Some of my political (and life) givens:
When someone appears to be a nutter it is easy to dismiss them.
When that same person is not intellectually curious it is not unusual to dismiss their intelligence.
Both of these can easily be wrong.
And just because someone is of a certain gender or of a certain race does not make them the most reliable advocate for that gender or race.
The media appears to be puzzled by Donald Trump’s crude attempts to attack Hillary Clinton relative to her feminism. Trump appears to not be particularly interested in developing policy. What he has become is a media master – he introduces a subject as titillating as he feels possible and those that resonate remain and those that don’t are quickly forgotten. This is not the action of a person who does not have an inkling of what he is doing. Donald Trump is crazy like a fox and knows how to use the media better than any of his opponents.
Relative to gender and feminism the Donald sees a weakness in the Hillary campaign that no other candidate seems to sense. What every pundit is ignoring that young women and men did not watch the political world with Bill Clinton. He is an old man know and some of his youthful charm has faded. Not having personal experience with a person or event makes that person or event new to the next generation. That is why every fifteen or twenty years movie studios can recycle movies and for the younger audience it is a new, fresh event.
Trump knows this and knows he may be able to get some mileage out of Bill Clinton’s philandering. If not, like so many other situations on this long primary road, he’ll just drop the matter. Also, younger people are less forgiving of bad acts they do not relate to – like being a sexual predator and then having the wife be the staunchest defender. After all, comments Hillary has made about Paula Jones and Monica Lewinsky and Gennifer Flowers and Kathleen Willey are those of an enabler and might not set well with millennials. But until this matter plays out….
“Also on Wednesday night, Katrina Pierson, a Trump spokeswoman, in effect called Hillary Clinton a hypocrite for scolding Trump over sexism while she remains married to Bill Clinton, whose personal life back in the 1990s was frequent tabloid fodder. While president, Clinton paid $850,000 to Paula Jones to settle a long-running sexual harassment lawsuit, admitted he had a sexual relationship with former Arkansas state employee Gennifer Flowers and engaged in a tryst with White House intern Monica Lewinsky, which led to his impeachment in 1998.”
“Hillary Clinton has some nerve to talk about the war on women and the bigotry toward women when she has a serious problem in her husband,” Pierson told CNN’s Kate Bolduan on “Erin Burnett OutFront.”
“Pierson went on to compare the Clinton campaign to “9-year-old little girls,” and accused Clinton of bullying.”
“I can think of quite a few women who have been bullied by Hillary Clinton to hide her husband’s misogynist, sexist secrets,” Pierson said. http://edition.cnn.com/2015/12/26/politics/donald-trump-bill-clinton-sexism/index.html
“Responding to a recently-disclosed 1998 conversation between Mrs Clinton and a confidante, in which the former First Lady described Miss Lewinsky as a “narcissistic loony toon”, said if that were “the worst thing she said, I should be so lucky”.
“In an essay for Vanity Fair, Ms Lewinsky writes: “Hillary Clinton wanted it on record that she was lashing out at her husband’s mistress. She may have faulted her husband for being inappropriate, but I find her impulse to blame the Woman – not only me, but herself – troubling.” http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/10811894/Monica-Lewinsky-Hillary-Clinton-blamed-the-woman-for-Bill-Clintons-affair.html
“Okay, class, let’s review: The man in question has been sued for sexual harassment over an episode that allegedly included dropping his trousers to waggle his erect penis at a woman who held a $6.35-an-hour clerical job in the state government over which he presided. Another woman has charged that when she asked him for a job he invited her into his private office, fondled her breasts, and placed her hand on his crotch. A third woman confided to friends that when she was a 21-year-old intern she began an affair with the man—much older, married, and the head of the organization whose lowliest employee she was. Actually, it was less an affair than a service contract, in which she allegedly dashed into his office, when summoned, to perform oral sex on him. After their liaison was revealed, he denied everything, leaving her to be portrayed as a tramp and a liar. Or, in his own words, “that woman.”
“Let us not even mention the former lover who was steered to a state job; or the law-enforcement officers who say the man used them to solicit sexual partners for him; or his routine use of staff members, lawyers, and private investigators to tar the reputation of any woman who tries to call him to account for his actions.”
“The president should be setting some sort of example in the workplace,” says the outrageous libertarian writer Camille Paglia, who has gained prominence in part for denouncing liberal feminists. “That’s all I’m talking about. In. The. Workplace…. Since when did the president use the interns as a dessert cart? ‘Mmmmm, she looks good!’ When did that become okay?”
“In each woman’s case, there is enough we don’t know to support a respectable claim of ignorance. The individual pieces of the Clinton saga are complex, snaky things with their own tawdry confusions. But these are precisely the complications that Clinton has capitalized on. The truth is that, while a lot of the facts are murky, enough of them are clear. We have good evidence, for example, that Clinton, as governor of Arkansas, had a state trooper escort Paula Jones to his suite at Little Rock’s Excelsior Hotel during her work hours, and we know that she gave contemporaneous accounts of the meeting to several witnesses which closely track the allegations in her lawsuit. We know that there is extensive evidence of a relationship between Clinton and Lewinsky that has not been challenged by the administration. We know that Arkansas state troopers have said under oath that Clinton used them to enable his sexual escapades in Little Rock. And we know that Clinton has lied about his past behavior—including the sizable lie that underlay the supposedly informed decision of the American people that they didn’t care about his womanizing: his elaborately careful 1992 denials of his affair with Gennifer Flowers.”
“In easing past the contradictions of the feminist class system, Hillary Clinton is the crucial figure. It’s common knowledge that she has been her husband’s most important protector. “The fact that Hillary doesn’t seem bothered by it gives women an excuse, in a way, to be tolerant of his behavior,” says Radcliffe Public Policy Institute fellow Wendy Kaminer.”
“But less appreciated is a second, more subtle way in which Hillary has shielded her husband. She is, in effect, his feminist beard: the symbolic guarantor of his political bona fides. He may hit on women like Gennifer Flowers and Paula Jones, her presence says, but when it came to sharing a home (and a presidency), he chose a woman like me. Again and again, feminists cite the Hillary factor as mitigating evidence. Gloria Steinem told me, “He’s married to a woman who’s at least his equal, whom he clearly likes and respects.” This apparently makes it okay that when he chooses a sex partner he’s looking—in the words of a former Clinton staffer—“for a dopey girl who’s not going to make him send flowers.”
“In some ways, it’s baffling that feminists can still argue seriously that one Hillary trumps a multitude of Monicas. Even leaving aside Clinton’s repeated public humiliations of his wife, she’s always been a dubious feminist heroine: after all, she married her power, and in the White House she has wielded it without accountability. In truth, there’s an awful affront to women in the apparently sharp distinctions that Clinton draws between the kind of woman you marry and the kind of woman you seek out for pleasure. We were supposed to be doing away with the Madonna and the whore—or at least trying to integrate them.” http://www.vanityfair.com/magazine/1998/05/williams199805