By Marc Jampole
Republicans are very clear that they intend to make Bill
Clinton’s past wolfish behavior an issue in the election campaign. Donald Trump
and Ben Carson have both said that discussing Bill’s past affairs is fair game,
as did the editorial boards of the Wall
Street Journal and the Washington
Post. Both Trump and the Journal
compare Bill’s actions and words to Trump’s and declare Trump to be less of a
sexist than our ex-President. The Journal
even talked about Clinton’s “war on women.”
There are lots of ways that Democrats could argue react to
Republican accusations regarding Bill Clinton’s sexual past. They could point
out all the strides that women made during the Clinton Administration.
They could remind people that unlike Trump, who believes he
is superior to women and has insulted a number of them for their looks or their
bodily functions, Bill loves women.
They could reconstruct the two incidents that reflect most
poorly on Slick Willie and assert that Paula Jones was a gold-digger and Monica
Lewinsky admitted she came to the White House looking to score some
presidential booty.
They could explain that many spouses stray and that Bill and
Hillary worked out their marital difficulties and didn’t get divorced, unlike
Trump, who has been divorced twice, with at least one divorce coming after a
torrid love affair with a much younger woman. Perhaps Clinton supporters could
play Tammy Wynette’s “Stand by Your Man” in the background while making this
point. This approach might resonate with those who don’t believe in divorce.
They could claim that the extramarital affairs are a private
matter that should play no part in the political discussion.
All of these approaches to responding to the Republican’s
attempts to dredge up Bill’s past sexual history would be wrong for one
reason—all are irrelevant. In fact the entire discussion is irrelevant, simply
because: Bill Clinton is not Hillary Clinton.
It is Hillary who is running for office, not Bill. Bill’s
past should be of no concern to voters unless someone can prove that Hillary
Clinton lied or participated in a cover-up, which they can’t. If Hillary had
acted illegally or unethically before, during or after her husband’s several
“bimbo eruptions,” the Republicans would have uncovered evidence after more
than twenty years of investigating the Clintons’ past for dirt.
In this regard, Bill Clinton plays the role of embarrassing
relative—similar to Billy Carter, Donald Nixon, Neil Bush or Bill’s own
brother, Roger. The one difference, of course, is that Bill is not an obscure
figure, but an extremely popular ex-President.
The decades-old sexual antics of Hillary Clinton’s spouse have
absolutely no bearing on Hillary Clinton’s competence or her ability to lead
the country, administer the laws, set foreign policy or work with Congress.
But while Bill Clinton’s sexual history is not an issue of
substance, Trump’s dismissive attitudes towards women definitely should be open
for discussion, again, for one reason only—because the Donald is running for
office. His old-fashioned laddie-boy
sexism will make it harder for him to work with female members of Congress and
foreign leaders. Imagine Trump referring to Nancy Pelosi’s menopausal behavior
or disparaging Angela Merkel’s fashion sense. Finding out how Trump really stands
on a woman’s right to control her own body is important—sometimes he says he
favors abortion, sometimes he says he’s against it. The fact that the Donald
wants to defund Planned Parenthood is an issue.
Some have characterized Trump as
the
archetypal “rich man who regularly trades
in his wives for younger models.” Trump’s past marriages may turn
out to be a character issue for many people.
In short, Trump’s attitudes towards women and women’s issues is of
utmost importance in determining his suitability to serve as President of the
United States. But whatever Hillary Clinton's husband did two decades ago is
nothing more than a sideshow. Of course, sideshows such as Trump, Carson and
Cruz are coming to dominate the Republican nominating process.