The New York Post reports that sources close to Bill and Hillary Clinton say they are angry about favorable comparisons being drawn between Hillary and Huma Abedin:
“The Clintons are upset with the comparisons that the Weiners seem to be encouraging—that Huma is ‘standing by her man’ the way Hillary did with Bill, which is not what she in fact did,” said a top state Democrat.
Okay. Well, then what was it in fact that Hillary did? No answer on that count. Just denial apparently. As if it would be a necessarily bad thing for Hillary to stick with her unfaithful husband. The Post continues:
Weiner and his campaign aides have explicitly referred to the Clintons as they privately seek to convince skeptical Democrats that voters can back Weiner despite his online sexual antics—just as they supported then-President Bill Clinton in the face of repeated allegations of marital betrayals.
“The Clintons are pissed off that Weiner’s campaign is saying that Huma is just like Hillary,’’ said the source. “How dare they compare Huma with Hillary? Hillary was the first lady. Hillary was a senator. She was secretary of state.”
And, let’s not forget that Hillary has blonde hair, and Huma’s hair is black. I’m surprised they missed that one.
The Clintons have been friends with Huma and Weiner for quite some time. Huma has been an aide and friend of Hillary’s. In fact, it was Bill himself who officiated the Weiner wedding. But Hillary, apparently, will not stand for any positive comparisons. Aside from baldly stating contradictions, none of these pro-Hillary sources cared to elaborate on how Huma and Hillary’s situation differed. This is not an argument. It’s just contradiction. Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of any statement the other person makes. [short pause] No it isn’t.
So let’s actually compare the situations, in spite of Hillary’s adamant avowals that the situations are nothing alike.
- During his presidency, Bill Clinton was unfaithful to Hillary. Like, a bunch.
- A scandal developed when details of Bill’s unfaithfulness surfaced.
- Hillary stuck with Bill.
- Low-information voters with really short attention spans and low personal moral standards continued to support Bill Clinton because condemning him made them feel like hypocrites.
Now just go back and replace Bill with Anthony and Hillary with Huma. Yeah. That’s pretty much exactly the same situation. But no. According to Hillary, the situation is so totally different. Not even close to being the same. From different worlds. Apples and oranges. Okay. So. How is it different? It’s not. But she wishes so much that it were, and she wants Weiner and company to stop reminding New Yorkers how actually similar it is.
Just because a comparison is unflattering does not make it untrue. Weiner is making the comparison in order to help preserve his political career. Hillary wants to kill the comparison in order to preserve her political career. And Huma may be following Hillary’s lead because she too wants a successful political career post-scandal.
Right at the beginning of Hillary’s bid for the presidency is not the time she wants to be compared to a spineless, grasping, and contemptible tagalong without the modicum of self-respect necessary to abandon a politically expedient marriage when she is publicly humiliated by the dalliances of her morally bankrupt husband. But the comparison is accurate nonetheless.