[guest post by Dana]

With accusations of hypocrisy now being rightfully lobbed at Hillary Clinton after she accused a GOP candidate of having a “penchant for sexism,” yet in nearly the same breath announced that one of the most notorious sexists of our time would be stumping for her on the campaign trail, feminists are groaning in dismay at having to yet once again square their support for iconic feminist Hillary Clinton with Bill Clinton’s much publicized sexual misconduct toward women.

Given that Hillary Clinton is campaigning on a platform of owning a uterus (also known as playing gender politics), this self-appointed, self-anointed alleged champion of women and children’s rights finds herself in a bit of a pickle, too, given that she has historically been defender and enabler of her woman-abusing sexist husband, as well as intimidating and smearing any number of women who accused him of sexual assault, thus leading the charge of Democrats in their war on women.

What a sordid mess: Hillary Clinton, feminist icon, enabler of notorious sexist Bill Clinton and persecutor of his female victims, wants to become our next president, and Bill Clinton, notorious sexist ex-president and abuser of women, is campaigning to help said feminist icon and fellow abuser of women become our next president. And all the while, the American feminist is circling the wagons around these two Democratic idols because they’re all about advocating for women. Sure they are. Could it possibly get any more twisted than this? Why yes, it certainly can.

Yesterday, after the news came out that Bill Cosby would be arraigned on charges of sexual assault, Amanda Marcotte tweeted something rather remarkable:

Charging Bill Cosby is a big victory for sexual abuse survivors. It helps undermine the “crazy bitches” narrative.

Interesting, because as far as I know, this is the same Amanda Marcotte who just last year jusitifed then lawyer Hillary Clinton’s willingness to play the “crazy bitch” card on a 12 year old female rape victim in order to get her 41 year old client, who was facing 30 years to life, off the hook. Mind you, Marcotte neglected to mention that Clinton was not a public defender assigned to the case, but rather she chose to defend the rapist as a favor. Marcotte even went so far as to complain about the Washington Posts’s Melinda Hennenberger’s temerity to question Clinton’s ethical decision to smear the victim. Marcotte dismissed it as little more than Hennenberger “making hay over irrelevant details”. Here is a portion of Hennenberger’s “irrelevant” hay making:

In an interview in the mid-1980s for an Esquire magazine piece that never ran, Clinton’s glee is audible about the prosecution’s big mistake in the case, when it accidentally discarded key evidence. Some are writing off the remarks, as one fellow journalist put it on social media, as “typical gonzo defense lawyer talk.”

It is not, however, typical talk for a lifelong defender of women and children.

Nor was Clinton’s defense plan, mapped out in a court affidavit. In it, she questioned the credibility of the victim and suggested that the sixth-grader, who an ER doctor said showed injuries consistent with rape, had “a tendency to seek out older men.”

“I have been informed that the complainant is emotionally unstable,’’ Clinton wrote in the affidavit, “with a tendency to seek out older men and to engage in fantasizing.” The document, filed with the Washington County, Arkansas court on July 28, 1975, argued for a psychiatric evaluation for the victim.

“I have also been informed that she has in the past made false accusations about persons, claiming they had attacked her body,’’ Clinton wrote. “Also that she exhibits an unusual stubbornness and temper when she does not get her way.”

The “little bit nutty, little bit slutty’’ defense has a long, ugly history. It’s jarring to see it trotted out against a kid by a future feminist icon. The argument also bears an uncomfortable similitary [sic] to Clinton White House descriptions of Monica Lewinsky, who without that semen stain on her little blue dress would have been dismissed as a stalker who had fantasized that she had a relationship with President Bill Clinton.

…

In 2008, her spokesman told Newsday that Clinton “had an ethical and legal obligation to defend him to the fullest extent of the law. To act otherwise would have constituted a breach of her professional responsibilities.”

Defending even a child rapist as vigorously as possible might be a plus if she were running to lead the American Bar Association. But wouldn’t her apparent willingness to attack a sixth-grader compromise a presidential run?

Marcotte responded to Henneberger’s concern about Hillary Clinton’s willingness to use the “little bit nutty, little bit slutty” defense on the child-victim with this shameful justification:

I understand why this gives Henneberger pause, but to quote myself from 2012:

Defense attorneys use this strategy because it works, as can be routinely demonstrated. As long as juries keep acquitting based on this myth that women routinely make up rape accusations for the hell of it, defense attorneys will continue to use it. The problem here is a larger culture that promotes rape myths, not defense attorneys who exploit these myths in last-ditch attempts to get acquittals for rapists who have overwhelming evidence against them.

So there you have it. It’s the fault of society, juries, the justice system, and the fact that a defendant is guaranteed a right to an adequate defense. In Marcotte’s view, Hillary Clinton is absolved of playing the the notorious “crazy bitch” card against a child rape victim, as well as any number of sexual assault victims involving her husband. In Marcotte’s dishonest eyes, none of these irrelevant details call into serious question Clinton’s campaign platform of being an advocate for women and children. Seriously, Amanda?? Who is the real crazy bitch here?

Here’s the thing: the issue isn’t about Hillary Clinton choosing to defend an accused child rapist to advance her career (that’s a separate issue). The issue is that in her defense of said accused child rapist, if necessary, she was more than willing to impugn the credibility of a child rape victim to get the charges against her client dropped. In other words, neither Hillary Clinton nor Amanda Marcotte had any qualms about using the very same “crazy bitches” strategy that Marcotte now condemns and wants to see come to an end.

Look, we already know that Hillary Clinton is no more about protecting the rights of women and children than is Amanda Marcotte. They both have excused, rationalized, and dishonestly represented themselves before the American people in an effort to push themselves forward as leading advocates for women. But it is Hillary Clinton who wants to become our next president. Therefore, it is absolutely vital to point out the abhorrent untruth she continues to push, and that is that she has always been an advocate for women and children. Clearly, we know otherwise. Should this impact her run for the presidency? Absolutely. Whether it will or not, however, is up to voters. But certainly it can be agreed upon by rational people that this is simply not what an alleged champion of women and protector of children looks like.

And now that we know noted feminist Amanda Marcotte is really not about undermining any “crazy bitches” narrative, and that rape victims – even children – are fair game for this strategy, exactly how does she feel about accused rapist Bill Clinton? Pretty good, I would say:

Watching Bill Clinton speak is like getting a hug from a giant teddy bear who can hug everyone at once.

And how does Marcotte feel about candidate Hillary Clinton, enemy of women and children? Well, also pretty good:

…Hillary Clinton is the Democrat we need for 2016.

–Dana

[guest post by Dana]

On ABC’s The View, Americans were provided an instructive moment to see just how dishonest and ugly feminist hacks are toward the victims of sexual assault, if the perpetrator is named Bill Clinton. It’s a sick irony that feminists continue to defend Clinton without batting an eye.

WHOOPI: Before the debate, uh, Donald Trump held a press conference with several women who have accused Bill Clinton of inappropriate sexual behavior with them, and then invited them to sit in the audience with them in the townhall. Uh…

BEHAR: Yeah.

Okay, let’s stop this blithering idiocy right here. Whoopi is accusing these women of having willingly slept with Bill Clinton:

1) Kathy Shelton, who was raped when she was 12-years old by 41-year old Thomas Alfred Taylor. She would require stitches, and would end up unable to have children. Hillary Clinton defended the rapist, and used the ugly “little bit nutty, little bit slutty” smear against the 12-year old victim. So good was she at her job, Taylor got off on a reduced charge of fondling a minor and a mere one-year stint in country jail for raping a child. Clinton was later caught on tape laughing “when discussing the crime lab’s accidental destruction of DNA evidence that tied Taylor to the crime”.

2) Juanita Broadrrick, who had been a nursing administrator in Arkansas, and in 1999, accused Bill Clinton of raping her in a hotel room in 1978:

Then he tries to kiss me again. And the second time he tries to kiss me he starts biting my lip … He starts to, um, bite on my top lip and I tried to pull away from him. And then he forces me down on the bed. And I just was very frightened, and I tried to get away from him and I told him ‘No,’ that I didn’t want this to happen but he wouldn’t listen to me. … It was a real panicky, panicky situation. I was even to the point where I was getting very noisy, you know, yelling to ‘Please stop.’ And that’s when he pressed down on my right shoulder and he would bite my lip. … When everything was over with, he got up and straightened himself, and I was crying at the moment and he walks to the door, and calmly puts on his sunglasses. And before he goes out the door he says ‘You better get some ice on that.’ And he turned and went out the door.”

When asked if there was any way Clinton could have thought it was consensual, Broaddrick said “No, not with what I told him and with how I tried to push him away. It was not consensual.”[3]

3) Katlheen Willey was a White House volunteer who, in 1998, alleged that Bill Clinton had sexually assaulted her five years earlier during his first term of the presidency. Willey described the encounter with Clinton during an interview with Ed Bradley of 60 Minutes:

BRADLEY: And what happened next?

WILLEY: Well, he — he said he would do everything that he could to — to — to help, and I turned around and — out of the — out of the office, and he followed me to — I thought he was going to open the door to the — to the Oval office, and right as we got to the door, he stopped and he gave me a big hug and said that he was very sorry that this was happening to me.

And — I had — had no problem with that, because when I saw — every time I saw him, he would hug me.

He use — just does that, is like that.

And, I remember I had — still had this coffee cup in my hand, and it was kind of in between us, and I didn’t want it to spill on him or me, and — and it just was this — it was just very strange. And he — he took the coffee cup out of my hand and he put it on a bookshelf, and — and — he — this hug lasted a little longer than I thought necessary, but at the same time — I mean, I was not concerned about it. And then he — then he — and then he kissed me on — on my mouth, and — and pulled me closer to him. And — I remember thinking — I just remember thinking, “what in the world is he doing?” I — it — I just thought, “what is he doing?” And, I — I pushed back away from him, and — he — he — he — he — he’s a big man.

And he — he had his arms — they were tight around me, and he — he — he touched me.

BRADLEY: Touched you how?

WILLEY: Well, he — he — he touched my breasts with his hand, and, I — I — I — I was — I — I was just startled.

I was — I was just…

BRADLEY: This — this wasn’t an accidental grazing touch?

WILLEY: No.

And — then he — whispered — he — he — said in — in my ears that, “I — I’ve wanted to do this ever since I laid eyes on you.” And — I remember — I remember saying to him, “aren’t you afraid that somebody’s going to walk in here?” The — and, he said — he said, “no. No, I’m — no, I’m not.” And — and then — and — and then he took my hand, and he — and he put it on him. And, that’s when I pushed away from him and — and decided it was time to get out of there.

BRADLEY: When you say he took your hand…

WILLEY: Right.

BRADLEY: … and put it on him…

WILLEY: Hum-hum.

BRADLEY: Where on him?

WILLEY: On — on his genitals.

BRADLEY: Was he a — aroused?

WILLEY: Yes.

BRADLEY: He was.

WILLEY: Yes.

BRADLEY: What were you thinking?

WILLEY: Well, I — I was — there was — I — there were all kinds of things going through my mind.

I — I think as — when I think back on it, it was kind of like I was watching it in slow motion, and — and thinking surely this is not happening. And, at the same time, I — I wanted to — I thought, “well, maybe I ought to just give him a good slap across the face.” And then I thought, “well, I don’t think you can slap the President of the United States like that.” And — and I just decided it was just time to get out of there.

BRADLEY: Did you say anything to him, or was there anything about your behavior that invited an advance?

WILLEY: I — I — I have gone over this so many times, so very many times, because I think that your natural instinct is to wonder, “Did I bring this on? Did I send a — a — the wrong signal?” The only signals that I was sending that day, was that I was very upset, very distraught, and I needed to help my husband.

BRADLEY: Did you feel intimidated?

WILLEY: I didn’t feel intimidated.

I just felt overpowered.

4) Paula Jones, an Arkansas state employee who sued Bill Clinton for sexual harassment, claiming it took place in 1991 while Clinton was the Governor of Arkansas. Jones said of Clinton:

I do not respect a man who cheats on his wife, and exposes his penis to a stranger.

So my question to Whoopi The Liar is, which of these four women willingly slept with Bill Clinton? Which one, Whoopi, because you just lied against these women.

It’s a three minute clip of irrelevant women desperate to be relevant, and because they are unable to reason and think rationally, they end up shaming themselves. So dull are they and so limited is their mental acuity, they can only resort to a junior-high level of mean girl victim-shaming. Good thing they were preoccupied with defending Bill, because no doubt fat-shaming was on the table too. This insipidness culminates with Joy Behar referring to these four victims as “tramps”. But of course. What else do empowered women in 2016 call sexual assault victims?

“This is the thing though… if a woman sleeps with your husband, you’re not going to necessarily embrace them… That’s why when he brought up these allegations, I wonder if she [Hillary] missed the opportunity to address it in a way that the public would understand…” Hostin mused.

Behar disagreed, joking that there wasn’t much Hillary Clinton could say to the women.

Behar suggested the Democratic nominee could say: “’I would like to apologize to those tramps that have slept with my husband.’ Maybe she could have said that.”

This is what victims of sexual assault are in the world of Hillary-supporting feminists. Tramps. Hillary Clinton has demonstrated how to effectively discount, trash, and lie about female victims of sexual assault. Apparently that’s what a Champion of Women does. And that’s the lead the sickly sheep follow.

But hey, on the upside, I’m just breathing a sigh of relief because what if Bill Clinton had only boasted about grabbing these women by the p**** and not assaulted them? Then Whoopi and friends might have really had to step up and scold him for crossing the line.

–Dana