While I am firmly against what the article linked implied (that Hillary silenced a woman) and find it absolutely indefensible, the way your comment was worded doesn't jive with me, either.

If her political ambitions didn't rely on the springboard Bill's presidency gave her

Hillary has far more on her resumé than being the wife of a former president, come on. She was making her place in politics long before she married Bill.

she would have thrown him under the bus I'm sure.

If she weren't still married to him, I agree. But the way you're wording it, it's as though she should throw away her presidential ambition solely because of her husband's sins.

You worded your comment in such a way that the fuck ups alleged against Hillary don't matter. I'm concerned about the accusation that she silenced the victim--not that she didn't throw her husband under the bus.

The truth is, if she launched a public assault on her husband, it WOULD hurt her, where as if she stayed silent, it wouldn't hurt her. She is still married to him. How batshit insane would she look if she threw her current husband under the bus for raping a woman without divorcing him?

Not to mention, a woman shouldn't suffer for the actions of her husband, which is what you're basically calling for. A woman SHOULD suffer, if she attempted to silence a victim.

I do not, however, think she should make a martyr of her campaign just to call her husband a rapist, and I say this as a survivor myself.

Again, this is heavily disclaimed with the fact that I find the information in that article absolutely damning, truthful or not. It's the fact that you seem to be calling her out on not defaming Bill, instead of silencing a survivor.