Hillary: Co-dependent or co-conspirator?

Remember when Hillary Clinton and her husband’s supporters just wanted to “move on.”

They didn’t want to talk about Monica Lewinsky. They didn’t want to talk about Paula Jones. They didn’t want to talk about Gennifer Flowers. They didn’t want to talk about Dolly Kyle Browning. They didn’t want to talk about Kathleen Willey. They just didn’t want to talk about any of these people because these were personal matters. They were private matters. They had nothing to do with the job Bill Clinton was doing as president.

Now, curiously, Hillary Clinton has raised the subject of Monica Lewinsky. Why?

• Because she wants to sell books.

• Because she wants to make self-serving statements.

• Because she wants to rehabilitate her own image for a future bid as presidential candidate.

In other words, when Hillary and her supporters deem it in their best interest to talk about issues, they do. When they don’t, they accuse others of persecution, they accuse others of having their own narrow political agendas, they accuse others of being unfair.

But now there’s another woman going public – Juanita Broaddrick. This may be the toughest of all the Clinton women to explain away, to spin to their own advantage, to dismiss or ignore.

Juanita Broaddrick doesn’t say she was harassed by Clinton. She doesn’t say she had an affair with him. She doesn’t say he used his position to take advantage of her. Instead, she says bluntly and convincingly that she was raped by Bill Clinton when he served as attorney general in Arkansas.

Will Hillary Clinton be asked about Juanita Broaddrick? Since Hillary is now willing to talk about her husband’s sexual transgressions in office, will she now speak up about Broaddrick’s allegations? Will her feminist friends malign, refute or ignore the accuser?

Some have hailed Hillary for maintaining her marriage during many years of trials. But why did she do it?

Is Hillary a co-dependent? Or is she a co-conspirator?

Either way, it raises questions about her suitability to serve as a U.S. senator or as president.

If you were married to a serial adulterer accused by a seemingly sincere woman of rape, would you be at least curious about the facts and circumstances?

I think most people would.

Yet, Hillary has shown little interest in the Juanita Broaddrick story. Publicly, in fact, she has made more noise about Anita Hill’s silly sexual harassment charges against Clarence Thomas than she has about a rape accusation against her own husband.

Hillary would rather talk about Monica. Why? Because that can be dismissed as an ill-advised consensual dalliance. Hillary won’t deal, of course, with the perjury aspect of the case. She won’t mention the fact that Monica Lewinsky was subpoenaed as a witness in Paula Jones’ sexual harassment case and that her husband lied under oath about the relationship. Instead, she deals only with the superficial issue of an affair.

Bill Clinton wasn’t impeached because of an affair. He was impeached because he committed perjury.

Co-dependent or co-conspirator? That’s what the American people need to decide as they line up to buy Hillary’s “Living History” and consider whether she is worthy to continue to sit in the U.S. Senate or whether she belongs in the White House, once again, with Bill Clinton at her side.

Co-dependent personalities often demonstrate a lack of curiosity about the behavior and activities of their partner. Is that what Hillary is demonstrating?

Does anyone really believe that Hillary just doesn’t want to know? Does anyone really believe her story that she found out about Monica the day her husband walked in and told her because of a story in the newspaper? Does anyone really believe that Hillary has the type of personality that can live in the shadow world of co-dependency?