How NOT to Respond to Somebody Citing You as "the WORST Abuser of Women in U.S. Political History"
Wednesday, May 18, 2016 at 00:38
skinnydipinacid

<= Just in case you were unsure of who the Democrat subject is

Now, there's good ways and bad ways to address a hot topic such as rape, an oval office b.j., repeated trips to a pedophile's island or even a sweetheart deal received by said pedophile (although I feel like I'm leaving out quite a few steamy accusations in this list)...  then there's the Clinton way:  with a smile and a pander, to all you folks out there, that are smart enough to figure it out on your own.

Well golly gee.  (video c/o CNN)

Energizer?  WHAT?!

Word of advice to the Clintons (not that I want them to actually take it, because I'd rather see them lose horribly in November)...  it MIGHT be a good idea to figure out a better way to address these accusations, because Trump is only getting started with the accusations against Slick Willy, and they're only going to get more brutal and frequent than this one tweet: 

Amazing that Crooked Hillary can do a hit ad on me concerning women when her husband was the WORST abuser of woman in U.S. political history

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 17, 2016

Maybe it's just me, but if some crazy woman was out there claiming I raped her many years ago, then re-emerging on the political scene and smeering me (and my wife's campaign) STILL to this day (oh, and I was innocent ::wink wink::) I guarantee you I'd be out there defending my good name (assuming said hypothetical me had a "good name" to defend), but Bill Clinton has never really been one to defend himself against any of these accusations.  He instead opts to dodge and deflect, and the mainstream media has long been willing to oblige his deflections.  No, they'd rather dredge up even darker sludge on the Clinton's upcoming opponent (and failing) instead.

Nothing screams "we believe you" more than a dogged search for a bigger distraction.

Even some left-wing media outlets like MSNBC, HuffPo, Vox and many others have (despite the obvious up-front dismissals for political sake) consider many of the explicit stories more credible than some of the others (code for "well... shit"), and they've received countless interviews from the accusers, but never do they get a difinitive comment beyond a deflection or "not available to comment" from the Clinton camp.

Not that anybody would believe him anway:

Article originally appeared on Watch for Flying Adjectives (http://www.blrag.com/).
See website for complete article licensing information.