Follow by Email

Monday, December 28, 2015

Ruth Marcus, "Trump is right: Bill Clinton’s sordid sexual history is fair game": And Is Hillary's Sexual History, or Lack Thereof, Also Fair Game?



In a Washington Post op-ed entitled "Trump is right: Bill Clinton’s sordid sexual history is fair game," uber-liberal Ruth Marcus remarkably observes that "Bill Clinton’s conduct toward women is far worse than any of the offensive things that Trump has said." Marcus concludes:

"What is the relevance of Bill Clinton’s conduct for Hillary Clinton’s campaign? Ordinarily, I would argue that the sins of the husband should not be visited on the wife. What Bill Clinton did counts against him, not her, and I would include in that her decision to stick with him. What happens inside a marriage is the couple’s business, and no one else’s, even when both halves crave the presidency.

But Hillary Clinton has made two moves that lead me, gulp, to agree with Trump on the 'fair game' front. She is (smartly) using her husband as a campaign surrogate, and simultaneously (correctly) calling Trump sexist.

These moves open a dangerous door. It should surprise no one that Trump has barged right through it."

I agree with Marcus that Hillary is trying to have it both ways when she allows her husband, who abused women yet otherwise is perceived as a successful American president, to campaign on her behalf. This is not far afield from claiming that women's rights are at the center of her agenda, after having accepted millions of dollars of donations to the Clinton Foundation from Saudi Arabia, which by any standard oppresses women.

However, I do not agree with Marcus that "What happens inside a marriage is the couple’s business, and no one else’s, even when both halves crave the presidency." If Hillary were to be elected in November 2016, would Bill accompany her to the White House, even if the couple is no longer intimate? And if Bill is or has recently been involved with other women, does this not possess the potential for future security problems involving, for example, blackmail? Could it not otherwise detrimentally affect Hillary's future ability to function as president?

Similarly, if Hillary is having, or has had in recent years, an intimate relationship with someone other than Bill, and this is not revealed prior to the election, could this also pose future security problems for the United States? Shouldn't the public know whether or not she is having or has had any such relationship?

Sorry, Ruth, but no one is forcing Hillary to run for the highest office in the land, and if she wants the job, she had best be ready to accept a higher level of scrutiny of her personal life.

No comments:

Post a Comment