harry Truman, the only thing true in politics is the history you don't know.
I see a direct parallel with the Clinton/Monica scandal.
Yes Hillary was not in any office, she stood by while Bill lied his ass off in front of the nation and did nothing (Benghazi parallel?)
She knew he was lieing. She knew his past history. She knew it all but smiled and did the 'good wife' shtick.
So did the Weiners.
"And what Bill had done was worse than what Weiner seems to have done. Bill had sex with other women. Weiner merely sexted."
I really have to argue with the premise of this. Yes, Bill actually got to dip his wick and Weiner didn't, apparently.
But there's moral/immoral and there's normal/abnormal. An affair is immoral but relatively mainstream. A boss diddling some eager young thing is imaginable.
Wacking to sex talk with strangers on the internet, well, it may be normalizing quickly but I think it's weird and icky to most people. It seems more unhealthy, more predatory. It's the difference between hitting on a secretary and leaping out from behind a bush.
So I think most people think, not unreasonably, that what Weiner did is worse, at least in the sense of creepier. We expect horndog politicians to be normal horndogs.
“The Clintons are pissed off that Weiner’s campaign is saying that Huma is just like Hillary,’’ said the source. “How dare they compare Huma with Hillary? Hillary was the first lady. Hillary was a senator. She was secretary of state.”
Hillary... placed a huge bet on a winning horse and has been living off the proceeds. Hillary Rodham, divorced ex wife of a one time frontrunner for the Democratic nomination, is going to have trouble making ends meet at the Rose Law Firm. Meanwhile, Bill Clinton plus wife number two would be a formidable candidate in either 1996 or 2000.
There's a reason people act like doormats to rich and powerful men -- sometimes, it works!
“The Clintons are pissed off that Weiner’s campaign is saying that Huma is just like Hillary,’’ said the source. “How dare they compare Huma with Hillary? Hillary was the first lady. Hillary was a senator. She was secretary of state.”
Hillary... placed a huge bet on a winning horse and has been living off the proceeds. Hillary Rodham, divorced ex wife of a one time frontrunner for the Democratic nomination, is going to have trouble making ends meet at the Rose Law Firm. Meanwhile, Bill Clinton plus wife number two would be a formidable candidate in either 1996 or 2000.
There's a reason people act like doormats to rich and powerful men -- sometimes, it works!
Is it inconceivable that both HRC and HA really love their husbands even if part of that love is fueled by an attraction to power? Those two men would not be my choice for a husband but once chosen, I would try to stick by my vows and, if I loved someone, I wouldn't just give up at the first, second or third sign of trouble.
Is it inconceivable that both HRC and HA really love their husbands even if part of that love is fueled by an attraction to power? Those two men would not be my choice for a husband but once chosen, I would try to stick by my vows and, if I loved someone, I wouldn't just give up at the first, second or third sign of trouble.
As far as being a candidate for holding governmental power, I would say Weiner is just as bad, if not worse. His actions were (Are? He could still be doing this.) so absurdly brazen. Clearly, he would be caught; he had to know that. He was trusting total strangers with embarrassing and incredibly damaging information. Then he tried to use his limited power to control people.
A self-destructive exhibitionist on a power trip should not be anywhere near real power.
Irrespective of how Hil and Bill fell about it, that "dutiful, loving, forgiving wife" schtick was getting a little old. I can't wait for the day a political wife stands up in front of the microphones, waves a bloody plastic bag, and yells "Here are his testicles; he won't be doing that again!"
I would pay good money to see Hillary and her pet Huma do a rousing rendition of Standby By Your Man. Is it too late for them to apologize to Tammy Wynette?
The Upper East Side Swells can't laugh at the flyover rubes anymore. Not when a Dick and a John are the front runners for the mayoral primary.
I actually think both of these woman love their husbands, hate the humiliation but politics is the family business.
The people forgive. The people of South Carolina voted their cheatin' ex Governor to the Congress. So some here think sexting is worse than physical cheating? How does lusting in the mind rate?
As for the wives who stand by their man after such activity, it appears to me that their political aspirations to be first lady has clouded their judgment.
The important thing to remember is that this was the public's first meeting with HRC. And what was she doing? Lying. And she's been lying ever since, up through Bengazi. It's that simple, they are lying liars and always have been.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा