Maureen Dowd has yet to appreciate Hillary Clinton's finer points, whatever they may be.
After more than a month's absence from the op-ed page, Maureen Dowd is back today with a New York Times opinion piece entitled "Leo, Hillary and Their Bears." Referring to recent references by Trump to "the Clintons’ tangled conjugal life," Dowd goes on to say of the Donald:
"[H]e’s wielding his knife on her most sensitive pressure point: her hypocrisy in running as a feminist icon when she was part of political operations that smeared women who told the truth about Bill’s transgressions.
. . . .
[H]e knows that a retrospective of the Clintons’ cynical campaigns against 'bimbo eruptions' will not play well in a politically correct society sensitized by epidemics of rape in colleges and the military and by the Cosby effect.
Bill hid behind the skirts of feminists — including his wife and esteemed women in his cabinet — when he got caught playing around. And feminists, eager to protect his progressive agenda on women, allowed the women swirling around Bill to become collateral damage, torched as trailer trash or erotomaniacs."
Indeed, Hillary has a problem. Pretending that women's rights are at the center of her agenda, notwithstanding the receipt of millions of dollars of donations to the Clinton Foundation from Saudi Arabia which is none too friendly to females who have been gang raped, she tweeted on November 22, 2015:
"Every survivor of sexual assault deserves to be heard, believed, and supported."
And in a blast from the past, Juanita Broaddrick tweeted on January 6, 2016:
"I was 35 years old when Bill Clinton, Ark. Attorney General raped me and Hillary tried to silence me. I am now 73....it never goes away."
Apparently, it's also never going to go away for Hillary, despite the connivance of many progressive media outlets, which cannot bring themselves to examine the unorthodox rules underlying the Clintons' union. The end, i.e. Hillary as Commander-in-Chief as a happy sequel to the administration of the Philanderer-in-Chief, justifies the means, doesn't it boys and girls?