Hillary Clinton as enabler meme won't matter

Just assail her logic instead, okay?
By Dean L

Earlier this week I was quick to note the Free Beacon story about Hillary Clinton's mean-spiritedness.  That meme will be worth holding onto for the 2016 presidential elections.  But the one that confuses me is the notion being played up in some quarters that Hillary Clinton's biggest problem going into 2016 relates to her role as an enabler to Bill Clinton's philandering.  But those circles seem to be over-weighted to Democrats who'd like to see Republicans go after her for that.

Bloomberg, an arguably liberal news organization notes:
How responsible is a wife for the betrayal of her husband?

In the case of Hillary Clinton, the answer is, a lot, according to Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus and Senator Rand Paul.
Rand Paul? He doesn't seem like the type of guy for whom this would be a top shelf concern. It may be a feint by the GOP - an attempt to distract Democrats from their real playbook for 2016 - in which case I applaud the GOP. The article continues, and shows why Democrats would want the GOP to stick with the meme:
The charge against Hillary is that she was an enabler, not a victim, of her husband's extramarital affairs, a long string of which culminated in the White House encounters with Monica Lewinsky.

Recalling a 1998 conversation, Blair wrote: “HRC insists, no matter what people say, it was gross inappropriate behavior but it was consensual (was not a power relationship) and was not sex within real meaning.”

As engrossing as it is to get inside Hillary's mind, to use Bill Clinton's behavior against Hillary requires that you think she let the philandering happen, that she somehow deserved it (she's often portrayed as cold and withholding), that she did nothing to stop it, blamed the other woman, and through it all, didn't suffer.

Her first reaction about Monica was the one many of us would have: This can't be true; surely, not in the Oval Office (or the adjoining study), surely not with an employee; surely not someone young enough to be his daughter. Then came the second thought: How do I protect Chelsea, calm the rabble hounding us on the front lawn night and day, keep our enemies from using it?

What she didn't do was leave. But since when do we punish people for NOT breaking up their marriages? Aren't Republicans the family values folks? And her instinct was to believe her husband above the women with whom he strayed. Who wouldn't?
Democrats want the GOP to go after Hillary, whom they can easily and credibly paint as the victim in this case. Big mean old Republicans are going after poor victimized Hillary. It cancels out the mean Hillary notion almost entirely. After all, the stuff in the Free Beacon article are only one person's opinions of her. It's anecdotal evidence at best. It also leans a little Alinsky as a liberal tactic: conservatives are attacking Hillary for holding to family values? That's hypocritical. That counter-argument can also be effective with a willing media helping out Democrats in any way possible.

Conservatives would be better suited politically to focus on her temperament as an extension of her policies (or vice-versa) rather than digging up a past sordid affair (literally). It doesn't advance our policy position. It seems petty and hypocritical. Just because that's the approach Democrats might have taken if this were a GOP candidate, doesn't mean conservatives and/or the GOP should try to play the hand the way Democrats would, or would want us to play it.

24 comments:

  1. But, but...Bill wasn't unfaithful! He was merely the victim of a Vast Right Wing Conspiracy! I distinctly remember Hillary telling me that!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hillary says whatever is convenient in the moment. That is, if she can figure out what is convenient in the moment. I'll skip over the glaring Benghazi example tthat you have detailed so well Proof, and offer a different example. Remember during the Democratic primary debate in 2007 when she vacilated over driver's licenses for illegal immigrants? [ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_B0uHybfmmY ] That's a great example of her wanting to say what is convenient in the moment but not actually being sure what is convenient. That's leadership. Well, it's leadership if you consider triangulation actual leadership. Once a Clinton, always a Clinton.

      Delete
    2. And, as Jonah Goldberg pointed out, Hillary is Obamacare's Grandmother...
      http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/2014/02/obamacares-grandmother.html

      Delete
  2. .

    "Conservatives would be better suited politically to focus on her temperament as an extension of her policies (or vice-versa) rather than digging up a past sordid affair (literally). It doesn't advance our policy position. It seems petty and hypocritical. Just because that's the approach Democrats might have taken if this were a GOP candidate, doesn't mean conservatives and/or the GOP should try to play the hand the way Democrats would, or would want us to play it."

    Advance Our Policy Position? Oh pal...ese. What else does the Republican'T Party have to offer? I mean besides petty and hypocritical?

    I guess you could get Senator Vitter to talk about sexual peccadilloes. Perhaps Senator Vitter's wife could show her support for her husband too....?

    Really.

    Advance Our Policy Position? And what would that be???

    Guess, 'CONservatives' could do the ol' Ted Cruz shuffle - You know, cheer on the House of Representatives to shut down the government, vote AGAINST shutting down the government in the Senate, and then claim he never was for shutting down the government.

    Advance Our Policy Position? Let us see what this might be? Expanding voters rights to increase the base? - really askin' this? ... Advance Our Policy Position? ...

    What Policy Position? ...

    (Oh now I get it. This is a performance art exercise in comedy ... Ha ha ha ha ha ...)

    Ema Nymton
    ~@:o?
    .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ema, if you took your head out from under your hat and took a look at how things really are (i.e. conservatives really do have policy positions that make sense) you might be able to engage in a debate on real substance rather than re-treading your trite, prejudicial insults. But based on your countless comments here and elsewhere that follow the same pattern, I suspect a thoughtful discussion doesn't interest you in the least.

      Delete
  3. .

    Dean L,

    "... conservatives really do have policy positions that make sense ..."

    Oh, I'd really love to hear this.

    So please proceed.

    Conservatives really do have policy positions that make sense to whom? You do realize that Mrs Clinton being a Democratic Party nominee will NOT make any conservatives policy positions that make sense?

    So go ahead and outline conservatives policy positions that make sense and who will espouse them.

    Ema Nymton
    ~@:o?
    .

    ReplyDelete
  4. Let me get this out of the way first Ema - I don't except anything remotely conservative from Hillary Clinton as far as policy positions go. She is a progressive masquerading as a moderate in order to win votes. In 2008 that hurt her because of the political climate. In 2016 should she run, it will work to her advantage, although by how much is not clear.

    A number of policy positions that make sense have been expounded here and elsewhere, and include posts which you have commented on. One such example is that of minimum wage laws. As a prelude Ema, conservatives do not espouse sweatshop labor where employees are made to suffer in exchange for pennies a day. We believe that a minimum wage law will not benefit workers in the way it is supposedly intended (in reality it is a liberal vote-buying gimmick). Instead, creating an environment that supports a business environment encourages businesses to start and/or grow which in turn increases demand for labor and thereby both creates jobs and increases competition for labor and as a result, raises compensation offers from employers. It's called the free market, and it has only failed where it is twisted by government intervention.

    Arbitrarily increasing the minimum wage distorts the compensation process. Companies pay workers based on their productivity. If the government imposes a minimum wage rate that causes that compensation to exceed an employee’s maximum ability to produce, employers will adjust accordingly. Employers do this by decreasing the number of new jobs, and/or reducing the hours of employee work and/or cutting non-wage benefits, and/or finding ways to continue with fewer workers for example.

    That's simple economics. Policies therefore that encourage job growth will do more to help low income workers than artificially increasing the floor. The latter approach helps some in a temporary way but undoubtedly harms many others who lose hours or entire jobs as a result.

    I would encourage you to continue to read policy opinions with an open mind. Criticize the logic freely, but do not disparage the person and do not infer intent. To do so is not civil discourse, it is base demagoguery and convinces no one of anything.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. .

      "Criticize the logic freely, but do not disparage the person and do not infer intent. To do so is not civil discourse, it is base demagoguery and convinces no one of anything."

      Have you been following this blog? Its soul purpose is disparage people and it tools are demagoguery, hatred, and incendiary empty rhetoric.

      Ema Nymton
      ~@:o?
      .

      Delete
    2. "Its soul (sic) purpose is disparage people and it (sic) tools are demagoguery, hatred, and incendiary empty rhetoric."

      Disparage people? Or just point out the glaring mistakes of the more mind numbingly stupid ones and mock them?

      Delete
    3. .

      Dean L, you were saying, "Criticize the logic freely, but do not disparage the person and do not infer intent. ... it is base demagoguery and convinces no one of anything."

      Proof -

      "Disparage people? Or just point out the glaring mistakes of the more mind numbingly stupid ones and mock them?"

      Proof, thank you for making Ema Nymton's point so clearly!

      Ema Nymton
      ~@:o?
      .

      Delete
    4. " thank you for making Ema Nymton's point so clearly!" Ema: Thank you for taking about yourself in the third person so that people can see just how looney you are!

      Delete
    5. "talking" - celebrate my typo in whichever way pleases you best.

      Delete
  5. Ema, you shall NEVER win a point over Proof. Don't believe me? Just ask Proof.

    That being said, when you dance only to the ideological refrains of any given ideology you should be prepared for the mocking.

    Note: When you don't it doubles the intensity of the mocking.

    And so it goes...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "you shall NEVER win a point over Proof"...unless, of course, you have the facts on your side! Something which you and your soulmate Ema never seem to manage! In the meantime, keep bloviating. It makes your envy all the more endearing.

      Delete
  6. You certainly flatter yourself.

    Soul mate? Hardly think so Proof.

    You Proof pass off your opinion as fact quite frequently, which of course is okay. Not so much when others do the same.

    Hey, are you related to Chuck?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "You Proof pass off your opinion as fact quite frequently"

      Then it shouldn't be any problem at all for you to name one. Link to it if you can. Or it will simply illustrate that my remarks about you coming to an argument without any facts is spot on accurate.

      Delete
  7. Replies
    1. Couldn't even find one, eh? Good news! You don't look any more pathetic than usual!

      Delete
  8. Therev is simply too many to pick from. And you'd spin your shit into diarrhea anyway.

    So, enjoy your delusions.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "There is simply too many to pick from" What a snot nosed whiner you are! Have you noticed that all your comments about me, unsupported by any facts, look surprising like projection?

      You and Ema are made for each other.

      Delete
  9. And you've just proven how delusional you really are.

    Cheerio...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Irrational Nabob calling you delusional is like a warthog calling you ugly. Still can't come up with a single example of the crap you spew can you?

      Delete
  10. BTW, you didn't answer my question. Are you related to Chuck the residentv schmuck over at LR?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I have no idea who you're talking about, but then, given your history here, I suspect neither do you. But if he is a schmuck, as you assert, he may be related to your Uncle Dad. It seems to run in the family.

      Now, if you're through wasting my time, by making trollish accusations you are incapable of backing up, then I'll leave you to make your last churlish insult, in lieu of evidence or argument. Your trademark, as it would appear.

      Delete

Commenting here is a privilege, not a right. Comments that contain cursing or insults and those failing to add to the discussion will be summarily deleted.