Explain to me how you think this applies to the two women named in the article (i.e., Kathleen Willey and Jaunita Broaddrick).
"Explain to me how you think this applies to the two women named in the article (i.e., Kathleen Willey and Jaunita Broaddrick)."
I haven't read the book yet, but I have read past accounts of the behavior. It frankly doesn't matter much to me whether it was consensual serial promiscuity or rape in terms of the man's credibility as a mature adult leading his political party to make decisions regarding marriage, sexual behavior, abortion and the like.
What also matters is the coverups and smears and the sense of entitlement to this trooper- and Secret Service-assisted sexual addiction and then lie about it -- and trash the people involved in it.
I was separating the instances of rape from the "mere" womanizing. Although the article indicates that Juanita Broaddrick was possibly a cheating spouse and admitted to lying under oath, and I do not find her credible because of that, in no way am I apologizing for Clinton's behavior.
I am not saying that Clinton has a right to rape, just that a woman has all the information she needs about a man's character if she knows he is married but willing to become involved with another woman. If she is willing to become involved with him, they are both "bad guys," not just the cheating husband, and she has to face the consequences just like he does.
On the other hand, she is not responsible for his actions and of course he should pay the price for his own behaviors or crimes. The full price. Clinton will not, but the women will. That's the way the world goes round.