Yesterday Hillary Clinton was on the road in Derry, New Hampshire. During the brief period of time the geriatric contender for the Democrat nomination was awake she attended a town hall event to allow her get within shouting distance of actual humans. As we all know, Hillary’s town halls are tightly scripted affairs with carefully vetted and fawning questions lobbed underhand by carefully vetted audience participants. While Hillary was smoothly going from one prepared answer to another, a woman began to incessantly wave her hand. She was ignored. Then she shouted her question three times. It was about Juanita Broderick and Bill Clinton. Gaiety ensued.
The heckler is a former Democrat who is now a Republican state representative. Her name is Katherine Prudhomme O’Brien. And this is not the first time she has confronted a candidate for the Democrat nomination about Bill Clinton’s sordid sexual history. Naturally the media went into full defense mode for Hillary. Rather than think about the question the woman was asking, they are trying to use the episode to portray Hillary as a tough politician rather than a corrupt and insensitive old bat:
Clinton stands up to heckler (in blue): “You are very rude, and I’m *not* going to ever call on you.” pic.twitter.com/umMaICxNIQ
— Liz Kreutz (@ABCLiz) January 3, 2016
One of the most priceless parts of this low-end street theater occurred outside the town hall when Ms. Prudhomme O’Brien was asked by a CNN reporter what her interest was in Bill Clinton’s activities as a sexual predator thereby reminding us all of why we should never ask questions we don’t know the answer to (watch it all or go to 1:00 for the highlight):
CNN reporter: Why does this matter to you?
Prudhomme-O’Brien: Because I’m a rape survivor myself.
Donald Trump’s attack on Hillary’s use of Bill Clinton as a campaign surrogate while she campaigns on “women’s issues” was spot on and the media dam seems to have been damaged, though not broken. And the left knows that these stories are damaging because, thanks to the left, the entire way sexual assaults are views by the left have changed:
We will probably never know the truth of what happened between Broaddrick and Clinton. But today, few feminists would find her shifting story disqualifying. Consider, also, another piece of evidence that was marshaled against Broaddrick in the 1990s: Three weeks after the alleged assault, she attended a fundraiser for Clinton. Speaking to Klein, she says she was traumatized and blamed herself for what happened. “I felt responsible. I don’t know if you know the mentality of women and men at that time. But me letting him come to my room? I accepted full blame.” In any other context, most feminists today would find this credible. After all, many were outraged when rape skeptics tried to discredit Columbia student Emma Sulkowicz because she’d sent friendly Facebook messages to her alleged rapist after the alleged rape.
To be clear: I don’t think for a moment that the people who hope to use Broaddrick against Hillary care about victim blaming. And it would be a profound sexist irony if these accusations, having failed to derail Bill Clinton’s political career, came back to haunt his wife. Nevertheless, it’s easy to see why many on the right are giddy at the prospect of a new national conversation about Bill Clinton’s sex scandals, and thrilled that Trump is giving them one. As Breitbart’s Ben Shapiro told the Washington Post, “The irony of the situation is that the old Clintonian defense, ‘everybody lies about sex,’ doesn’t fly in a world in which Hillary has declared that nobody lies about sexual assault.”
Hillary’s denial of Bill Clinton’s serial rape and molestation of women who could not complain and her abuse of his victims is well documented. What Hillary encountered in New Hampshire sould very well be a foretaste of the rest of the campaign for Hillary Clinton.