In defence of Hillary Clinton – a response

It’s amazing how many men who want to signal their support of Trump can’t seem to tell the difference between promiscuity and rape. This apparent blurring of boundaries is particularly evident in a Reaction article written by one of our authors Gerald Warner. Gerald takes a look at Trump’s boasts from 2005 about assaulting women, along with the thirteen women who have come forward with stories of how Trump groped them or entered their dressing rooms to catch them naked (some involving girls as young as fifteen), and recharacterised it all as “salacious conduct”.

But we believe in telling both sides of the story, so here’s a breakdown of the charges against the “partisan liberal media”, that has – Gerald alleges, been a key player on Team Clinton.

Let’s start with Hillary Clinton’s health, which is presented as a conspiracy, as though no politician has ever had pneumonia before. Yes, she fainted, and yes, her campaign was slow to disclose the information the media was baying for – but, as I wrote at the time, would you want your private medical records pored over by millions of strangers? It is worth pointing out that Trump, after promising to publish his medical records, did nothing of the sort, instead releasing a bizarre letter that his doctor admitted he wrote in five minutes, stating that “If elected, Mr. Trump, I can state unequivocally, will be the healthiest individual ever elected to the presidency”. There have also been concerns about Trump’s temperament and mental health, with numerous reports that he struggles to concentrate for more than a few minutes at a time and a trove of evidence that he is incapable of handling criticism – both far more worrying for a potential president than a fainting episode.

Then there’s the real point: accusing the Clintons of corruption, which Gerald calls “monumental”, “shameless” and “squalid”. His argument mainly relies on a book and film that Clinton defenders have robustly debunked and contain no evidence of illegal activity. Other proof of the corruption Gerald feels is so blatant is an increase in Bill Clinton’s speaking fees and the sale of an American uranium company to Russia – something he immediately admits Hillary Clinton had no power to veto.

Let us not forget that the Clintons are the most scrutinised couple in American politics. Look at the e-mail “scandal”. The FBI report concluded that Hillary Clinton had committed no crime, and that she had acted in exactly the same way as her Republican predecessor Colin Powell. That confirmation of innocence has done nothing to convince her critics or the media, which mentioned her e-mails every single day for a full year. In contrast, the numerous legal battles Trump is embroiled in – from his tax avoidance, to his breaches of employment and contract law, to the illegal actions of his charitable foundation – got barely a mention until last month. There’s a media double standard at work.‎

As for Benghazi, after Republicans spent $7 million on 33 hearings about Clinton’s role in the Benghazi incident it was proved conclusively that she performed her duties as Secretary of State to the best of her ability. So with the media spotlight turned up to blazing levels, could corruption on the level alleged ever be covered up? Of course not.

What troubles me most about Clinton’s critics is the conflation of Hillary Clinton with her husband. Gerald says “they come as a job lot”, which would have been going a bit far even in Medieval times. This may be a shock for many Trump supporters, but women are not actually extensions of the people they marry. They are living, thinking, autonomous individuals, who may agree with some or most of what their partners do, but are certainly not responsible for their actions. Bill Clinton may or may not have been a sexual predator, but to date there have been zero accusations of sexual harassment against Hillary Clinton, and she is the one running for president.

The revolt against Trump (and it isn’t just the Democrats or the media – many Republican politicians and conservative voters have also deserted him) has nothing to do with sexual purity: it has to do with the candidate’s own admission that he gropes women, which is a crime under US law punishable by up to ten years in prison. It is entirely rational (and, dare I say it, decent) to worry about a man who has publicly signalled his disrespect for half the population being commander in chief.

Women matter. Women vote. And American women have decided they don’t want a man who brags about grabbing their pussies running their country.