Here I am linking to Maureen Dowd again. Actually she quotes another writer on Hillary and Bill’s peculiar relationship:
Caitlin Flanagan writes in The Atlantic [that Hillary is not]“willing to let us women in on the big, underlying struggle of her life that is front and center in our understanding of who she is as a woman. Her husband’s sexual behavior, quite apart from the private pain that it has caused her, has also sullied her deepest — and most womanly — ideals and convictions, for the Clintons’ political partnership has demanded that she defend actions she knows to be indefensible. To call her husband a philanderer is almost to whitewash him, for he’s used women far less sophisticated, educated and powerful than he — women particularly susceptible to the rake’s characteristic blend of cajolery and deceit — for his sexual gratification.
“In glossing over her husband’s actions and abetting his efforts to squirm away from the scrutiny and judgment they provoke, Hillary has too often lapsed into her customary hauteur and self-righteousness and added to the pain delivered upon these women.”
Flanagan’s assertion that Bill Clinton “used women far less sophisticated, educated and powerful than he” is pure pre-Monica feminism, meaning that there can never be “consensual sex” between a powerful man and a powerless woman.
I wonder how many of those who blame Monica (and the rest of Bill’s “seductresses”) would admit they are, for political reasons, “defending actions [they] know to be indefensible.”