A new book by American Spectator founder and Editor in Chief R. Emmett Tyrell is set for release next week and it will put the Hillary campaign on defense for sure. According to The Clinton Crack-Up, Bill didn’t quit his womanizing after he left the White House. I’d like to know who actually thought he would when he had a lot of time on his hands and Hillary was busy in the Senate. From The Examiner:
Tyrrell claims that Bill Clinton has continued to womanize since he left office in 2001.
“During Clinton’s retirement there have been other ladies, though most, according to my sources, have been one-night stands with hostesses on Clinton’s speaking tours,” Tyrrell writes. “Some of these girl-hops, sources report, took place in Ireland, France, Australia, Taiwan, Rio, and London.” Tyrrell also claims Bill took to jet-setting in order to offset depression and a difficult domestic living situation with Hillary. (“The tirades and flying objects directed by her at Bill’s defenseless skull are not fictions invented by Clinton-haters. … There would be more spousal abuse during Clinton’s retirement when his amours threatened Hillary’s political longevity.”)
“The Clinton Crack-Up” takes the 42nd president to task for his pardons, his financial ties to China and the United Arab Emirates and his poor track record helping Democratic candidates win elections: “[T]he Clintons have never been particularly good for the Democratic Party.”
When the Clintons were in the White House, Hillary’s positives went up whenever Bill was embroiled in a new sex scandal because it appeared the American people felt sorry for her. But here she is, six years later, still married to Bill and he is allegedly still cheating on her. (Does anyone think Tyrell’s allegations are not true?) Will the MSM defend her against these new allegations about Bill? Probably. But, here’s an interesting question to consider: what if this were a male candidate for president, and it was revealed that his wife was a habitual cheater? How would the media treat him? His candidacy would be finished because no one would respect him. So why do the Democrats still stand by Hillary after all of Bill’s affairs?
Update: Liberal commenter Lee writes in response:
I have no idea if he allegations are true or not – but why on earth would Hillary be “on the defense” for Bill’s supposed indiscretions?
The fact that she refuses to stand up and say “enough!” is a reflection on her poor judgment not to mention poor sense of self-worth. She is more than capable of being on her own. Why must she remain married to Bill? How many times must a woman be cheated on before she finally demands that she be treated with some respect? And if she has no problem with his cheating, then, she has even more serious issues with judgment and should not be anywhere near the presidency, let alone, the Senate.
And then Lee makes this snarky remark about conservative women:
You conservative women sure have some outdated ideas of a woman’s rolein a marriage, career, politics, etc…
Expecting fidelity in a marriage is outdated, huh, Lee? Would your girlfriend/fiancee/wife agree with you on that? Is Lee’s take going to be the defense that the left is going to use regarding Bill’s cheating on Hillary? We’ll find out.
According to Lee, my questioning Hillary’s judgment because she has stayed married to a man who has cheated on her for, well their entire marriage, shows that I’m stuck in a 19th century mentality, riding in the back of the covered wagon relying on my husband to steer our way forward. Hillary, on the other hand, still being married to a serial cheater proves that she’s truly liberated and is “driving her own wagon.” Actually, Lee, your metaphor, albeit completely twisted and asinine, is incomplete. Hillary may be driving the wagon, but Bill is inside banging the help.