The Clintons’ suddenly puritanical praetorian guard turn out to be the Nina Burleighs.
In 1998, Nina Burleigh, speaking for feminists in the mainstream media, said of Bill Clinton, “I would be happy to give him a blowjob just to thank him for keeping abortion legal. I think American women should be lining up with their Presidential kneepads on to show their gratitude for keeping the theocracy off our backs.”
What is Burleigh doing these days? Filing stories for Newsweek about Donald Trump as a groper. She is part of the Clintons’ suddenly puritanical praetorian guard in the media, gasping at the prospect of such a “pig” in the White House even as they carry Bill Clinton back to it.
No matter how crass and sex-drenched feminism becomes — reveling in band names like “pussy riot,” cackling at the “vagina monologues,” celebrating movies that satisfy “rape fantasies” — it still reserves the right to turn prim on any politician who dares cross it.
Burleigh once explained her infamous remark by saying, “I said it because I thought it was high time for someone to tweak the white, middle-aged beltway gang taking Clinton to task for sexual harassment. These men had neither the personal experience nor the credentials to know sexual harassment when they saw it, nor to give a good goddamn about it if they did. The insidious use of sexual harassment laws to bring down a president for his pro-female politics was the context in which I spoke.”
In other words, the “politics” of the accused determines his guilt: what is “insidious” for Clinton becomes imperative for Trump. Enjoying maximum power over politics and culture, the czarinas of feminism have informed Americans headed for Hillary’s animal farm that “not all pigs are equal.” Hence, Hillary, with grimly comic gall, can say that a man like Trump doesn’t “belong in the White House” while riding back to it on the coattails of a credibly accused rapist.
She got to the White House the first time by lying about an audio tape — denying her husband’s affair with Gennifer Flowers, even as she promised to “crucify” her for telling the truth about it. Flowers’ tapes didn’t speak to the presidential fitness of her husband, she said. Hillary called her “some failed cabaret singer who doesn’t have much of a résumé to fall back on.” In that race, Hillary’s feminism took the form of trashing women. Only slightly better in her eyes than failed cabaret singers were stay-at-home mothers, whose ranks she had bitterly boasted of escaping: “I suppose I could have stayed home, baked cookies and had teas.”
Now spinning another tape figures into the White House ambitions of the Clintons. One imagines Bill wincing a bit as Hillary, at her most cynical, tweeted out about Trump’s conversation with Billy Bush: “This is horrific. We cannot allow this man to become president.” And the Nina Burleighs stood ready to orchestrate a coordinated charade of outrage across its media. Not one of them asked Hillary when she adopted this standard of presidential fitness. Was it before or after her husband ran for the presidency? Was it before or after she appeared at anti-impeachment rallies for her husband?
And who should pop up on shows to discuss Trump’s lack of fitness for the presidency? Socially liberal Republicans who decried Clinton’s impeachment and endlessly browbeat conservatives for their “puritanical obsession.” They too have joined the praetorian guard carrying Bill back to the White House. The media has lovingly assembled a long list of such Republicans, including on it Arnold Schwarzenegger, whose own pre-election gropergate (that many Never Trump Republicans loudly pooh-poohed) has somehow disappeared into the mists of time.
At times on the campaign trail, Hillary has spoken of Bill like almost a potential co-president. She is going to entrust the “economy” to his supervision. The comment that Bill once made, “Two for the price of one,” is still the deal on offer. Yet the media, playing along with Hillary’s Orwellian feminist grab for the White House, is content to return the Bill Cosby of politics back to it on the grounds that he is “irrelevant” and the charges against him “ancient” and unproven. Meanwhile, the chattering class frets: What will we tell our children if Trump wins? How can we protect them from such an odious “role model”?
Should Hillary win, all they will learn from the “first female president” is the power of chutzpah and absolute corruption — how feminists like Burleigh, with consciences shaped not by black and white but by fifty shades of grey, climbed over one “pig” on the shoulders of their most celebrated and excused one.