Bill Clinton's sexual misconduct, in one Wikipedia page

  • 4 January 2016
  • NormanL
Bill Clinton's sexual misconduct, in one Wikipedia page

Last week, we noted that the women Bill Clinton had attacked during his time in office (both in Arkansas and Washington, DC) were speaking out about his past, and Hillary's role in it all.

John Fund picks up the threads of the story and adds some new twists, as well as a few things we had forgotten: the extent that Hillary Clinton accuses Republicans of waging a “war on women,” the history of her husband’s record with women will blunt the effectiveness of her attack. Voters may have extended sympathy to Hillary as a wronged spouse back in the 1990s, but the one-third of voters who don’t remember the impeachment of Bill Clinton well may be surprised to learn just how big Hillary’s role in discrediting Bill Clinton’s accusers has been.

As the Wall Street Journal editorial page has observed:

This September Mrs. Clinton declared that “every survivor of sexual assault” has “the right to be heard. You have the right to be believed.” But when her own access to political power was at stake, she dismissed the women and defended her husband.

Both Hillary and Bill Clinton are skillful spinners of their record, but as the campaign grinds on to the November election, some voters may weary of the potential for history to repeat itself with them. When you vote for a Clinton, you do indeed “buy one and get one free.” And both of then have shown through their past misbehavior that they carry with them a substantial danger that they will bring the exact opposite of dignity and honor to the Oval Office.

True, there are a host of other issues to discuss regarding Hillary Clinton. But if Republicans have learned nothing else over the last 20 years, it's that Democrats use emotion to fight their political battles. It's one of the reasons why Democrats have won the popular vote for the presidency in five of the last six elections (and came close to winning in 2004). Emotion works. Policy arguments? They can't be ignored. But low information voters won't be paying any attention to them.

Those voters who, like it or not, hold enormous influence in national elections, will pay attention to things like the Wikipedia page devoted to Bill's sexual misconduct.