Recently, on the campaign trail in New Hampshire, Hillary Clinton, was asked by a member of the audience about her position on whether or not women who made accusations of sexual assault against her husband Bill should be believed. A question which clearly was in response to recent ads by the Hillary campaign that depicts the candidate making comments that “women should be believed”, with regards to allegations of sexual assault.
Candidate Hillary quickly responded, “Well, I would say that everybody should be believed at first until they are disbelieved based on evidence”. Her response was followed by her smiling broadly, obviously pleased with herself for her deft handling of a potentially difficult and embarrassing question. A question obviously long ago anticipated by her campaign staff, and one which she clearly had practiced and rehearsed her response to, and was well prepared to answer the way that she did.
Unfortunately the lady who posed this question to candidate Clinton was unable to follow up on her query. Had she been able to do so she could have asked Hillary directly, “just what evidence are you referring to, Madam Secretary?”
Interestingly Hillary’s supposed sharp legal mind failed to recognize that in many sexual assault cases successfully prosecuted in courtrooms all across America every year there often is very little evidence beyond the allegations of the female victim.
DNA and other evidence is not always present to back up the woman’s allegations, sometimes it simply comes down to who is more believable. A man who has a history of claims of sexual misconduct made against him, or the scared, and scarred victim of a sexual assault who is simply seeking justice ?
And often times the woman’s allegations alone can result in a conviction. After all, in Hillary’s own campaign advertisement isn’t that what she is telling us all, that those who make these allegations “should be believed”?
What was also troubling for me was to see Hillary smiling so broadly after her response, as well as the audience of supporters who applauded the candidate, obviously an adoring crowd - Minus one anyway.
The image of Hillary smiling in self-congratulations at her handling of this situation reminded me of her pounding the table in front of her during her first Benghazi testimony, loudly proclaiming “What difference does it make”! Another stellar performance by someone well-rehearsed and well-prepared to respond to difficult questions about contemptible behavior.
The New Hampshire woman’s question was one about a very serious subject, one supposedly of great importance to Hillary. One would think it was important anyway since she has long tried to portray herself as the “champion of women”.
Their champion as long as they weren’t making allegations against her husband or presented a potential political embarrassment for Hillary. But one certainly would expect a more serious demeanor and response from Hillary, not the behavior of someone who was looking for ‘high fives’ from those around her.
I can hear her loyal campaign aides following the New Hampshire event telling the former first lady how she “knocked it out of the park” again, just like the ‘e-mail high fives’ she was given by aides following her first Benghazi testimony, and that have been revealed in her State Department e-mails that continue to be released to the public in dribs and drabs.
But clearly throughout her career Hillary has had to deal with questions about her husband’s serial sexual predations. She’s become accustomed to having allegations of sexual misconduct arise, and just as accustomed to orchestrating the attacks against the accusers as a defense to help her contain any political damage.
Hillary’s goal for the last thirty-plus years has been to protect her own political ambitions, not to support her husband Bill’s. Bill Clinton and his political career has always been nothing more than a means to an end for Hillary. Which is also why she’s tolerated his sexual perversions and infidelities.
She really could care less what Bill does with his zipper as long as it doesn’t create problems for her. When in the past Bill’s indiscretions have created a potential threat to her own political aspirations she has quickly ‘pivoted’ into damage control mode. Not to protect Bill politically because she cared about him or his political future, but to protect Bill because she knew he was the key to her achieving her own political goals.
Watching Hillary answer the woman’s question about the sexual assault allegations against her husband Bill Clinton angered me, and brought to mind for me the appropriate response from the pivotal scene of the movie ‘Network’, when actor Peter Finch as newsman Howard Beale says, “We’re mad as hell and we’re not going to take this anymore !”
Well Hillary, the American people indeed are mad as hell. We’ve had enough lies Hillary, and we’re not going to take it anymore. We’ve had enough cover up Hillary, we’re mad as hell and we’re not going to take it anymore. We’ve reached Clinton overload, and we simply just don’t want you anymore! We’ve had enough of Hillary.