Or they really shouldn't be pushing their bona fides on women’s rights. Because Bill Clinton is a "guy who was using his position of authority to take advantage of young women in the workplace.” Paul cites the figure $850,000 as the amount paid to Paula Jones to settle her sexual harassment complaint.
And Democratic Senator Claire McCaskill of Missouri said "I don’t want my daughter near [Bill Clinton]." But that was back in 2006.
"'Hate' is too weak a word to describe the feelings that Hillary’s core loyalists still have for McCaskill," according to a new book, "HRC: State Secrets and the Rebirth of Hillary Clinton."
McCaskill supported Obama in '08, but she needs to get right with the Clintons. Here she is, stepping up to defend them now, against the righteous gender politics of Rand Paul. She says: "I think most women understand that they should not be held accountable for the behaviors of their husbands. And you know, frankly, it was a long time ago, and our country did very well under the leadership of Bill Clinton."
I don't get the applicability of the general proposition that "women... should not be held accountable for the behaviors of their husbands." When a woman allies with a man and remain allied with him as she seeks vast political power, how can she disaggregate herself from him? She actively facilitated him, and she did it in a way that was also about furthering her own career:
Surely, she's accountable for that! This isn't about some little woman who stayed home and baked cookies and had teas. This is Hillary Clinton, who was there actively fighting right alongside her husband, and who went on to leverage her experience in that role in a climb to immense power.
I think Republicans mostly get into trouble trying to play the gender politics game against the Democrats, but Rand Paul seems to have some special power and will to step up and play. It's quite helpful, healthy, and refreshing. I will take a front-row seat as an avid spectator on days when Rand Paul is playing.
এতে সদস্যতা:
মন্তব্যগুলি পোস্ট করুন (Atom)
পোস্টগুলি
৫২টি মন্তব্য:
Lets remember that the White House was all set to destroy Monica Lewinsky and portray her as the crazy woman. But for her keeping the dress with the semen stain on it.
In retrospect that was pretty smart on her part.
And Hillary, with her "vast right wing conspiracy" talk would have gone right along with the smear.
I actually think it's raw and dirty politics.
I see HIllary as the victim in the adultery of Bill Clinton. I see her refusal to divorce him as noble and loving, and good for her child. I see that as basic Christianity. I might be wrong, and maybe it's political calculation all the way down. But I'm not that cynical.
Both McCain and Romney refused to go negative on Obama. They were afraid of being called racist. And they both lost.
Rand Paul is signaling to Hillary, to Democrats, and to his fellow Republicans, that he is willing to play that mean political game.
Yet it's an indirect attack. Instead of attacking Hillary, with the media slamming him for misogyny, he is attacking her husband.
This works. Of course it works. You are judged by your spouse.
Your husband is a whore, Hillary. Defend his honor! Maybe you should just punch Rand Paul in the face or something.
and our country did very well under the leadership of Bill Clinton."
Under whose Executive branch, banks were coerced to lending good money to bad risks for housing 'ownership' - setting off the real estate bubble whose bust set off the disasters of 2008.
Great leadership, Bill.
Excerpt From Stephen King's "The Intern in the Attic":
Everything Will be Fine, Hillary Told Herself, Not Quite Believing it. As She Consoled herself That the Demons of the Past were Long Gone the Monster in the Blue Dress would Appear in Her Dreams -- or were They Even Dreams? What if it Was All Too Real?
(Don't Think That Way, Hillary. The Past is the Past, There is No Monster).
And Yet, There it Stood, the Monster in the Blue Dress, the Blue Dress with the Stain That Kept Moving and Circling and Growing Ever Larger, Brighter, as if It Were a Living, Sentient Being.Hillary Knew This Could Not Be Happening, But Somehow It Was. The Malicious Stain Whispered Too Her in Tones Both Soothing and Menacing:
"I Am a Stain of Pleasure: I Have No Intent to Harm You."
But That Wasn't True: the Presence of the Stain on the Monster in the Blue Dress Soaked into Her Psyche, Congealed on Her Soul.
(Don't Think That Way, Hillary. The Stain is in the Past: in the PAST!).
Hillary Closed Her Eyes Tightly, Shaking Her Fists: "Go Away, Stain, Go Away!"
(Is IT Still There? Is IT? When I Open My Eyes It Will Be Gone and This Will have Been Nothing But a DREAM.)
While Hillary Squeezed Her Eyes Shut to Close Off the Monster a Cigar Box Silently Opened in the Corner of the Room...
Not sure this tactic played this way by Paul can ward off the Billary attack machine.
How many lamps must one throw?
Hillary is no victim.
She knew Bill fucked other women and stayed with him anyways for personal career goals, political gain and MONEY.
Hillary actively conspired to hide his infidelity and the sexual harassment of his female employees by characterizing the truth as a mere political conspiracy of the GOP and denigrated the women Bill fucked as crazy lying sluts.
That feminists still support both of these people shows that feminists are liars about their concern for women victims of sexually predatory men. Feminists are fine with sexually predatory men, as long as their political agenda of sexist supremacy over men is supported in the long term.
I would like to give Hillary the high road in regard to Bill's serial adultery but in view of the total Clinton political package, I cannot. Whatever her side of the deal, she's every bit as responsible for the pattern once in reached the level of his first presidential campaign. She knew and allowed it.
Rand has that cute curly hair. Unpresidential hair but cute.
Has Walker figured out how to cover the bald spot yet?
SteveR said...
I would like to give Hillary the high road in regard to Bill's serial adultery but in view of the total Clinton political package, I cannot. Whatever her side of the deal, she's every bit as responsible for the pattern once in reached the level of his first presidential campaign. She knew and allowed it.
I do not get the part where she allows it. As if she could stop him?
I do not like Hillary. I think she is a liar. But I don't get why it's wrong for her to stay married to promote her ambition. That's not exactly an uncommon thing. Nor is she pretending that there is nothing wrong with the marriage. She's being practical--a good trait if she were also an honest person.
awesome, betamax, just awesome.
Rand has big balls- he wants to make a big impact in the Imperial City. That is a good trait.
also I like
I Constantly Check eBay for One of Althouse's Baby Teeth But I Have Yet to Find One: This Interferes with My Plans.
too funny
Ain't gonna happen.
But it is SOOOOOOOOO refreshing to see to see a little "back at ya."
For decades we've watched jaw-dropping outrageous statements and demands from Democrats without the opposition or (more disappointingly) the press waving the BullShit flag.
Yes she "allowed" it as part of the power game, she wouldn't have allowed it as the ex-wife of a ex Arkansas governor. But she chose to allow it.
Hillary should have confronted Bill and demanded he apologize and seek redemption for his long career of sexual harassment.
Rand Paul should probably give up any money raised by Rand Paul, since he kidnapped a young woman and tried to force her to get high. Something about glass houses.
Rand Paul should probably give up any money raised by Rand Paul, since he kidnapped a young woman and tried to force her to get high. Something about glass houses.
"She knew Bill fucked other women and stayed with him anyways for personal career goals, political gain and MONEY."
OK, but that is the deal women have always made -- the only deal on offer. Once he has knocked you up a time or two, you are stuck with him, and can only hope for the best. "For richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health." Bake some cookies, Mrs. Clinton, and make some tea. No more Mr. NiceGuy, once there is no more Miss Rodham.
The interesting thing for me about Hillary! is that she was almost scitzoid about her husband's philandering ways. She had a vigorous bimbo patrol going on, to try to prevent her husband from being alone with any woman not old enough to be his mother. On the other side, she ran the efforts to smear and destroy the women whom her husband had done in one way or another. They may have been raped, be the object of sexual exploitation, or the liaison may have been completely voluntary on the part of the women. In all cases, Hillary! seemed to be the one leading their persecution and destruction. And, for that, she deserves no credence as an advocate for women. They weren't all willing - we probably never knew about many of the willing women. Some were raped, and some were pressured into sexual acts. And, yet, Hillary! was willing to destroy them for her husband's political advantage, and for her own political advantage in the future.
In Bruce's response I see a "Hillary is Mia" trauma. She is traumatized by his adultery. Not at the level of Mia Farrow. Bill has committed old-fashioned adultery (over and over and over). But there was no seduction of her own child, no unspeakable outrage.
But adultery sucks, right? And she has responded with control freak gusto. Destroy these women. It's their fault. They are wrecking our plans! You weak man.
I think there has to be lots of hostility and anger there. And she's pushing it out on the other women. It's their fault.
I really don' get all this hatred towards Hillary Clinton, especially when it turns into denigration of her looks - just as right wing nut jobs rip into Michelle Obama.
She, quite simply, has tenacious political ambitions. No, I don't like her - she lies and deceives, devious, even - but ripping into how she looks is crass and typically means you have nothing to say, joking about fashion faux-pas is one thing, but she really isn't ugly. If one thinks so, they need to look in the mirror.
Indeed, she does have a certain charisma - and really that's what it comes down to. Does Rand Paul has the charisma to defeat Hillary charisma?
Does Rand think politicians who raised money through neo-Nazi newsletters should give the money back?
Someone should ask him.
I really don' get all this hatred towards Hillary Clinton, especially when it turns into denigration of her looks - just as right wing nut jobs rip into Michelle Obama.
She, quite simply, has tenacious political ambitions. No, I don't like her - she lies and deceives, devious,"
You answered your own question.
The utter phoniness and hypocrisy of this woman is plenty reason to despise her.
I don't disagree with Paul's assessment of Clinton, but his personal behavior can be disassociated from campaign contributions - particularly by the moral relativists who tend to contribute to Democrats.
No enemies on the left. come on McCatkill - drop your principles just like Bill dropped trousers. You can do it. It's for the greater good.
At least Donna Hanover got a court order to keep Rudy Giuliani out of Gracie Mansion after he cheated on her. I can respect her for that. I can't respect Hiliary over the way she let Bill walk all over her. In fact, a woman who allows her husband to tray her with disrespect will allow anyone to do that to her. Weakness in a politician is never rewarded.
I really don' get all this hatred towards Hillary Clinton, especially when it turns into denigration of her looks - just as right wing nut jobs rip into Michelle Obama.
Agree. Their physical problems are mostly out of their control. My understanding is that Hillary!'s elephant legs are a result of complications from her pregnancy. And, Michelle's weight problems (and probably the opposite for her husband) are primarily the result of genetics.
But, that doesn't mean that both aren't hard left progressive zealots, likely to the left of their husbands. And, given their druthers, would implement a socialist Utopia with them in the position of everyone being equal, but they being much, much, more equal. The difference, maybe, is that Hillary! may have always been an opportunistic grifter, seeing that advocating progressive politics was a route to the sort of insane wealth that she and her husband have acquired. Michelle may actually be a true believer. Neither though is good for the country.
Treat, not tray.
Other than forgiving Bill, getting elected and appointed, Hillary's life has been devoid of positive, substantive achievement since she stopped practicing law.
In her only real job, she was responsible for purveying the worst foreign policy in my lifetime and lying about its shortcomings.
She is electable because she is a woman and only because she is a woman.
Obama was electable because he was black and only because he was black.
Hillary ought not to lose because she is responsible for Bill's sexual infirmities, but because she is unqualified and a liar.
She enabled a rapist. Fuck her (metaphorically, of course).
"Rand Paul should probably give up any money raised by Rand Paul, since he kidnapped a young woman and tried to force her to get high. Something about glass houses."
What ????
No doubt you have a source.
Paul is handing Hitlery Zyklon B to gas the republicans with. Why else would the MSM give him so much face time?
I wonder what a president would be entitled to do according to McCaskill if he presided over a truly great economy, i.e., one not built on the illusion of the internet economy that would later lead to the destructive housing bubble (and then the Great Recession). Would that president, so long as he spoke the language of progressivism, be allowed to rape, torture and murder his female subordinates?
Rand Paul is skirmishing in the Republican War on Women more than the Republican effort to defeat Hillary. It is very effective if he can get women to contemplate how actual Democrats treat actual women as Democrats blather on about abortion and the free stuff for women that Democrats have on offer.
"She enabled a rapist."
Agree. How come no one ever mentions Juanita Broaddrick anymore?
Hillary! is no victim; she is 1/2 of Clinton, Inc.
"it was a long time ago"
"what difference does it make now anyway"
Slavery, and the "jim crow south" well that ended at about oh I'd say 9:15 last night.....
If Rand Paul can get away with attacking Hillary through Bill, then others will try it. If they can get away with THAT, then some will start attacking Hillary for her failures as Secretary of State (Benghazi, Russia, etc.) and her non-existent record of accomplishments. If they get away with that, she's toast. Her only hope is that, because she's a woman (and a wronged woman to boot!), it is impermissible to attack her.
The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different result.
The folks know Clinton is a horn dog and they know that many believe he is a rapist.
Impeachment failed.
Yet, he remains the most popular politician alive today.
Whatever deal Obama offered Hillary! as Secretary of State, I am sure it did not include freedom to run her own foreign policy, though I suspect that she and her clique did venture out on that anyway, and that is what is behind the reaction at State when Benghazi blew up in the night.
As for accomplishments, the Clintons are reported to control nearly a billion dollars worth of assets, and that is not hay for a couple starting out in politics with nothing but student debt!
Good to see Republicans can also play "battlespace preparation."
Rand Paul is skirmishing in the Republican War on Women more than the Republican effort to defeat Hillary. It is very effective if he can get women to contemplate how actual Democrats treat actual women as Democrats blather on about abortion and the free stuff for women that Democrats have on offer.
Read something awesome at NRO today, from Kevin Williamson. It's called The Feminist Mystique.
screen-split 4 ways. pics clockwise of Wiley, Lewnisky, Jones, Brodderick.
voiceover: "these women were Democrats just like you, true believers and loyal to the cause. Hillary Clinton was willing to throw them under the bus to remain politically viable for the future. And here we are...."
The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different result.
The folks know C……..the most popular politician alive today.
Howard reveals his horror that Rand Paul is showing how to parry the formerly deadly "War on Womyn" attacks.
Democrats all silently acknowledge that if there is a tendency towards criminality and perversion against women it resides in many Democrat leaders.
Bob Feulner, Anthony Weiner, Eliot Spitzer, and numerous Democrat committee men found with child pornography on their computers.
War on Womyn !!!!!!!
Unknown:
the horror, the horror. The self-immolation of republicans driven by petty rage and jealousy will only result in Hilary's victory. It's a loser strategy that has a long, repeated history of backfiring. You seem proud of your own blindness and stupidity.
It is apparent that is the motto of teabaggers: Please tread on me, over and over again.
Interesting how tepid the defense of the Clintons was on this post. I think Hillary will win in 2016 on the free-stuff vote alone but there will be a Romneyesque lack of enthusiasm, even among her apologists.
stlcdr wrote:
really don' get all this hatred towards Hillary Clinton, especially when it turns into denigration of her looks - just as right wing nut jobs rip into Michelle Obama."
I woudn't denigrate her looks. she was not unnatractive in her younger days. And even in the linked video above she's not hideous.
একটি মন্তব্য পোস্ট করুন