It's the implied, wink and a giggle, TWO FOR ONE deal to which Donald Trump responds when he brings up Monica Lewinsky, the intern with whom President Clinton had sex in the oval office (on company time, if you will, and lied about and the impeachment proceedings that followed.) Sensibly, you might be inclined to say, "So what? Bill Clinton's not running for President she is." But it's Hillary Clinton who has shamelessly offered the two for one deal to the American people in her ELECT-US efforts.
After all, Bill Clinton is a superdelegate who declined to recuse himself for conflict of interest, ("Bill Clinton defends decision not to recuse himself of superdelegate vote," Joe Stepansky, Rich Schapiro, New York Daily News, 3/31/2016.)
Bill Clinton's been on the campaign trail for her.
In December, 2015 at the debate Hillary Clinton confirmed there'd be a spot for Bill Clinton in government, "'I will certainly turn to him'” to provide advice, she said, on “'how we’re going to get the economy working for everybody, which he knows a little about.'” (cited from http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/23/us/politics/hillary-clinton-embraces-bill-clintons-economic-legacy.html, Amy Chozick, 12/22/2015, "Hillary Clinton Confidently Embraces Bill Clinton’s Economic Record").
In May, Hillary explained how regarding creating jobs, "I’ve told my husband he’s got to come out of retirement and be in charge of this, because you know, he’s got more ideas a minute than anybody I know," Clinton said…Nick Gass, 5/2/2016, "Hillary Clinton hints at job for Bill in White House, http://www.politico.com/blogs/2016-dem-primary-live-updates-and-results/2016/05/hillary-clinton-bill-job-white-house-222708#ixzz489SUEXO3.
So it is she who has brought President Bill Clinton into Hillary Clinton's Co-Candidacy for President, along with the good, the bad, and the ugly of Bill Clinton's presidency. Monica Lewinsky and others are part of the public Clinton legacy.
For Hillary Clinton, who has not only incorporated Bill Clinton into her candidacy but is hanging her hat on the woman vote Bill Clinton's conduct is especially relevant, not because of what Bill Clinton chose to do, but because Donald Trump has been condemned for not denouncing specific individuals who have come out in support of him, (like David Duke) though he has repeatedly separated himself from both the individual and the views (see quotes compiled by Glenn Kessler, Washington Post, March 1, 2016, "Donald Trump and David Duke: For the record," https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/03/01/donald-trump-and-david-duke-for-the-record/.
And as far as going after the WOMAN VOTE, just like those who accuse Donald Trump of being racist based on the unsolicited support for Trump from David Duke and Trump's advocacy of a pause of Muslim immigration UNTIL there is adequate vetting for such immigrants, which "GOP Sen. Jeff Sessions, head of the Senate subcommittee on immigration, the Homeland Security official in charge of vetting Syrian and other foreign Muslim refugees confessed that no police or intelligence databases exist to check the backgrounds of incoming refugees against criminal and terrorist records," http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/no-databases-exist-to-vet-syrian-refugees/, 10/6/2015, has justified endless questioning about Trump's attitudes, Hillary Clinton must address whom she supports in the political arena.
Donald Trump isn't bringing David Duke into the White House, Hillary promises she will bring Bill Clinton in--it's part of the reason nostalgic Democrats are voting for her, the two for one. So, how can you say you're pro-Woman if you bring someone whose conduct towards women is at best, unclear and at worst is the conduct of a predator? (See, Vanity Fair, 2007, Marjorie Williams, "Clinton and Women," which stated, "In some ways, it’s baffling that feminists can still argue seriously that one Hillary trumps a multitude of Monicas. Even leaving aside Clinton’s repeated public humiliations of his wife, she’s always been a dubious feminist heroine: after all, she married her power, and in the White House she has wielded it without accountability," http://www.vanityfair.com/magazine/1998/05/williams199805.
For certain, Hillary isn't actively against women. But not being against is NOT the same as being FOR in terms of concrete lasting change brought to women through over 30 years of public employment. The question is also, "What lasting change has Hillary Clinton in her decades of unique political access ever brought to women?" The answer is nothing substantial that I can find.
It may make people feel good to support Hillary Clinton in her co-candidacy with Bill Clinton which is a choice, but feelings are not facts and the facts we have are pretty clear that saying that Donald Trump supports the KKK or is a racist is about as accurate as saying that Hillary Clinton is a champion of women's rights.
