Donald Trump once described Bill Clinton’s women as unattractive losers

I can say or do anything, and no one will care. I’m politically invincible! (AP Photo/Mary Altaffer)

THE MORNING PLUM:

Donald Trump is escalating his attacks on Bill Clinton’s character, as “part of a concerted effort to smother Hillary Clinton’s campaign message with the weight of decades of controversy,” the Post reports this morning. Central to this effort is Trump’s claim that “in the history of politics, Hillary Clinton’s husband abused women more than any man that we know of,” and that “Hillary was an enabler, and she treated these women horribly.”

In other words, Trump is indicting both Clintons for their treatment of women such as Paula Jones, Monica Lewinsky, and Juanita Broaddrick, and positioning himself as their chivalrous defender — in order to defuse attacks on his own misogyny.

It turns out, though, that Trump did not think much of those same women at the time: He dismissed Paula Jones as a “loser” and suggested that Clinton would have gotten into less trouble over Monica Lewinsky if he had had an affair with a woman who was more “beautiful.”

Glenn Kessler has an amazing dive into Trump’s shifting statements about Bill Clinton’s sexual exploits over the years. Again and again, Trump dismissed the importance of the stories, at one point even saying that the economy under Bill Clinton was far better than under Saint Ronald Reagan: “You know, they talked about the ‘80s were good. The ‘90s are better. I mean, the ‘90s are really much better.” As Kessler summarizes: “The record shows that for years, Trump dismissed or minimized the sex allegations against Clinton.”

But also of interest is what Trump said about the women themselves. Here’s what Trump said in 1998 about Paula Jones, who had sued Bill Clinton over allegations of sexual harassment, leading to a settlement in which Clinton admitted no wrongdoing:

“Paula Jones is a loser, but the fact is that she may be responsible for bringing down a president indirectly.”

Here’s what Trump said about Lewinsky in a 1999 interview:

”He handled the Monica situation disgracefully. It’s sad because he would go down as a great President if he had not had this scandal. People would have been more forgiving if he’d had an affair with a really beautiful woman of sophistication. Kennedy and Marilyn Monroe were on a different level. Now Clinton can’t get into golf clubs in Westchester. A former President begging to get in a golf club. It’s unthinkable.”

For Trump, everything is about winning and losing, about who is on top and who is the supplicant, and at the time, Trump’s criticism of Bill Clinton over the Lewinsky affair was that he had not had an affair with a classier, prettier woman, as a winner president would do.

Now, it needs to be said that Trump’s strategy here isn’t just about using Clinton’s affairs to deflect attention from his own history of insulting comments about women. It’s broader than that: It’s about trying to remind voters that there are always unresolved controversies and ethical clouds hanging around the Clintons, that they’ve been part of the corrupt establishment for decades, and that as a result, Hillary can’t be trusted to clean things up. As Trump himself puts it: “It’s always a mess with Hillary.”

Hillary Clinton’s negatives are very high, and it would be folly to dismiss the possibility that this general argument might gain some traction. That said, Trump’s efforts to dredge up Bill Clinton’s affairs in particular might cause problems for him that he has not anticipated. Now that we know that Trump has a history of minimizing those affairs — and, more to the point, that he insulted the very same women he is now accusing the Clintons of mistreating — how long until some intrepid interviewer directly confronts Trump with his past statements on national television?

There is a tendency to believe that, because Trump is so “unconventional” and “unpredictable,” and because he has “broken all the rules,” he might be able to get away with contradicting himself in ways that other candidates might not. But the general election audience is not the same as the GOP primary electorate, and maybe this is giving Trump too much credit for possessing magical political powers that he simply does not possess. Maybe once the media takes the old conventional approach of pointing out his own past statements and contrasting them with his present stance, it might actually have an impact. Maybe, once he is confronted with them, he’ll realize that this angle is actually a loser for him, and he’ll quietly drop it. You heard it here first.

*****************************************************************

* GOP SENATORS DON’T WANNA BE SEEN WITH TRUMP: The Post talks to vulnerable GOP Senators and finds many of them won’t say whether they will campaign with Trump:

One after another, Republican senators on the front lines of the effort to hold their fragile majority dodged, diverted or acquiesced halfheartedly when asked if they would appear with Trump on the campaign trail….Republican senators have committed to running heavily localized campaigns. The National Republican Senatorial Committee’s mantra: Run as if you are running for sheriff.

This would seem to cut against the new narrative that the suddenly-close polls show Trump might not be that big a liability for down-ticket Republicans.

 * BERNIE PREDICTS ‘MESSY’ CONVENTION: Bernie Sanders, in an interview with the Associated Press, predicts some turbulence at the Democratic convention in Philadelphia:

“I think if they make the right choice and open the doors to working-class people and young people and create the kind of dynamism that the Democratic Party needs, it’s going to be messy,” Sanders said. “Democracy is not always nice and quiet and gentle but that is where the Democratic Party should go.”

As I reported yesterday, Sanders operatives are already pushing for a much more populist platform, so things could get lively, but all this is still consistent with the party unifying against Trump in time.

* WHAT’S NEXT IN HILLARY-BERNIE WARS: Politico’s Gabriel Debenetetti reports that there are some signs of efforts at unity between the Clinton and Sanders camps, but adds that there are still major trouble spots ahead:

The slow cooling of public tension between the Clinton and Sanders camps is far from a sign of harmony between the senator and a party establishment that’s largely pro-Clinton. Democrats across the country are girding for more state-level battles at local conventions, beginning with what could be a contentious Saturday in Wyoming — a state where Sanders won the popular vote but the pledged delegates were split — over that state’s delegate apportionment process.

Just as happened in Nevada, we could see arcane procedural battles explode into recriminations and allegations over a broader rigged process. One hopes Dems are prepared for this.

* WHY HILLARY DECLINED CALIFORNIA DEBATE: The Clinton campaign has formally declined to appear at a debate in California in advance of the June 7th primary. The campaign’s statement:

As we have said previously, we plan to compete hard in the remaining primary states, particularly California, while turning our attention to the threat a Donald Trump presidency poses. We believe that Hillary Clinton’s time is best spent campaigning and meeting directly with voters across California and preparing for a general election campaign that will ensure the White House remains in Democratic hands.

This comes after the campaigns had agreed to hold four debates, including one in May. Plainly, the Clinton team thinks it can break this pledge without paying any price at this point.

* GOP IS BUILDING A CAMPAIGN FOR TRUMP: The Washington Examiner’s David Drucker reports that the Republican National Committee is hard at work building a national presidential campaign for Trump, because he isn’t doing it himself. Here’s the worry:

In a close race, which Clinton vs. Trump looks like at the outset, the stronger grassroots and digital organization can be worth a couple of percentage points at the polls. That puts Trump at a particular disadvantage, given that he made less use of data and field organizing than most of his Republican competitors. Where most of them would have had at least a skeleton digital and field staff to build on, combined with the RNC’s considerable operations, Trump has nothing but the national party.

Surely Trump can snap his fingers and create a “world class” national grassroots operation in a hurry.

* TRUMP ‘CLARIFIES’ POSITION ON GUNS IN SCHOOLS: CNN gets Trump on the record backing off his claim that he would abolish gun free school zones: