By Paula Hamilton



Bill aside . . . What about Hillary?

Like most of my fellow American's I have been following the White House sideshow, courtesy of the media, like it or not. It's not that I don't want to be informed, only to me, it really came as no surprise. Hints of Clinton's infidelities reached voters long before the first election took place, remember Gennifer Flowers? Even if you weren't paying attention, the opportunity represented itself in the second campaign with Paula Jones. I essentially figured voters got what they paid for, or voted for, as the case may be.

However, my grievance is toward the smarmy, steamy trivialities being trumpeted across paper, air waves and Internet. Do we really need to know the details about the Presidential Cigar romp to get the point? And was it an illegal Cuban Cigar? Aside from Bill, the real plot centers around the women in this little drama.

Occasionally, I have the distressing experience of being exposed to journalism at its worst. Programs such as Rush Limbaugh and local Rush wannabe's, adding their two cents to the ever growing pile of pennies. Recent broadcast callers attacked Monica, Linda Tripp, and even Hillary, with gruesome relish. Commenting not just on their behavior, but an all-out fusillade on personal clothes, hair, weight, looks, sexual purity and sexual prowess. Linda Tripp was "asexual, sexually unappealing or sexually frustrated:, depending on the caller. Her weight and looks were criticized as well as the way she dressed. Monica was a powerful temptress, an irresistible seductress and a loose woman, just like her mother. Her looks and manner of dress were also open to critique.

While I thought the callers disgraceful, Monica and Linda bashing was slightly more understandable than what came next. Hillary was scourged just as badly as the other two. Apparently, Hillary was at fault because, in essence, she wasn't able to keep Bill's sexual interest from wandering, she wasn't "woman enough:. One male caller blamed Mrs. Clinton for Bill's adultery, by claiming that her name, Hillary, wasn't sexy enough! Other callers, male and female, blamed Hillary for being too politically active. Evidently she should have been home baking cookies, instead of attending conferences on education. Another caller remarked on her hairstyle, others her clothes.

A few callers reasoned an ambitious Hillary willingly exchanged a faithful marriage for political clout. If that's the case Hillary definitely got the short end. Some called to complain about her public loyalty to Bill. Maybe she should have thrown him out of the White House bag and baggage, and had the locks changed. She could have the distinction of being the first First Lady to divorce while in office. Remarkably, the only one spared a part in the drubbing was their daughter, Chelsea.

Meanwhile Bill suffered little more than the flippant boys-will-be-boys exoneration, or the he-couldn't-resist-that-little-tramp justification. Not one caller elucidated on his clothes, hair, weight, name or sexual desirability and no one mentioned his mother. American's are concerned about what will happen to our image in the eyes of the world as a result of this latest Presidential scandal. Me thinks the concern should be a little closer to home. Though Bill has acted irresponsibly and notoriously, our publicly misogynous reactions, and shameless double standard, should cause more than a few heads to hang low. What are we teaching our sons and daughters about the behavior of men and women? Think about it. But, remember, it's just my onion pi.

Return to the January/February Index page