Monday, November 26, 2007

The Importance of Clinton's Lesbianism

The blog Wolf Howling has the definitive post regarding rumors of Hillary Clinton's lesbianism. The rumors seem to be picking up steam since The Times of London mentioned them in a piece about South Carolina political rumors, followed by a lead article over at the Drudge Report. However, the rumors have been around since Bill Clinton was president (I can remember first hearing the rumor from a co-worker back in the early 90's, who allegedly had a friend who went to college with Hillary and knew about Hillary's lesbianism.).

If it is true, is Hillary's lesbianism important?

Let's remove the question from Hillary Clinton and ask: Is lesbianism important in presidential politics? There are undoubtedly some people who would never vote for a homosexual candidate, regardless of the candidate's political views. Personally, I consider the issue of lesbianism irrelevant by itself. If an openly lesbian candidate shares my political views, she has my vote. But that is just me.

How about from the aspect of a married woman who is having a lesbian affair on the side, while campaigning for president? What if the candidate publicly lied about being a lesbian? This comes under the same category of any presidential candidate who is cheating on their spouse. Again, there are many voters who would never vote for an unfaithful candidate. Personally, this is where a candidate starts to lose me as a voter, for this reason: If a candidate would lie to their spouse, who should be the most important person in their life, then I believe it is reasonable to assume they would have no trouble whatsoever lying to me, an anonymous voter. However, I would be willing to overlook the trust issue IF the candidate has a history of supporting my political views.

So far, if I was going to vote for Hillary Clinton based on her political views, I would still be doing so.

But there are subtleties to Hillary's situation that I have never seen in politics before.

Consider this quote from Gennifer Flowers' 1995 book, Passion and Betrayal:
“There’s something you need to know. I’ve been hearing tales around town that Hillary is having another thing with a woman.” I watched his face to see his reaction, and couldn’t believe it when he burst out laughing. I was stunned! I asked him what was so funny. “Honey,” he said, “she’s probably eaten more pussy than I have.”

Bill said he had known for a long time that Hillary was attracted to women, and it didn’t really bother him anymore. His first clue came from her lack of enjoyment of sex with him. She didn’t like to experiment and insisted on the missionary position and nothing else. Because she wasn’t enjoying herself; neither was he. Sex with her became a duty; nothing more.”
(page 42, quoted from Wolf Howling's blog)

The reason this is disturbing is: Why would Gennifer Flowers have any reason to attack Hillary Clinton back in 1995? If anything, one might expect her to be sympathetic towards Hillary. However, if she had found out the man she was having an affair with was married to a lesbian, she might use that fact as a means of revenge.

IF Hillary is a lesbian, and IF Bill has known about it since his affair with Gennifer Flowers, then it brings into question how hurt she REALLY was by the Monica Lewinsky affair, as well as the whole Clinton marriage. If she had been cheating on him all these years, why would she care if Bill had an affair?

Another rumor which has been around for a long time is that the Clinton's marriage was nothing more than a professional collaberation between two politically ambitious people. If so, their relationship is a political charade the likes of which have never been seen before. While there have been loveless marriages in politics, has there ever been a marriage that was politically choreographed from the start, between an oversexed heterosexual man and a lesbian?

IF it is proven that Hillary is a lesbian, and IF her marriage has been nothing more than a political convenience, then even her political history has to be called into question. If a person was so congenitally dishonest as to create a sham marriage in order to advance her political career, can you honestly believe that her legislative votes reflect her beliefs?

It is easy to stop here with a hollow image of dishonest Hillary. But put yourself in her shoes for a minute.

Imagine yourself in 1973, having just graduated from Yale Law School. You are a lesbian woman, with strong political ambitions. It doesn't sound like you really have much of a political future, does it? In 1973, lesbian lawyers didn't go very far in politics. You might be able to make it in local politics, possibly even into the U.S. Congress. But you want more than that.

Then you meet Bill Clinton. He is charming, and he shares your political views and ambition (and lust for women?). Maybe he doesn't interest you sexually, but you need a way to accomplish your political goals. You want to change the world, and the world of the 1970's doesn't offer political means to lesbians, even ones who are talented lawyers. So you get married. Changing the world is more important than your personal affairs, right?

Somewhere along the line, Bill realizes you aren't interested in him sexually. Either he cheats on you, or confronts you with it. Maybe you were cheating on him? Regardless of how it happens, the two of you reach an agreement: As long as both of you are discrete, then you both can have as many affairs as you like. The important thing is for both of you to stay together, because the world needs to be changed.

Here we are over 30 years later. You have been living with this lie your entire life. You are leading in the polls for the Democratic Presidential nomination. You are even leading in the early polls for the general election next year. Would YOU come clean NOW? When your main goal all along has been to change the world, and you are so close to accomplishing it, why would anyone risk it?

Personally, I disagree with Hillary's socialist politics. But if you agree with her brand of socialism, then ignore the lesbian rumors and vote for her. Her personal life is a mess, but it was never important to her in the first place. She is trying to accomplish what has always been important to her, and for that she has my respect.


Rodak said...

Since there's a writers' strike on, I really think that you should be offering this stuff to Jay Leno. This could be your big break!

William R. Barker said...

"While there have been loveless marriages in politics, has there ever been a marriage that was politically choreographed from the start, between an oversexed heterosexual man and a lesbian?"

Actually, Ed... throughout most of history marriages were arranged - especially "noble" and "royal" marriages. Also "economic" unions between "commercial" families.

Lesbian... bisexual... straight... bottom line Bill and Hillary had Chelsea together - the dynasty marches on.

Now I'm pretty anti-Clinton, but I doubt that Bill and Hillary's marriage is a "shame" in the sense that they don't love each other and never did. I reject that. Yes... there marriage was ALSO a "businesss" arrangement, a political partnership with a specific course set all along. I don't doubt that for a minute. But no... I don't believe Bill was Hillary's "beard," whether her primary sexual attraction is to women or not.

Professional collaberation yes. Charade no. That's how I see it - best guess. "Loveless" marriage? I highly doubt it.


EdMcGon said...

Your point?

Finish reading the post before you start commenting. ;)

William R. Barker said...

Ed my friend... (*GRIN*)

I did read your post - your entire post. Not quite sure why you assume I didn't.

Basically, you make your case on "maybes" and "ifs." Nothing wrong with that. (*SHRUG*) My post simply gave my view - it didn't attack yours.

You claim Hillary's personal life was never important to her based on...

(See the problem, Ed???)

Anyway... perhaps HRC or Bill (or Chelsea!) will stumble across your blog, read your post, read my reply...


...and give us the straight skinny.

Till then...


Rodak said...

Your point?"