Yes, I write a lot on women issues. I’m a woman and I have a 16 year old daughter, so I write what I know. But I don’t know what to make of this. Here’s Joe Scarborough pretending to think out loud over whether “invoking Monica Lewinsky against Hillary Clinton could be an appropriate tactic.”
“If Hillary Clinton attacks the Republican Party’s handling of women, and treatment of women and disrespect for women, and suggests they’re misogynists et cetera, et cetera, et cetera, it does seem to be a fair question to ask right now, a few years out, does the media have a responsibility to say, ‘Well, let’s see what happened when you were in the White House, and how women were treated when you were in the governor’s mansion and the White House?’ Is that fair?” the ‘Morning Joe’ host asked Monday morning, as quoted by Mediaite.
“Does this not compromise Hillary Clinton’s ability to bash Republicans as being terrible toward women, misogynist, et cetera?” he asked.
How exactly would Republicans use Bill Clinton’s infidelity against Hillary Clinton? How does that look? Would they say she was a-okay with infidelity because, if she wasn’t then she would have divorced him? Would they say she’s sexist and misogynist because she’s married to a man who had an affair? Most likely they would do what they love to do and tell Hillary to sit down and shut up… maybe they could even tell her to go make them a sandwich.
But whatever route they choose they will end up putting forth this message: Ladies, you are merely an extension of your husbands. Your opinions will only be considered if they align with your husband’s opinion and behavior. If they don’t, well… then you may not speak on certain subjects.
How would that work? If your husband had an affair, then no women issues for you! If your husband had a drug addiction, then no war on drugs for you! If your husband is rich, no income inequality speeches from you!
The only way Republicans can put forth this tactic is if they start with the premise that women are not autonomous – that every thought, idea, policy position they have must be linked to their husband’s words or behavior. They will be judged by their husbands’ actions and then handed a list of issues they will be permitted to discuss… or not discuss.
And Joe Scarborough thinks this might “compromise Hillary Clinton’s ability to bash Republicans as being terrible toward women, misogynist, et cetera?” Really? That’s the game plan?
From where I’m sitting I see this tactic making the GOP look more anti-woman than they already do. (Is that possible?) In my post about Huckabee’s libido comment, I told you that I thought Republicans wouldn’t be able to censor themselves when it came to women and women issues. And here we are again. And I’d bet good money that Scarborough’s pretend musing over this tactic is high up on the Republican talking point list. It’s no coincidence that Joe picked up the ball Rand Paul tossed onto the field – while pretending he didn’t.
But I’m still wondering what the GOP plan for this attack looks like? How would it work? Would Hillary utter the words “War on women” while citing the Republican’s endless attacks on reproductive rights and then the GOP would… what? Yell, “Foul!” Seriously, how would they stop her from discussing the war on women? Would they say, “I’m sorry, Mrs. Clinton, but you aren’t allowed to address this issue because your husband had an affair.” Or maybe, during every interview when they’re questioned on how their policies on women contrast to Hillary Clinton’s they would simply say, “I don’t have to answer that because Bill Clinton had an affair.”
Can you tell I’m lost? Even better, can you help me out?