Both couples currently vying for the presidential nominations for the Democrat and Republican parties have a history of adultery in their past. Donald Trump has been married three times and has admitted to infidelity in the past, and Hillary Clinton’s husband Bill has more extramarital affairs in his past for anyone to get an accurate count.
In addition to the affairs, there was even an accusation of rape before the couple entered the White House.
During a phone interview on the Today show with host Savannah Guthrie, Trump discussed the fact that Bill’s affairs would be fair game. Guthrie mentioned Trump’s own affairs, asking if they too would be fair game.
There are key differences between the two men’s affairs that the liberal media will not admit.
- Bill Clinton’s affairs largely took place in the context of a professional environment, in government, where salaries were paid with tax dollars.
- Clinton used his professional power to lure women into relationships with him. While women were drawn to Trump because of financial acumen, they never had to rely on him for professional advancement.
- Clinton lied to the American people and under oath about his affairs.
What does Hillary have to do with her husband’s misconduct? The Atlantic pulls together the arguments as to why why her actions during the affairs are relevant, even a decade later:
Any attack on Hillary Clinton would have to clear a high hurdle: The public wisely presumes that it’s unfair to attack a woman for her husband’s misbehavior. Clinton’s most persuasive critics argue that they’re not attacking her for her husband’s transgressions, but for compounding them by attacking his victims. These critiques have come from the feminist left as often as the Clinton-hating right. For example, Dave Weigel notes that MSNBC host and academic Melissa Harris-Perry is among the feminists who have expressed biting criticism of Hillary Clinton’s behavior. The years-old analysis says Clinton “made an appalling choice as a feminist—not that she stayed with her husband, but that she did not speak out in defense of a barely-older-than-teenage girl who was harassed by her husband … And then she used that experience to create sympathy for herself.”
The New Republic’s Isaac Chotiner points to evidence that Hillary Clinton expressed contempt for “whiney women” who accused GOP Senator Bob Packwood of sexual harassment, and concludes that she benefits from a double-standard:
Try the following thought experiment: Chris Christie, or Sarah Palin, or Andrew Cuomo is asked by a friend about sexual harassment allegations against a powerful Senator. Christie, or Palin, or Cuomo responds that he or she is tired of all these whiny women. Now imagine the friend’s records are released. What would be the reaction in the media and among feminist organizations? It is inconceivable that there would not be an uproar, a forced apology, and some articles about how this will hurt the prospective candidate …
As he notes, other mainstream-media journalists have highlighted this side of Clinton in the past. Melinda Henneberger put it this way in a 2008 Slate article:
After the Gennifer Flowers story came out during her husband’s ’92 presidential run, her response, according to Carl Bernstein, was to throw herself into efforts to discredit Flowers and to try to persuade horrified campaign aides to bring out rumors that Poppy Bush had not always been faithful to Barbara.
Henneberger also co-wrote a piece with Dahlia Lithwick that is even harder on Clinton:
… she consistently relates to and protects and stands with the oppressors in the gender wars, not the victims. It isn’t only that she stayed with Bill Clinton, but that she invariably sees him as the victim, preyed upon by a series of female aggressors. According to Carl Bernstein’s A Woman in Charge, as her husband prepared to run for president, she pushed to get sworn statements from women he’d been rumored to have been involved with … She even interviewed one of these women herself, at her law firm. She also led efforts to undermine Gennifer Flowers, whom she referred to as “trailer trash.”
In their analysis, “Hillary Clinton the candidate has largely benefited from her husband’s extracurricular activities. That’s because—and this is the tragic part—America seems to like her best when she’s being victimized—by Bill or Rick Lazio or the media.”
Trump’s infidelity is inexcusable. But there’s a fundamental difference between being a flawed man and a predator – and that’s why it’s so important in this election.
Do you think Trump should discuss the Clinton affairs given his past indiscretions or would another Republican candidate be better suited for the GOP nomination? Tell us what you think in the comments section below.