Without Hillary being Bill Clinton’s “enabler,” Trump implies, Bill could never have been the notorious philanderer that he was, in and out of the White House. A woman who was not such an “enabler” might have swiftly divorced Bill Clinton, and gone to have a truly independent career in politics, struggling like most women do. To not put the skids on a runaround scamp like Bill indicates that his marriage to Hillary is likely a sham of some kind.
Trump’s deliberate subtext is that Hillary Clinton is no real friend to women. In fact, Trump is saying, Hillary is a true foe to women, and her own life as a woman in a heterosexual marriage is a sham.
Perhaps a comfortable enough sham, but still, a sham. A sham that has clearly benefitted both Bill and Hill.
A political marriage of convenience?
Why break it up? Why bring up that “D” word?
Instead, the Clintons nursed their mutual political ambitions for the presidency and called it a marriage.
A legal bond in which they are each free to pursue separate sex lives, and mutual political lives.
Nobody is really sure whether Bill and Hillary ever really “clicked.”
Few people– even those who genuinely like the Clintons and vote for them– are convinced that Bill and Hillary Clinton are a genuine “couple.” Bill has wimmin who fell into love and lust and longing for him, and Hill has, well, she has Huma, her loyal assistant and global traveling companion. Are we talking First Lady lesbianism here? Maybe not or maybe so, but in the America of today, that just might translate into more and more votes. Even Yoko Ono claims to have had lesbian sex with Hillary! http://worldnewsdailyreport.com/yoko-ono-i-had-an-affair-with-hillary-clinton-in-the-70s/. Oh, wait, wait, wait. Was that true, or not true? News flash, or prank? A testing of the waters? Because ordinarily, the notion of the wives of two powerful, influential men having lesbian sex would ordinarily garner a lot of interest, if not votes, from men in particular.
Call it “gandering.”
But not when the women look like Yoko and Hillary.
Eeeeuuuuuwww! I can’t believe I just wrote that!
That is soooooooooo sexist and just...just...wrong!
Ooooooh....! Okay, okay. I take it back.
I mean, I take back the part about Yoko and Hillary looking ugly and unsexy, especially with their clothes off. I mean, it was bad enough to see naked Yoko and Naked John Lennon together on that album cover, “Two Virgins.” I feel faintly nauseous when I think about it.
I am pretty sure that “Two Virgins” was the only album by any Beatle that I didn’t buy. http://www.rollingstone.com/music/lists/as-nasty-as-they-wanna-be-the-20-dirtiest-album-covers-of-all-time-20150226/john-lennon-and-yoko-ono-two-virgins-1968-20150226.
And to those who write, “Well, you should have, you would have made money on it,” all I can say is that, money isn’t everything, and why own something that just makes you gag?
But hey, the Huma-Hillary connection will just have to speak for itself. Or not. Maybe it’s nothing. Just air, like the Hillary-Yoko Ono thing.
Or ask Huma’s husband what’s going on. You remember Huma’s husband, right? He’s Anthony Weiner, the former Democrat Party-man and New York congressman who threw all caution to the wind when he “sexted” photos of his, well, of his weiner (the genital one, not the one inside the hotdog roll or the one he’s named for) to some wimmin he didn’t know very well.
And he offered to shack up at least one of those wimmin’ in an apartment, as in, a hidey-hole.
In defense of Weiner and his weiner, he did try to disguise himself by using the curious alias, “Carlos Danger.”
Yup. An alias like “Carlos Danger” is sure to throw the FBI background checkers off!
Why would Weiner speed dial photos of his weiner around to wimmin? Maybe all the talk about Huma being Hillary Clinton’s running mate, or perhaps just mate, just got to him. Maybe all those rumors about Hillary and Huma just got to be...too...much.
Maybe...maybe....maybe Weiner just needed some woman, or any woman, somewhere, anywhere, to admire his weiner without Hillary being around.
Because Hillary’s the kind of gal where, even when she’s not around, she’s around.
She’s far from a “blind eye.” She’s more like the living personification of a jowly telescreen straight out of “1984.” I feel like she’s still staring at me even after I turn my television off. I am pretty sure that this is the reason Bernie Sanders is still getting people to vote for him.
What Hillary is counting on is that voters will follow and do as she did for her husband back in 1992, when she saved his sinking candidacy with her own blind eye. http://www.angelfire.com/wa/starreport/60min.html.
Whether Huma and Hillary’s being inseparable is a euphemism for their rumored lesbian relationship remains to be seen, but in an America where former male Olympic star Bruce Jenner grew his hair long, got some implants, now claims to be a woman and teases us about whether he’s made that situation genitally permanent, even a fringe notion of Hillary and Huma as the first White House lesbian couple may not be incomprehensible at all.
That is just a rumor, though. But a rumor is sometimes based on something observed, and in Hillary and Huma’s case, what is (or was) observed is their inseparability.
Yes, it seems that Huma and Hillary are (or were) inseparable, and have been for some time. Even Huma’s own mother was said to have publicly complained, under the guise of flattery, “Hillary, you have spent more time with my daughter than I have in the past 15 years. I’m jealous of you!”
Fifteen years is a long, long time.
Anyway, somehow I have to get back to the “Enabler” part.
Because being “Enablers” is something that both Huma and Hillary appear to have in common– they both enable their husbands to behave very, very badly. This makes both Huma and Hillary look like victims, which is something that many women voters can relate to. But enabling also frees Hillary to have sex with Yoko Ono (or whoever– wait, wait, wait– how do these insufferable rumors get started?), and frees Huma to... to...uhm....travel with Hillary. Or whatever.
Meanwhile, the country does suffer from these insufferable rumors in a way. Anthony Weiner’s shenanigans could be construed as federal telecommunications crimes, and Bill Clinton’s shenanigans, most notoriously with the young and frisky Monica Lewinsky in the Oval Office, violated national security concerns, showed a crass indifference to the gravity of his office, led to costly impeachment proceedings, and made us all waste valuable time wondering “what the definition of ‘is’ is”– besides making teaching political science to middle schoolers very tricky indeed.
Between Dennis Hastert and Bill Clinton, we now sort of pause when our children ask us about whether they should be applying for U.S. government internships. We now have to wonder exactly what our children will be persuaded to do. Part of this conundrum is due to the Clintons, for sure.
Are the power couple infamously known as “Bill and Hill” a sham? Bill and Hillary Clinton appear to loathe each other, except when one of them is running for something or is threatened with a criminal indictment.
When those threats arise, the Clintons head them off with showy yet perplexing displays of tender togetherness.
In contrast, although Donald Trump lives his life lived in a luxury tower amidst the splendor of polished gold, brass and the pinkest marble ever gathered together in one place, his parading of his family– three sexy wives (serially), intelligent children and grandchildren– seems far more real than anything being hauled out from Hillary’s closet.
Basically, Trump is playing the wimmin card very early and very aggressively. Trump says that Hillary enabled Bill Clinton, her husband, while he was Arkansas’s governor and later, America’s two-term president, to notoriously seduce and screw around with loose wimmin. And then, when things turned sour or became too complicated or too notorious, Hillary then turned into her husband’s attack-dog-in-chief, and chewed the wimmin up.
And that is going to be a charge that Hillary will find difficult to refute.
“She’s been the total enabler. She would go after these women and destroy their lives,” Trump said of Hillary. “She was an unbelievably nasty, mean enabler, and what she did to a lot of those women is disgraceful.”
Bill’s Clinton’s philandering and roving eye and Hillary’s allegedly blind eye are probably two of the best-documented “eyes” of any kind in modern U.S. politics. Early on in late 1991 and early 1992 of Bill Clinton’s first presidential campaign, when charges began to leak from Bill’s mistresses (especially Gennifer Flowers) about his escapades, Steve Kroft of “60 Minutes” politely but still very directly did not ask, so much as tell, Hillary that her “arrangement” with her husband to turn a blind eye to his roving one was easy to see: “I think most Americans would agree that it’s very admirable that you've stayed together – that you’ve worked your problems out and that you’ve seemed to reach some sort of understanding and arrangement.”
Half a century ago, a blind-eyed wife might have burst into tears. But not the “modern” woman that Hillary Clinton has always been. In response, Hillary huffed and puffed and then bad-mouthed one of America’s most beloved country singers and groused, “You know, I’m not sitting here – some little woman standing by my man like Tammy Wynette. I’m sitting here because I love him, and I respect him, and I honor what he's been through and what we’ve been through together. And you know, if that’s not enough for people, then heck, don’t vote for him.”
It was a risky gambit.
It did work back in 1992, but it’s unclear whether anyone with a brain and a memory is still buying that the Clintons are any kind of genuine married couple, outside of their mutual political ambitions and “some sort of understanding and arrangement” that Steve Kroft saw so clearly back in 1992.
Meanwhile, there’s little doubt that Trump has called the play correctly. Just days ago, campaigning in San Diego, California for the woman he still calls his “wife,” Hillary’s hubby bubbled up from his own sexual wellspring: “I still feel young,” Clinton began, before a woman interrupted him from the crowd, instigating an exchange of everything but telephone numbers.
“You look great!” she shouted.
“Been a long time since a girl said that to me,” said Clinton, alluding to his own notorious affair with Monica Lewinsky, a White House aide 27 years younger than Bill who gave him oral sex in the Oval Office while Bill was president.
“The crowd cheered,” U.S.A. Today reported. Bill, on a roll, continued talking about his non-Hillary sex life: “I usually get, ‘You look good for a man your age,’” he said. “That last phrase is a killer.”
Next thing, Hillary– correctly labeled as the “Enabler” by Trump, will come up and say, once again, that she honors what 60 Minutes in 1992 correctly called the Clintons’ “arrangement.” And you know, if people today decide that they want more from their president than they did in 1992, then heck, don’t vote for her.
Vote for the guy who’s called Hillary the “E” word. Vote for the guy who’s called Hillary’s bluff.
Hillary’s already told us that, heck, she doesn’t mind.