Why do women’s groups treat Bill Clinton and Donald Trump differently?

At least to me, there is a difference between Bill Clinton and Trump. Clinton loves women and I have serious doubts he would rape or assault anyone. He never had to - there have apparently been numerous women lined up for him all these years. Trump, not so much. He's drunk on power and likes to use and control people. Women are objects for him and his money and power have insulated him from his misdeeds up until now.

I agree with Mic Mac
and I will even add that Bill Clinton appeals to a lot more people including more of the female population.
Trump only values the top percent of attractive women and the top alpha males. He ignores the other males, yet the average or unattractive women he goes out of his way to offend.

Also more women are democrats.

“Because the feminists had to come along with Bill Clinton’s retrogressive behavior with women in order to protect the progressive policies for women that Bill Clinton had as president.”'

any man running against feminists for high office will have to put up w/ false allegations. just like the sun comes up in the morn, its what they do. he!!, even guys have used unsubstantiated accusations to gain advantage. that's why we have limitations on time to come forward. a simple handshake or a smile can years later morph into false accusations of rape, d.v., molestation, and sexual assault. those 50,000 witches burned at the stake in early America didn't bear false testimony against themselves. in the example I saw on 'Nat'l Geo.' the other day, twelve women and girls testified against the poor old lady in chains. they put on acts in court saying she was attacking them w/ her magic even in court. that's a LOT of women burned at the stake (this poor lady was hung) in a very young, and sparsely settled country. heck, we probably didn't shoot that many Indians, except maybe on teevee.

those progressive policies they speak of include things like affirmative action, perversion of title ix, as we see in the colleges these days, and hundreds of other polices that = women only, especially in the gov., and men need not apply. probably their biggest sucking at the teat sound comes from the v.a.w.a billion$ no congressperson (except maybe Rand Paul) will vote against. and where is it all going? where exactly? down a black hole, that's where. nobody really knows for sure or even bothers to ask, unless that congressman wants to face accusations at vote time about being anti woman. political suicide not to give fems' in wash and in gov in general what they want. give me a break. the reason fems' (and their mangina servants) kept quiet about billy boy's exploits was because of the promise of free stuff. the exact same thing that put our 'most transparent prez ever' into office.

Thomas Jefferson was 100% correct. as soon as the majority of people find out they can sponge off the gov they will, and it will be the end of us all. greed drives these groups more than any false claims of patriotism. its all about the free stuff, and imho we are already on that downhill slide. more socialism (read free stuff) isn't going to work anymore. just ask Venezuella, the latest 'free stuff' converts. saw yesterday where one man was worried if some prisoners had eaten his son. THAT is what we boomers have been watching since day 1. free stuff for certain groups on steroids is what we have now. it just took me until I was grown up to see it for what it is.

Well, Clinton lied about Lewinsky. Who knows what else he's lying about? Not that Lewinsky did not consent, or that the accusations are definitely true. But it's hard to say, seeing that Bill has a history of lying about his sexual experiences, and his wife defended a client who she was convinced was guilty of child rape and later laughed when asked about it.

Trump is not a good person, don't get me wrong. But with the amount of money he has, I have doubts that he would have trouble getting a woman who suits his tastes. I could be wrong. But this just seems like mudslinging by his political opponents to me. The same might be true regarding the accusations brought against Bill. I always have to take accusations that are brought forth years and/or decades after the alleged act took place with a grain of salt.

"and his wife defended a client who she was convinced was guilty of child rape and later laughed when asked about it."

You may want to research that a bit more, she was laughing at how awful the case was and how it destroyed her faith in polygraphs because her client passed one. Snopes did a good writeup.

Bill Clinton was not guilty of any crime at all with Lewinsky. But the GOP managed to get him to do what any man would do when confronted with allegations of extramarital affairs - lie about them. So, instantly he became a criminal for lying about something that is not illegal. Clinton lied about something that is not illegal, and Trump brags about doing something that is illegal. I think there is a difference.

I'm not sure what your point is. Clinton was obligated to defend her client, regardless of her personal beliefs about the case, and she did, managing to get a lesser charge. That's how the law works.

Looks like Hillbilly's supporters are out in full force today.

Sure, what Bill did was not illegal, but it was unprofessional, and for lack of a better term, a d move (no pun intended). And so was what Hillary did when she laughed while being interviewed about such a serious case, regardless of what it was that she found funny about it. Both Bill and Hillary have done many shady things, and are about as trustworthy as Enron's accountants.

Trump's comments were likely meant in jest.

So when Bill Clinton lies about having an affair, we are supposed to assume that dishonesty pervades his every action, in office and out. And when Trump has a verified history of illegal action and even boasts of it, we are supposed to assume it was all in jest.
Got it.
I think we can go ahead and pencil you in for a Trump vote even if he rapes a dead donkey on the White House lawn.

Way to put words in my mouth. Did I not say that it was likely just mudslinging on both sides?

And this verified history of illegal actions is news to me. The so-called tax evasion he's been accused of was just him using a loophole, the same one that Hillary's supporters and Hillary herself used.

It seems you're projecting. It's clear that you think that when Clinton is accused of something were supposed to give him the benefit of the doubt. When Trump is, were supposed to assume he's guilty. With logic like that, I fear for you and the USA. If Hillary gets in, your country will lose its o.