Sir Hillary speaks out

In a recent magazine interview, first Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton blamed her husband’s “weaknesses” and infidelity on abuses the president suffered as a child.

“Everybody has some dysfunction in their families,” said Mrs. Clinton. “They have to deal with it. You don’t just walk away if you love someone — you help the person,” she said, according to a Reuters report by Laurence McQuillan.

“He couldn’t protect me, so he lied,” said Hillary. “You know in Christian theology there are sins of weakness and sins of malice, and this was a sin of weakness.”

Funny. I never thought the first family was particularly religious, but I guess it sure helps to invoke Christian compassion and forgiveness when dealing with a serious political scandal.

And, sure, he lied to protect his wife and family, not himself. What a noble deed.

“Yes, he has weaknesses,” continued the first lady.

“Yes, he needs to be more disciplined, but it is remarkable given his background that he turned out to be the kind of person he is, capable of such leadership.

“He was so young, barely four, when he was scarred by abuse,” claimed Sir Hillary. “There was terrible conflict between his mother and grandmother. A psychologist told me that being in the middle of a conflict between two women is the worst possible situation.”

What a curious statement to come from a confirmed feminist and champion of women’s rights! “A psychologist told me that being in the middle of a conflict between two women is the worst possible situation.” So what does that say about women?

Mrs. Clinton should be truly ashamed of herself. Imagine contributing to such hurtful female stereotypes: the notion of women as malicious, conniving shrews! Impossible!

What’s worse: Hopeful Senator Hillary just took a stab at Lesbian adoption and possibly even gay parenthood.

Moreover, I guess being caught in a conflict between two women only makes a young boy want to be with all sorts of women as an adult, although most men have never been caught in such a conflict and yet they still want to spend time with all sorts of attractive women. Go figure.

Mrs. Clinton told the new Talk Magazine, “I thought he had conquered it. I thought he understood it, but he didn’t go deep enough or work hard enough.”

No, he probably didn’t go deep enough; but if he did, he would have ruined his entire defense. And, yes, he really didn’t work hard enough: all he did was just stand there, although he was making some very important phone calls in the process.

So at least he was being partially productive. After all, I am sure that the first lady, if she really was the first, wouldn’t want the president to be too productive in this case.

“He’s responsible for his own behavior whether I’m there or 100 miles away,” Mrs. Clinton maintained. “You have the confrontation with the person, and then it is their responsibility, whether it’s gambling, drinking or whatever. Nobody can do it for you.”

Apparently, someone has to do it for the president. He couldn’t very well be expected to do it by himself, could he now?