Mediaboss Marketing

Yes, she behaved badly. But under the circumstances, how many people would've managed better? And how is it relevant to the job she may seek?

Reuters

When I wrote about attacks on Bill Clinton earlier this week, I focused on how they might help Republicans confronting the charge that they're waging a "war on women." A retrospective on Monica Lewinsky, Paula Jones, and Gennifer Flowers won't help the GOP when it comes to the politics of abortion or contraception. It will remind voters that Rush Limbaugh's party isn't the only one that is happy to strategically embrace men who've behaved badly toward women.

In passing, I added that the GOP would nevertheless be foolish to attack Hillary Clinton over her husband's sexual indiscretions, though doing so will be a temptation. Subsequent coverage has persuaded me that the temptation will prove even greater than I thought, and that what seems to me the strongest case against attacking Hillary Clinton on these grounds isn't as widely held as I'd imagined.

Any attack on Hillary Clinton would have to clear a high hurdle: The public wisely presumes that it's unfair to attack a woman for her husband's misbehavior. Clinton's most persuasive critics argue that they're not attacking her for her husband's transgressions, but for compounding them by attacking his victims. These critiques have come from the feminist left as often as the Clinton-hating right. For example, Dave Weigelnotesthat MSNBC host and academic Melissa Harris-Perry is among the feminists who have expressed biting criticism of Hillary Clinton's behavior. The years-old analysis says Clinton "made an appalling choice as a feministnot that she stayed with her husband, but that she did not speak out in defense of a barely-older-than-teenage girl who was harassed by her husband ... And then she used that experience to create sympathy for herself."

The New Republic's Isaac Chotiner points to evidence that Hillary Clinton expressed contempt for "whiney women" who accused GOP Senator Bob Packwood of sexual harassment, and concludes that she benefits from a double-standard:

Try the following thought experiment: Chris Christie, or Sarah Palin, or Andrew Cuomo is asked by a friend about sexual harassment allegations against a powerful Senator. Christie, or Palin, or Cuomo responds that he or she is tired of all these whiny women. Now imagine the friend's records are released. What would be the reaction in the media and among feminist organizations? It is inconceivable that there would not be an uproar, a forced apology, and some articles about how this will hurt the prospective candidate ...

As he notes, other mainstream-media journalists have highlighted this side of Clinton in the past.Melinda Hennebergerput it this wayin a 2008 Slate article:

After the GenniferFlowers story came out during her husband's '92 presidential run, herresponse, according to Carl Bernstein, was to throw herself intoefforts to discredit Flowers and to try to persuade horrified campaignaides to bring out rumors that Poppy Bush had not always been faithfulto Barbara.

Henneberger also co-wrote a piece with Dahlia Lithwick that is even harder on Clinton:

Continued here:

Why Hillary Clinton Won't Pay for Disparaging Her Husband's Accusers