Good morning Austin:
Way back when – a week ago – there was the first presidential debate, and, toward the very end, this:
CLINTON: Well, one thing. One thing, Lester.
HOLT: Very quickly, because we’re at the final question now.
CLINTON: You know, he tried to switch from looks to stamina. But this is a man who has called women pigs, slobs and dogs, and someone who has said pregnancy is an inconvenience to employers, who has said…
TRUMP: I never said that.
CLINTON: …. women don’t deserve equal pay unless they do as good a job as men.
TRUMP: I didn’t say that.
CLINTON: And one of the worst things he said was about a woman in a beauty contest. He loves beauty contests, supporting them and hanging around them. And he called this woman “Miss Piggy.” Then he called her “Miss Housekeeping,” because she was Latina. Donald, she has a name.
TRUMP: Where did you find this? Where did you find this?
CLINTON: Her name is Alicia Machado.
TRUMP: Where did you find this?
CLINTON: And she has become a U.S. citizen, and you can bet…
TRUMP: Oh, really?
CLINTON: … she’s going to vote this November.
TRUMP: OK, good. Let me just tell you…
HOLT: Mr. Trump, could we just take 10 seconds and then we ask the final question…
TRUMP: You know, Hillary is hitting me with tremendous commercials. Some of it’s said in entertainment. Some of it’s said — somebody who’s been very vicious to me, Rosie O’Donnell, I said very tough things to her, and I think everybody would agree that she deserves it and nobody feels sorry for her.
But you want to know the truth? I was going to say something…
HOLT: Please very quickly.
TRUMP: … extremely rough to Hillary, to her family, and I said to myself, “I can’t do it. I just can’t do it. It’s inappropriate. It’s not nice.” But she spent hundreds of millions of dollars on negative ads on me, many of which are absolutely untrue. They’re untrue. And they’re misrepresentations.
And I will tell you this, Lester: It’s not nice. And I don’t deserve that.
Trump spent much of the last week pressing the case not so much against Hillary Clinton as against the former Miss Universe, and her weight gain. But he also warend that he was ready to be “not nice” in attacking Bill Clinton’s sex life and what he described as Hillary’s role as his “enabler.”
From his all-purpose surrogate and fellow misunderstood feminist Rudy Giuliani on ABC’s This Week Sunday:
RUDY GIULIANI: Well, you know, I think it is a bad idea to focus on President Clinton’s personal life. That’s his personal life. It is not a bad idea to point out her hypocrisy. Her hypocrisy, if — I mean, she’s attacking Donald Trump about how he deals with women.
And so now basically it’s don’t lecture me, Hillary, on feminism, because you’re a phony.
OK. So Trump and his inner circle don’t seem particularly well situated to exploit Clinton’s “phony feminism.”
When it comes to his war against political correctness, nowhere has Trump brought more firepower than to modern sensibilities on matters of sex and gender.
With apologies to Woody Allen – who has his own issues in this realm – Trump is a travesty of a mockery of a parody of a cartoon of two mockeries of a male chauvinist pig, circa 1965.
He is equal parts Austin Powers, Bobby Riggs, Larry Flynt, Andrew Dice Clay and Henry VIII.
From his years of conversation with Howard Stern we have an extraordinary running record of his subjective objectification of women.
Nonetheless, Trump appears prepared to use the next presidential debate on Sunday, to launch his “rough” attack on the sexual politics of the Clintons, whether or not Chelsea is in the house.
From Patrick Healy and Maggie Haberman at the New York Times: on Friday.
Donald J. Trump unleashed a slashing new attack on Hillary Clinton over Bill Clinton’s sexual indiscretions on Friday as he sought to put the Clintons’ relationship at the center of his political argument against her before their next debate.
Mr. Trump, the Republican presidential nominee, argued that Mrs. Clinton’s support for Ms. Machado was part of a pattern by the Democrat of treating women to suit her own political ends, and raised Mrs. Clinton’s criticism of women who had been involved with her husband, such as Monica Lewinsky and Gennifer Flowers.
He said he was bringing up Mr. Clinton’s infidelities because he thought they would repulse female voters and turn them away from the Clintons, and because he was eager to unsettle Mrs. Clinton in their next two debates and on the campaign trail.
“She’s nasty, but I can be nastier than she ever can be,” Mr. Trump said.
“Hillary Clinton was married to the single greatest abuser of women in the history of politics,” he added about Mr. Clinton. “Hillary was an enabler, and she attacked the women who Bill Clinton mistreated afterward. I think it’s a serious problem for them, and it’s something that I’m considering talking about more in the near future.”
Mr. Trump said he believed that his own marital history did not preclude him from waging such an attack. He became involved with Marla Maples while he was still married to his first wife, Ivana, who divorced him in 1991. He married Ms. Maples in 1993; they were divorced in 1999. He married his current wife, Melania, in 2005.
Mrs. Clinton’s team, Democrats supporting her and many senior Republicans have braced for an attack on the Clintons’ marital history, seeing it as inevitable — particularly now that Mr. Trump is being advised by several people connected to efforts in the late 1990s to reveal Mr. Clinton’s affair with Ms. Lewinsky and to the subsequent impeachment battle.
David Bossie, Mr. Trump’s deputy campaign manager, is the president of the conservative group Citizens United, and worked as an investigator who searched Arkansas for evidence of Mr. Clinton’s personal misdeeds during the 1992 presidential campaign.
Some of Mr. Trump’s advisers have tried to suggest focusing on accusations that Mrs. Clinton tried to discredit women who said they had been harassed by Mr. Clinton. Chief among those suggesting this approach is Roger Stone, the longest-serving Trump adviser, who wrote a book called “The Clintons’ War on Women,” laying out accusations from Juanita Broaddrick and Kathleen Willey, who have accused Mr. Clinton of sexual assault — accusations the Clintons or their lawyer David Kendall have denied
Earlier last week, Shawn Boburg covered some of the same terrain in the Washington Post in a story headlined, Enabler or family defender? How Hillary Clinton responded to husband’s accuser.
Hillary Clinton has wrestled with allegations surrounding her husband’s infidelities for much of their 40-year marriage, including a sexual harassment lawsuit, a grand jury investigation and an impeachment vote centered on his untruthfulness about a relationship with a White House intern.
Now, her Republican opponent Donald Trump and his surrogates have signaled that he may bring up the subject in the next presidential debate, treacherous territory, given his own infidelities and treatment of women.
Clinton’s friends say they have seen her deal with Bill Clinton’s conduct before, bristling at threats and countering them with steely determination. Her reaction, said longtime Arkansas friend Jim Blair, is to face accusers and respond thusly: “These people are not going to run over us.”
Her detractors, though, say that Clinton has unfairly lashed out over the years at the women involved in her husband’s indiscretions. Her responses have forced her to walk a fine line during the campaign on sexual assault issues, even as she builds strong political support among female voters.
In 2000, while running for the U.S. Senate seat in New York, Hillary Clinton was asked whether she misled the public by defending her husband.
“It is something that I regret deeply that anyone had to go through,” she said. “And I wish that we all could look at it from the perspective of history, but we can’t yet.”
In her treatment of the accusers, Trump has called Clinton an enabler.
Her friends say it’s much more benign.
“I think she felt that she had committed her life to this guy,” Jim Blair said. “They can debate politics from breakfast until bedtime and never get tired of it. She wanted to spend the rest of her life with him. She loved him. It’s as simple as that.”
The Democratic confidence, and Republican fear, is that any attempt to go after the Clintons on these questions will backfire, like it did with impeachment.
But, as I wrote on First Reading last November:
(L)ost amid the overreach of impeachment, was a pretty tawdry story.
I suspect the great liability Clinton brings to his wife’s campaign is that this will all, almost certainly, be revisited in a general election campaign, with Stone’s and Morrow’s book well-thumbed if not necessarily well-regarded, and offering Republicans an opportunity to undermine the feminist pride that ought to be fundamental to her success.
It is a critique of the Clintons that one might expect from the left, though, with rare exceptions, like the late Christopher Hitchens, they closed ranks behind the Clintons against a common enemy.
Here is Hitchens, who died in 2011, writing on The Case Against Hillary Clinton at Slate in 2008.
What do you have to forget or overlook in order to desire that this dysfunctional clan once more occupies the White House and is again in a position to rent the Lincoln Bedroom to campaign donors and to employ the Oval Office as a massage parlor? You have to be able to forget, first, what happened to those who complained, or who told the truth, last time. It’s often said, by people trying to show how grown-up and unshocked they are, that all Clinton did to get himself impeached was lie about sex. That’s not really true. What he actually lied about, in the perjury that also got him disbarred, was the women. And what this involved was a steady campaign of defamation, backed up by private dicks (you should excuse the expression) and salaried government employees, against women who I believe were telling the truth. In my opinion, Gennifer Flowers was telling the truth; so was Monica Lewinsky, and so was Kathleen Willey, and so, lest we forget, was Juanita Broaddrick, the woman who says she was raped by Bill Clinton. (For the full background on this, see the chapter “Is There a Rapist in the Oval Office?” in the paperback version of my book No One Left To Lie To. This essay, I may modestly say, has never been challenged by anybody in the fabled Clinton “rapid response” team.) Yet one constantly reads that both Clintons, including the female who helped intensify the slanders against her mistreated sisters, are excellent on women’s “issues.”
The excellent Frontline on PBS on The Choice 2016 does a good job of presenting the sexual politics of the Clintons’ marriage in context.
From Time Magazine’s Joe Klein, who wrote the fictional-but-rings-true Primary Colors:
She will never open the door to the possibility of opening a conversation about his peccadilloes and I think that goes to the core of a lot of the clenched quality that she betrays in public.
Here Hillary Clinton is in the pivotal 60 Minutes interview after the 1992 Super Bowl. (Note her authentic Arkansas twang.)
Classic line, although, of course, delivered by way of standing by her man.
Sometimes it’s hard to be a woman
Giving all your love to just one man
You’ll have bad times
And he’ll have good times,
Doin’ things that you don’t understand
But if you love him you’ll forgive him,
Even though he’s hard to understand
And if you love him oh be proud of him,
’cause after all he’s just a man
Stand by your man,
Give him two arms to cling to,
And something warm to come to
When nights are cold and lonely
Stand by your man,
And show the world you love him
Keep giving all the love you can
Stand by your man
Two things stand out for me here.
- Who knew that Hadley’s used to have a men’s happy hour on Fridays.
- Wynette’s riposte is pretty good.
“I would like you to appear with me on any forum, including network, cable or talk show and stand toe to toe with me. I can assure you, in spite of your education, you will find me to be just as bright as yourself.”
This was an interesting and telling way to put it because there was something condescending and classist in Hillary Clinton’s declaration that she was not some little woman standing by my man like Tammy Wynette.
The women that Bill Clinton took advantage of were, of couse, generally less powerful, of lower standing.
In his Love Story speech in July at the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia, the former president recounted with delight to the awws of a convention crowd none of whom apparently were alive and conscious between the years 1992 and 2000, his smitten, storybook courtship of Hillary Rodham at Yale.
The first time I saw her we were, appropriately enough, in a class on political and civil rights. She had thick blond hair, big glasses, wore no makeup, and she had a sense of strength and self- possession that I found magnetic. After the class I followed her out, intending to introduce myself. I got close enough to touch her back, but I couldn’t do it. Somehow I knew this would not be just another tap on the shoulder, that I might be starting something I couldn’t stop.
Bill Clinton showed restraint because this was the real deal, the woman he wanted to marry, to share his life and career with. Like many of the Great Men of History, Clinton is able to celebrate and treasure their love and marriage quite separate and apart from all that other stuff.
And, if Hillary Clinton never took Tammy Wynette up on her challenge to go ‘toe to toe,” I suppose that was because, when push came to shove, Hillary Clinton was a Tammy Wynette Stand by Your Man feminist.
If she had not stood by her man, Bill Clinton would never have secured the Democratic nomination in 1992 and gone on to be elected president, and she would not now be the Democratic candidate for president on the threshold of being the first woman – and first former First Lady – to be president of the United States.
From Meghan Daum The ‘stand by your man’ feminism of Hillary Clinton in March the Los Angeles Times
(A) reader wrote to me recently and asked whether I thought Clinton “set back the feminist movement” by not leaving Bill Clinton after all the evidence of his infidelities.
I wrote back what I’ve always thought: The Clinton marriage is — pardon me while I duck for cover — kind of great, even romantic in its own way. Maybe not in a romantic love kind of way (though who knows?), but in the sense of a true partnership that transcends the common conventions of most marriages.
The idea that the Clinton marriage is little more than a political partnership — and therefore a cynical relationship — has been lobbed at Hillary and Bill for decades. I don’t buy it. I see them as intellectually, philosophically and practically well matched, a pairing that’s taken on tasks ranging from raising a child and thinking about how best to effect change in the world.
No two marriages have quite the same yardstick for happiness or success. Hillary’s choice to stay in her marriage sends the signal that she is strong, that she is her own woman, one capable of deciding that being together “in one way or another” can be just as sacred as waking up next to the same person day in and day out.
But then there is this vociferously quite opposite take from Emily Hill writing at the conservative British publication, The Spectrum: Why Hillary Clinton’s nomination is no triumph for womanhood, This is one more victory for putting up with your dodgy husband
But if Hillary beats Trump to the White House, it won’t be feminism’s ultimate triumph, it’ll be one more victory for the institution of marriage. And, by my feminist standards, if that symbolises anything, it’s regression. Achieving power by means of marrying, and putting up with, a really sh***y husband is something women have been doing for centuries. Yet no one points to Catherine the Great and says, ‘That’s the way to do it, gels!’ At least Catherine, when she got to power, knifed her cruel spouse, confident that she could rule much better by herself. Hillary has not only ridden the Clinton machine all the way to where she is today; she promises Americans that she’ll rely on her husband to govern. In May, she reassured voters in Kentucky that Bill will be ‘in charge of revitalising the economy because, you know, he knows how to do it’.
Margaret Thatcher sprang into power entirely thanks to her own smarts, cleaving to her own political vision, which she implemented, ruthlessly, through three elections. And feminists of the fifth wave never claim that as womankind’s great leap forward. Mrs Clinton, by contrast, has no message, no vision and no creed beyond, as Christopher Buckley recently pointed out in these pages, ‘I am so owed.’
And for what is she owed? Standing by her man, of course. The young women of America are too young to remember the deeply unedifying exhibition the Clintons made of themselves in the 1990s. Back then, Bill referred to his wife as ‘the First Liability’ because everything she touched — in the words of Martin Amis — turned ‘out to have the word gate tacked on to the end of it’. Worse still was how Hillary stuck by her husband as he stuck his penis into any woman willing — plus, according to Juanita Broaddrick, at least one who wasn’t. And she didn’t just stick by him; she helped him stick it to each and every member of her own sex who had the temerity to complain. And she continued to dance to Tammy Wynette’s tune even after he left office, as he gadded about the globe with billionaire Ron Burkle on a plane dubbed Air F*** One. Now, Bill is too ill to carry on philandering, but he was at it as recently as 2008 when ‘a bimbo eruption’ — as a Clinton troubleshooter delicately put it — threatened to derail Hillary’s nascent campaign. Fortunately, Obama won.
The most appalling thing about Hillary Clinton is that she makes Donald Trump seem like a crazed feminist choice for 45th president — for at least he’s making a feminist argument. The Donald has been busy pursuing a line of attack first put forward by none other than America’s radical feminist-in-chief, Camille Paglia. ‘Hillary Clinton’s feminism is a fraud,’ Paglia wrote in an email to the Daily Beast last year. ‘She rode her husband’s coattails to wealth and power, and she has amorally colluded in the vilification and destruction of female victims of her husband’s serial abuse.’ In January, Trump started tweeting, ‘I hope Bill Clinton starts talking about women’s issues so the voters can see what a hypocrite he is and how Hillary abused those women!’
I don’t like sympathising with a misogynist billionaire whose ideas are as mad and bad as his hair — but he has a point. It matters how you get to power, and trampling all over your less powerful sisters without once stopping to help is not the way to do it. When I was a teenager, Bill taught me how men in power are allowed to treat women, while Hill stood by and watched. The most powerful man in the world appeared, with livid face, on television, on permanent loop, claiming that he ‘did not have sexual relations with that woman’, the 22-year-old unpaid intern whose best dress turned out to have the presidential ejaculate all over it. Hillary appeared to disregard the whole existence of Monica Lewinsky, just as she did any other woman Bill discarded as a used receptacle for semen and cigars.
Had Hillary divorced the oily bastard, acquired a clear set of political principles and made it on her own, I’d be the biggest cheerleader there ever was for Democratic candidate Rodham. But she hasn’t and she didn’t. She stuck by Bill, cynically, because she needed the man. That, to me, is no sort of womanhood at all. And I’m content to burn in hell for all eternity for saying so.
Now, about Juanita Broaddrick.
After last week’s debate, and Trump’s remark that he only held back on going after her parents because of her presence at the debate, Chelsea Clinton said in an interview with Cosmopolitan:
“My reaction to that is just what my reaction has been kind of every time Trump has gone after my mom or my family, which is that it’s a distraction from his inability to talk about what’s actually at stake in this election,” she said. “Candidly, I don’t remember a time in my life when my parents and my family weren’t being attacked, and so it just sort of seems to be in that tradition, unfortunately.
That elicited this series of tweets from Broaddrick.
From Dylan Matthews at Vox in May.
So far, this issue has mostly been raised by conservative media and Republican politicians like Prudhomme-O’Brien. But it’s a substantive matter worthy of coverage from non-right-wing outlets as well. There really are multiple accusations of sexual assault against Bill Clinton, accusations that have too often been conflated with his much better-established and much less morally concerning history of adultery. Are the women making these accusations survivors who deserve to be believed, to borrow Hillary Clinton’s language? Or, as she later insisted, have their accusations all been found to be baseless?
The basic answer is that some of the claims appear more credible than others. There are three main accusers, of whom it seems by far the most credible — based on the publicly available evidence — is Broaddrick. Jones’s claim was aired for years and faced several major problems (including the fact that she claimed the president’s penis had a “distinguishing mark” that doctors and Monica Lewinsky said it did not have), and Willey repeatedly lied to federal investigators and changed her story dramatically between grand jury testimony and a deposition in the Jones case (among other issues).
But Broaddrick’s allegation, while hardly proven, has not been definitively refuted. Only Broaddrick and Bill Clinton know what the truth of the matter in the case is. But if one generally believes it’s important to believe the victim, it’s hard to argue that this case should be an exception.
And before that, from Michelle Goldberg at Slate, in December, under the headline, Why Bill’s Past Could Still Hurt Hillary: The right hopes to turn the feminist consensus on rape against the Clintons.
Donald Trump has all but promised us that in 2016 we will revisit the peregrinations of Bill Clinton’s penis. “You look at whether it’s Monica Lewinsky or Paula Jones or many of them,” he said Tuesday on NBC’s Today show. “That certainly will be fair game. Certainly if they play the woman’s card with respect to me, that will be fair game.” Like that, thanks to Trump’s near-supernatural command of the news cycle, Bill’s sexual history returned to the headlines. With Bill about to head out on the campaign trail—and with Hillary putting gender issues at the center of her bid for the presidency—it’s likely to stay there for a while.
Among Democrats, the conventional wisdom is that this can only help Hillary. Bill Clinton remains incredibly popular. People historically rally around Hillary when she seems like a victim—her approval ratings surged during the Lewinsky scandal. Besides, the oft-married Trump can’t credibly attack anyone for infidelity, especially given his own past defenses of Bill, whose only sin, in Trump’s estimation, was not cheating with hotter women. As Josh Marshall writes, “[I]n a general election, with an electorate not driven by the things that drive Trump supporters, having a thrice married, philandering blowhard like Trump trying to beat up on a woman over her husband’s philandering, about which she is if anything the victim rather than the perpetrator, is almost comically self-destructive on Trump’s part.”
I’m not so sanguine that this can’t hurt Hillary, if only by undermining Bill’s effectiveness as a campaigner and complicating Hillary’s feminist message. That’s because, for the right, the Clinton sex scandals aren’t about infidelity. They’re about sexual harassment and assault. Conservatives are itching to turn the new feminist consensus on sexual violence against the woman who wants to be the first feminist president. As a New Hampshire voter asked Hillary Clinton earlier this month, “You say that all rape victims should be believed. But would you say that about Juanita Broaddrick, Kathleen Willey, and/or Paula Jones?” Clinton’s somewhat awkward response: “Well, I would say that everybody should be believed at first, until they are disbelieved based on evidence.”
To be clear: I don’t think for a moment that the people who hope to use Broaddrick against Hillary care about victim blaming. And it would be a profound sexist irony if these accusations, having failed to derail Bill Clinton’s political career, came back to haunt his wife. Nevertheless, it’s easy to see why many on the right are giddy at the prospect of a new national conversation about Bill Clinton’s sex scandals, and thrilled that Trump is giving them one.
But, of course, Donald Trump is probably the last human being on the planet who can effectively raise any of these issues. It is likely, if he tries, it will backfire.
From Josh Marshall at Talking Points Memo.
Trump and his advisors are now convinced that Bill Clinton’s numerous infidelities are the Sword of Damocles they have hanging over Hillary Clinton, the ultimate boom to lower on all her electoral aspirations. But this premise is dubious and far-fetched. According to the Times, Trump said “he was bringing up Mr. Clinton’s infidelities because he thought they would repulse female voters and turn them away from the Clintons, and because he was eager to unsettle Mrs. Clinton in their next two debates and on the campaign trail.”
As I noted over the weekend, what seems blindingly obvious is that for a boorish aggressor like Trump to raise Bill Clinton’s infidelities against Hillary Clinton seems wildly more likely to repulse female voters against Trump than against Clinton. Yes, there are these baroque arguments which purport to show why Hillary Clinton is the true villain of her husband’s infidelities and which leverage faux feminist arguments to brand her a hypocrite. But these are no more than a patch work mask pasted over something more stark and primal: they are meant to shame Clinton sexually, humiliate her publicly and brand her as weak and contemptible. In any case, what attacks are ‘about’ is seldom up to the attacker. The audience decides that. It will be surpassingly difficult for Trump – a man known for attacking women as floozies, pigs and worse – to convince anyone that these attacks are anything other than sadism and cruelty. He can’t even start a conversation, let alone convince anyone, that he cares in any way about how anyone treats women.
He makes that more clear each day with his increasingly sexualized assaults on Machado. Trump told the Times he was “absolutely disgusted” that Clinton has allied herself with Machado. And his ‘disgust’ is driven by his claim that, far from being pure, she is, to put it baldy, a slut. He made this clear in his overnight tweets and he reiterated it in his comments to the Times. Clinton, said Trump, “made this young lady into a girl scout when she was the exact opposite,” before claiming, with no evidence, that she had sex on camera in a sex tape. All of the drama and expectation clustering around the ‘will he or won’t he bring up Bill’s affairs’ question fails to grapple with the simple fact that Trump is highly unlikely to credibly pose as a critic of the mistreatment of women while simultaneously calling women whores and pigs.
The other dimension of the story is Trump’s belief or boast that he will ‘unsettle’ or unnerve Clinton. Everything we’ve seen of these two individuals suggests that there is little that can shake Clinton. She has her shortcomings and insufficiencies. But this is not one of them. She is steely and unflappable. On the contrary, it’s Trump who is easily rattled, easy to make a plaything of his chaotic and unbounded emotions.
All of the talk about raising Bill Clinton’s sexual history are just a replay of Trump’s instinctive penchant for dominance politics. It’s not as though voters can’t think about Bill Clinton’s history unless Trump raising it. It’s not as though there’s any new information Trump can bring to the table. At its essence all of this talk is no more than warnings and threats that he will abuse Clinton in public, shame her and try to humiliate her. Like any abuser he is threatening to hit her and make her cower. “Don’t make me hurt you!” There’s no issue or debate.
For now and for the next several weeks at least Trump is pulling the country into the drama of his own dominance and abuse rituals, ones that plainly aren’t working because his opponent is steadier on her feet than he is. That fact itself is leading him to lash out in wilder and wilder ways, just as electoral reverses are pressuring him into more intense outbursts. The next debate is only a week away. It’s difficult to imagine he can right his ship before then.
But it seems to me that Hillary Clinton, knowing what Hillary Clinton knows and has lived through, should have been more cautious about baiting a trap for Donald Trump on his treatment of Miss Universe, because, for all his cloddish, contemptible sexism and epic, narcissistic obtuseness, his treatment of Alicia Machado is less consequential and fraught with peril than Bill Clinton’s and her own treatment of everyone from Gennifer Flowers to Monica Lewinsky.
Instead of celebrating her success in suckering Trump into his self-destructive Weightgate, if I were Hillary Clinton at next Sunday’s debate and Donald Trump raises questions about her being an enabler of Bill Clinton’s sexual misdeeds, I would look at the camera, and say, `You know what America. I hope you will bestow on me the great and historic honor of electing me the first woman president. It’s been a very long, tough and sometimes bumpy road, but if you will indulge me, I just want to offer a belated apology to Tammy Wynette.”
And with that, Hillary Clinton should launch into simple, heartfelt rendition of Stand by Your Man.
Sometimes it’s hard to be a woman.