November 5, 2007

"If the gender game worked when Rick Lazio muscled into her space, why shouldn’t it work when Obama and Edwards muster some mettle?"

"If she could become a senator by playing the victim after Monica, surely she can become president by playing the victim now."

I'm just getting around to reading Maureen Dowd's Sunday column. It's rich.
When pundettes tut-tut that playing the victim is not what a feminist should do, they forget that Hillary is not a feminist. If she were merely some clichéd version of a women’s rights advocate, she never could have so effortlessly blown off Marian Wright Edelman and Lani Guinier when Bill first got in, or played the Fury with Bill’s cupcakes during the campaign.

She was always kind enough to let Bill hide behind her skirts when he got in trouble with women. Now she deserves to hide behind her own pantsuits when men cause her trouble....

There is nowhere she won’t go, so long as it gets her where she wants to be.
Dowd has always paid attention to truth about the Clintons and feminism. I've really appreciated that.

101 comments:

PatCA said...

Wow, MoDo was quite brilliant!

I think what's happening is that the real liberal elite is pining for Obama or Edwards and will be not too kind to Hillary. In a way, they're the new Ralph Nader. I can see the catchphrase now: "I've been Nadered!"

Invisible Man said...

The selective love of a Maureen Dowd column is the absolute saddest form of partisanship.

Ann Althouse said...

"The selective love of a Maureen Dowd column" — what does that refer to. I approve of the whole column.

MadisonMan said...

I suspect it worked with Lazio because people were watching and saw it. This latest incident: people were either not watching, or didn't see it.

Fen said...

Dowd: or played the Fury with Bill’s cupcakes during the campaign.

One of those "cupcakes" was a state employee who was denied promotion after she refused to suck Governor Clinton's cock.

I pretty certain Ann does not approve of that.

Zeb Quinn said...

There is nowhere she won’t go, so long as it gets her where she wants to be.

So, in Dowd's universe, is that a good thing or a bad thing?

AJ Lynch said...

Madison Man- believe whatever you want but many many people saw this or heard about it due to the wonders of the internets. They did not have to be watching the actual televised debate.

I have said it before - Hillary does not have the legs to be a front-runner for so long and I am not making a joke about her appearance. Hillary must go on the attack to win.

Ann Althouse said...

It worked with Lazio because -- unlike Edwards and Obama -- Lazio was being an ass, coming over to her lectern and trying to get her to sign a paper. Everyone hates that. Obama and Edwards were just speaking and they were speaking on the merits, not fooling with stupid stunts about signing pledges or whatever.

Icepick said...

It worked with Lazio because -- unlike Edwards and Obama -- Lazio was being an ass, coming over to her lectern and trying to get her to sign a paper.

That's exactly how I remember that. Hillary didn't have to play the victim there. (I don't remember and don't care whether she did or not. Not my state.) It was similar to the sighing and harrumphing Gore pulled in one(?) of the debates with Bush in 2000. Juvenile bully tactics never come across well.

SteveR said...

There is nowhere she won’t go, so long as it gets her where she wants to be.

We're not supposed to know this.

Dowd has always paid attention to truth about the Clintons and feminism.

Well the truth in this case is obvious but MoDo deserves credit for not being a hack.

Palladian said...

"The selective love of a Maureen Dowd column is the absolute saddest form of partisanship."

Because you have to like EVERY SINGLE THING about a writer or politician or you're a SAD PARTISAN. Remember that!


"pundettes tut-tut"

Really, a writer should lose their job for ever writing either of those "words" and, worse yet, putting them together like that. It put me off my lunch.

Fen said...

Because you have to like EVERY SINGLE THING about a writer or politician or you're a SAD PARTISAN.

I think the dislike stems from her disengenuous style, now labelled as "Dowdism".

Ex: Ann said It worked with Lazio because... Lazio was.. just speaking... on the merits, not fooling with stupid stunts about signing pledges or whatever.

Trooper York said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Trooper York said...

"He stayed looking for almost an hour as if he were studying a map, observing the moon, staring into my eyes, but it was my vortex."
(LaSara Fire, The Vortex Monologues, by Eve Ensler)

John Stodder said...

The selective love of a Maureen Dowd column is the absolute saddest form of partisanship

So, I guess we can expect Maureen Dowd will get a lecture from Jane Hamsher soon, like Elizabeth Edwards got:

"So I guess we have to say it once again until everyone gets it — you never repeat right wing talking points to attack your own, ever. You never enter that echo chamber as a participant. Ever. You never give them a cudgel to beat the left with. Just. Don’t. Do. It.

Actually, "invisible man," there was a time when newspaper columnists were valued for their unpredictability, and news outlets generally tried to stay above partisanship. But, apres la revolution, the left won't have to worry about that little problem any more, n'est-ce pas?

Henry said...

Sweet Ellen Jamesian reference.

PatCA said...

That's right, Palladian, and you will be brought in for self-criticism and reeducation if you don't return to the correct path!

christopher said...

Fen said...

Dowd: or played the Fury with Bill’s cupcakes during the campaign.

One of those "cupcakes" was a state employee who was denied promotion after she refused to suck Governor Clinton's cock.


If you actually believe that, you're even dumber than I suspected.

christopher said...

Annie sez:


Dowd has always paid attention to truth about the Clintons and feminism.


Dowd is a feminist like Madonna is a Catholic.

Sorry, she's a sad, pathetic misogynist. Which is why our hostess enjoys her so much...

Fen said...

Fen: One of those "cupcakes" was a state employee who was denied promotion after she refused to suck Governor Clinton's cock.

christopher: If you actually believe that, you're even dumber than I suspected.

Then I'm in good company - a federal judge apointed by Clinton agrees with me. Else, why was Paula Jones awared a settlement, why was Bill suspended from practicing law?

People like Christopher on the Left believe that sexual discrimination is wrong, UNLESS the perp is one of their own, even if the victim is a registered Democrat. Just another example that The Left Doesn't Really Believe In The Things They Lecture Us About. Global warming, waterboarding, NSA intercepts, homosexual rights... the list is legion.

John Stodder said...

Christopher, just for my personal amusement, can you add one comment that doesn't completely rely on ad hominem insults?

What was it about Dowd's column, today, that you didn't like?

The way you like to argue, it's like you're just trying to scare people away from it. Kind of creepily Orwellian.

You got anything else or is that your whole game?

christopher said...


People like Christopher on the Left believe that sexual discrimination is wrong, UNLESS the perp is one of their own, even if the victim is a registered Democrat. Just another example that The Left Doesn't Really Believe In The Things They Lecture Us About. Global warming, waterboarding, NSA intercepts, homosexual rights... the list is legion.


You can say it as often as you want, pal, but it's still a pathetic dodge to disguise the fact that you don't give a rats ass about any of the above.

It's called projection and it's embarassing.

Fen said...

Revised Statement from NOW: 1994 Crime Bill, Violence Against Women Act: because sexual predators in the workplace are so subtle, the plantiff has a right to interview any subordinate employee engaged in sexual relationships with the defendant to determine a pattern of sexual predatory behavior [revised: unless the plantiff is Paula Jones seeking to discover if Monica Lewinsky was also coerced into sexual acts, then its "different"]

* station break while Christopher chokes and swallows on his hypocrisy*

Christopher: ...*gag*...

* we'll be back after a word from our sponsors *

Simon said...

AJ Lynch said...
"Hillary does not have the legs to be a front-runner for so long and ... must go on the attack to win."

As in all elections, however, it depends on who your opponents are. And look at the shambolic menagerie she's running against: who else are Democrats going to vote for? Edwards? Obama? Please. I think most Democrats have enough of a residual sense of embarrassment to steer clear of such choices, which is why in a field of eight candidates, Hillary routinely wins more than 50% of the vote in opinion polls. She didn't get to those kind of numbers by good looks alone, she got there because - as improbable as this might have seemed a few years ago - she is one of only two grown ups seeking the nomination, and the other one is a frivolous candidate. Of course, one shouldn't take opinion polls seriously, but in this instance, the poll lines up with what reason would suggest.

John Stodder said...

You can say it as often as you want, pal, but it's still a pathetic dodge to disguise the fact that you don't give a rats ass about any of the above.

It's called projection and it's embarassing.


More empty calories.

You're really wasting everyone's time, including yours, if this is all you can come up with. How exactly do you know what someone you've never met "gives a rats ass" about? And even if he doesn't, how does that answer the charge of hypocrisy? The fact is, there is a wealth of evidence of hypocrisy on every issue he named, including the one at hand today.

Or maybe I'm wrong. Without calling me a name, explain to me how the left's response to the Clinton sex scandals is completely consistent with the feminist principles upheld in the Clarence Thomas and Senator Packwood cases?

An intelligent response would compel my attention at least. Go ahead, surprise us.

christopher said...

Paula Jones was a lying extortionist backed by some of the most unsavory rightwing characters imaginable.


Anybody who professes to believe a word she said is either dumber than certain species of bacteria or willfully disingenuous.

That means you, Fen. Sorry.

christopher said...

Without calling me a name, explain to me how the left's response to the Clinton sex scandals is completely consistent with the feminist principles upheld in the Clarence Thomas and Senator Packwood cases?

Which Clinton sex scandals?
Apart from Monica (which was nobodys business anyway) the rest were complete fabrications.

garage mahal said...

Or maybe I'm wrong. Without calling me a name, explain to me how the left's response to the Clinton sex scandals is completely consistent with the feminist principles upheld in the Clarence Thomas and Senator Packwood cases?

So, what, "the left" didn't sufficiently voice their objection to you, John Stodder, in a personally mailed telegram delivered to your door, is that the problem? Who is "the left" that we hear about ad nauseum, and are they therefore now ordered to respond and explain every daily wingnut conspiracy theory? Is "the left" supposed to respond to the murder and drug running charges as well? Hillary is rumored to be a lesbian by some right wing kooks, what is the appropriate response to this, and to whom? The thousands of hours of testimony and millions of documents handed over to Republicans was, what, not enough for you?

Enquiring minds want to know...

Zeb Quinn said...

Apart from Monica (which was nobodys business anyway) the rest were complete fabrications.

This really speaks volumes.

Trooper York said...

Lucy knew she would be a great class president. She would show all of them who were running against her. Charlie Brown’s tenure was over and he couldn’t run again. Ever since he had won that disputed election against former vice-president Pig Pen, there had been constant quarrels and fights in the playground. No one would get along; they would just throw erasers and knock over each other milk cartons at snack time. Poor old Charlie Brown could only ask plaintively “Why is everyone always pick’n on me.”
(Charlie Brown, The E True Hollywood Story)

mtrobertsattorney said...

Simon, define what you mean by the term "grown up" politician. What are their defining characteristics?

Simon said...

christopher said...
"Monica ... was nobodys business anyway...."

Perhaps so. But rightly or wrongly, he was asked about it under oath, and lied, whereafter the public perjury arising from a question going to private conduct became everyone's business.

garage mahal said...
"Who is "the left" that we hear about ad nauseum, and are they therefore now ordered to respond and explain every daily wingnut conspiracy theory?"

Let's start with a specific person answering a specific question, such as the one posed. Could you explain to us how the left's response to the Clinton sex scandal(s) is consistent with their positions during the Clarence Thomas hearings? Or do you agree that the positions were inconsistent?

John Stodder said...

Keep in mind, Clarence Thomas denied Anita Hill's accusations, for which there wasn't any other evidence. The standard then, however, was, a woman accuser must always be believed. "I Believe Anita" was a slogan of the day.

But Paula, Juanita, K. Willey, etc., were all "complete fabrications?"

Go for it. You've already claimed superior intelligence for yourself Enlighten an idiot like me.

Trooper York said...

The problem with Lucy’s campaign was once again her husband Schroeder. He was a flirt and always had other girls fingering his piano. This scandalized many of the other kids on the playground. Lucy would always come in to find another girl tickling his ivories and she was tired of it. She would win this election on her own. He had only been elected for two terms as class president because the kids knew they were getting two for the price of one. But then there was that scandal about the planning of the cookie funds and it all got messed up. Maybe she shouldn’t have accepted those free Chinese fortune cookies that caused so much trouble. But these boys wouldn’t stop her from finally becoming President on her own.
(Charlie Brown, The E True Hollywood Story)

Roger said...

Christopher is trademark dave--no substance, ad hominums, and the over-and incorrect use of the word "misogynist."

Pogo said...

Hillaryland’s “Don’t hit me, I’m a girl” strategy.

Ouch.

christopher said...

But Paula, Juanita, K. Willey, etc., were all "complete fabrications?"

Yep.

Especially Jones and Juanita.

All you need to know about Jones is that she sued Clinton instead of the American Spectator.

All you need to know about Juanita is that the hotel she said it happened at hadn't been built at the time and that her husband said it was nonsense.

The so-called Clinton sex scandals were of a piece with the other Clinton "scandals" like Whitewater.
Bullshit on stilts.

Trooper York said...

Former Vice President Pig Pen was no help at all. Lucy and Schroeder had carried his sorry ass in the election and he lost to a moron like Charlie Brown. If he had only convinced little Florida Evans to vote for him, they would have been spared the election of Charlie Brown. But Florida just wanted to hang out with Chad Smith and she voted the way he wanted. Now Pig Pen spent all his time talking about the environment and keeping the school clean. He claimed if they didn’t turn the heat down, the sweat from all of the overheated children would be enough to wash their desks out to the schoolyard. It was ironic that such a filthy little boy was so obsessed with cleaning up the school. His attitude did impress his teachers as he won the science fair medal for his short film “The School is Full of CaCa and We Are All Going to Die.” Lucy thought what a loser. But at least he didn’t let other little girls finger his piano.
(Charlie Brown, The E True Hollywood Story)

garage mahal said...

Or do you agree that the positions were inconsistent?

I recall a whole lot of pissed off Democrats at the time. Was there inconsistency? I'm sure there was some, sure. But were Gennifer Flowers or Paula Jones more credible witnesses than Anita Hill? Hardly. I don't recall Moveon.org funding Anita Hill's defense either.

christopher said...

Roger said...

Christopher is trademark dave--no substance, ad hominums, and the over-and incorrect use of the word "misogynist."

I find it entertaining to be lectured on the correct use of the word misogynist by somebody who can't spell ad hominem.

Roger said...

Christopher: touche, of course--but you're also still wrong and have offered not a whit of proof to back up your assertions.

Trooper York said...

No one could understand why Charlie Brown didn’t get credit for naming Peppermint Patty as Class Secretary. Everyone knew that only Lucy cared about the minority kids and the girls who liked other girls. So no one gave Charlie Brown credit for picking Peppermint Patty for his team. Peppermint Patty told the school newspaper that she “loved” Charley Brown, but nobody believed her. Charlie Brown couldn’t get credit for anything. “What a clown,” thought Lucy, “What a clown. When I am class president all of those kids will know that I really care about them, I just won’t give them any real power because they really can’t handle it. I will just let Peppermint Patty and her little friends have midnight field hockey games, that should shut her up.”
(Charlie Brown, The E True Hollywood Story)

SGT Ted said...

"Monica ... was nobodys business anyway...."

Bullshit. Thats a cheap excuse. Try again.

christopher said...

SGT Ted said...

"Monica ... was nobodys business anyway...."

Bullshit. Thats a cheap excuse. Try again.


So you're saying it was the business of a special prosecutor with an unlimited budget and the full majesty of the law behind him?

THAT's bullshit.

John Stodder said...

I don't recall Moveon.org funding Anita Hill's defense either.

What was Anita Hill accused of?

In terms of engineering her role in the hearings -- which, as I recall, wasn't something she wanted but was basically forced into -- you're wrong. While MoveOn didn't exist then, you had groups like Planned Parenthood heavily involved in an opposition research campaign against Thomas that led to the discovery of Hill and her allegations.

I completely grant that Paula Jones was also a tool of special interests who wanted to hurt Clinton, perhaps even force his resignation. But that doesn't by itself discredit her allegations, which met about the same level of proof as Hill's did, i.e. contemporaneous accounts by friends and witnesses who were told about these incidents. There were also a comparable number of reasons to disbelieve their stories.

And yet, the feminist movement embraced one and shunned the other, without ever explaining why. The conclusion many drew -- that partisan considerations were the dominant factor -- is hard to argue with.

SGT Ted said...

"So you're saying it was the business of a special prosecutor with an unlimited budget and the full majesty of the law behind him?"

Yes, because that's where his investigation led him. You are merely ignorant of how investigations work and you didn't like the outcome. Tough shit for you and your hero BJ Clinton.

Trooper York said...

Lucy wasn’t really worried about Franklin who was running against her in the primary. She knew that the class really wouldn’t vote for a little black boy no matter how nice he was and if he was a good person and a better candidate than her. She could destroy him, after all he wasn’t even really black. His mommy was white and she was planning to throw that in his face. And he had a funny middle name. Her only real competition would be in the main election and come from Thibault, who came from New York City. He was on Peppermint Patty’s baseball team and was very rough and tough. She thought he was one of those I-talians. She just couldn’t understand. Who would vote for a six year old with a comb over? It just didn’t make sense.
(Charlie Brown, The E True Hollywood Story)

christopher said...


Yes, because that's where his investigation led him. You are merely ignorant of how investigations work and you didn't like the outcome. Tough shit for you and your hero BJ Clinton.


Bullshit. Starr was going to get Clinton by any means necessary -- that's what he was hired to do, and why the wingnuts screamed like stuck pigs when he announced his intention to abandon the investigation to teach at that dipshit college wherehe was promised a sinecure.

Starr was as corrupt as can be, and the idea that the law in all its magnificence dispassionately compelled him to dig out the dirt of Clinton's sex life is beyond laughable.

SGT Ted said...

I wonder if christopher\Luck Old Son thinks that way about Fitzgerald and Scooter Libby?

I highly doubt it.

SGT Ted said...

You are clueless chris. But you are fun to watch defending the indefensable for political purposes.

Roger said...

Thought exercise: change "Starr" to "Fitzgerald." Analogous to Changing "Jones" to "Hill." I submit one's partisan affiliations drives the outcome more than the facts of the case(s).

christopher said...

SGT Ted said...

I wonder if christopher\Luck Old Son thinks that way about Fitzgerald and Scooter Libby?

I highly doubt it.


Jeebus, it's like trying to reason with garden slugs.

I've got more important stuff to do today -- like alphabetizing my socks.

ricpic said...

The Left is wowed by Hillary's totally amoral calculation. It's the ne plus ultra expression of the nihilism they all aspire to. What a gal!

John Stodder said...

Jeebus, it's like trying to reason with garden slugs.

I've got more important stuff to do today -- like alphabetizing my socks.


When did you "try to reason" with anybody? You've made a bunch of sweeping statements and backed up none of them.

I asked you a specific question, and then we get this chickenshit "I've got more important stuff to do," retreat.

Dude, we've seen this act before. Many times. It never changes. And it doesn't help your cause.

From Inwood said...

Prof A.

However silly you may think Lazio’s stunt, in the words of MoDo, Hillaryland did immediately circle the wagons into a “Don’t hit me, I’m a girl” strategy.

Maybe you were above such Hillaryland base strategy, a/k/a stunt, but Hillaryland’s version of reality played well among several wives of friends of mine who hadn’t watched the debate but who had heard about this “invasion of her space by a man” from the MSM’s mindless acceptance of & propagation of such strategy.

In short, I do not think that such a stunt alone would’ve “done ‘im in” among a majority of women/female (help, which is the PC term) voters if not for Hillaryland’s rather successful “Don’t hit me, I’m a girl” strategy.

Roger said...

Assertion is not argument. All I see are assertions and vituperation. (easier to spell than ad hominems :)) Got any facts there Christopher?

christopher said...

I asked you a specific question, and then we get this chickenshit "I've got more important stuff to do," retreat.

Oh lordy this is tedious.

I responded to your specific question way upthread by saying quite clearly that I found its premise ridiculous.

Ask me a question not premised on quote facts unquote that are unsupported by reality and I'll be happy to answer.

Trooper York said...

Everyone knew Charlie Brown was too stupid to be elected class president. But when he ran on ticket with his dog Snoopy as Vice President, he won that first close election. Now Snoopy didn’t seem to do much, he just lay on top of his dog house in a sleepy way in an undisclosed location. Everyone was sure that he was in control and that his master Charlie Brown did whatever he told him to do. This gig seemed to be working out better than with his first Master Sam, as there was some unpleasantness with the mailman who lived next door. But nobody could prove anything and Snoopy had moved on. He went on to work as an executive for Alpo and some claim that he still worked for them. As he told his pal Woodstock, “Plausible deniability, my little chickadee, plausible deniability, that’s the ticket.”
(Charlie Brown, The E True Hollywood Story)

Simon said...

garage mahal said...
"I don't recall Moveon.org funding Anita Hill's defense either."

That's an anachronism similar to AlphaLiberal's complaint last week that Ann was quick to criticize Gov. Doyle for his use of the so-called "Frankenstein veto" despite her silence "when Tommy Thompson perfected the art of the 'Frankenstein veto,'" which as another commenter swiftly pointed out, was little surprise since Thompson left office several years before Ann started blogging. Likewise, the observation that Moveon.org didn't fund Anita Hill's defense buys you nothing, because MoveOn.org didn't come into existence until several years after.

Hector Owen said...

"Anita Hill's defense?" I thought Anita Hill was more accuser than accused. In the matter of the Thomas confirmation, I mean; was she accused of something else?

John Stodder said...

I responded to your specific question way upthread by saying quite clearly that I found its premise ridiculous.

Ask me a question not premised on quote facts unquote that are unsupported by reality and I'll be happy to answer.


My son used to be like you, using words like "premise" even though he didn't know what they meant. It's cute... when a kid does it. Are you eight years old? If that's the case, then, all together now, "aawwwwww."

But just in case you're not eight: Where is the "premise" in my question?

"Without calling me a name, explain to me how the left's response to the Clinton sex scandals is completely consistent with the feminist principles upheld in the Clarence Thomas and Senator Packwood cases?"

Your reply, that all the Clinton sex scandals except Monica Lewinsky are "complete fabrications" is untrue on the face of it, but also beside the point. I was asking you to analyze the application of feminist principles in the two cases.

You recall of course that Thomas also declared the charges against him to be (to use your words) "complete fabrications."

In your view, I'm a "garden slug" if I disbelieve Clinton, but smart, like you, if I disbelieve Thomas. Your proof? Nothing other than a string of unoriginal insults.

Tell me you've got more than that, oh enlightened one. You're really letting your side down.

(Prediction: Christoper's next move will be the "look it up for yourself, I don't have time" gambit. He's getting desperate.)

christopher said...

Where is the "premise" in my question?

"Without calling me a name, explain to me how the left's response to the Clinton sex scandals is completely consistent with the feminist principles upheld in the Clarence Thomas and Senator Packwood cases?"


Without calling you a name, the assumption (okay?) behind your question is that the Clinton sex scandals had a basis in fact.

They don't and the question is therefore meaningless.

If you want to argue the Left's response to Packwood and Thomas, those are seperate issues, and I'll be happy to argue them seperately some other time.

Right now, my socks won't alphabetize themself.

Trooper York said...

Lucy was certain that Alpo controlled the school. Alpo told Snoopy what to do, and then Snoopy told Charlie Brown what to do. When she was elected, she was going to have a full investigation. She knew that Alpo was telling Snoopy to send Woodstock and his little friends over to the other school to dive bomb and crap on the other kids in the playground. She was going to put a stop to that. Unless, of course it was unpopular. After all, she couldn’t have any of that crap spilled back on her. She just knew that Alpo was behind all of this and she would stop it in it’s tracks. Especially her number one fear, her number one question: what was in the Sloppy Joe’s?
(Charlie Brown, The E True Hollywood Story)

JohnTaylor88 said...

I suppose playing the gender card could just be a clever Clintonian pivot.

I imagine, though, that this pivot is great for talking to your base yet terrible for attracting independents and stealing iffy Republican votes. Especially if, say, Republicans choose a female or minority candidate, or both, for vice president.

That Clinton had to deploy the gender card now instead of later commits her to running from until Election Day on what some have called a sexist strategy. Will this sexist strategy enthuse women voters or turn them off? Will this sexist strategy attract male voters or turn them off? I have no idea, but I doubt that 100% of the American people want a President who plays the gender card.

Playing the gender card is exactly the kind of divisive, polarizing politics that Americans don’t want more of. How you spin Hillary Clinton falling back on the slash-and-burn, wedge-politics of the ’90s into proof that she is a unifying figure who will transform America for the better and appeal to independent voters in swing states is beyond me. It looks — to me — like the Clinton machine is stuck making a self-refuting argument.

Assuming the Republicans nominate a moderate on social issues who has great debating chops and the VP slot goes to a woman, a minority, or a woman who is a minority, it looks like Hillary is just about the worst candidate the Democrats can field.

Mo MoDo said...

Dowd is correct in say that Hillary is no feminist, she is an opportunist. As I explain, Dowd is saying that Hillary will do anything to become President, even if means acting like a victim if it helps her.

christopher said...


Assuming the Republicans nominate a moderate on social issues who has great debating chops and the VP slot goes to a woman, a minority, or a woman who is a minority, it looks like Hillary is just about the worst candidate the Democrats can field.


I think she's the worst candidate the Democrats can field under any circumstance.

That said -- who is this social moderate the Republicans are theoretically going to nominate?

If you mean Rudy, that's laughable...he's about as moderate as the Spanish Inquisition.

From Inwood said...

Four thoughts about MoDo’s column.

(1) It didn’t have to rely on Dowdification, a/k/a, ellipses to make its point. Hillary’s word’s are quite damning by themselves. Again, cf. Scrappleface’s: “Hillary Mulls Supporting Illegal Alien Pilot License.”

(2) Hillaryland may’ve played the gender version of the victim card too soon. If they’d waited ‘til the Election, the MSM would’ve enabled this deceit, a la, Lazio, since it knows that the real enemy who must be conquered is not Bin Laden but the GOP. But, on the other hand, she really was on the defense & the best defense….

(3) MoDo has really struck a low blow among those who count by making any comparison of Hill with Al D. (Hey, at least she didn’t compare it to Nixon’s “Checkers” stunt). Two of my friends, one of whom recently passed away, were grammar school (grammar school!) classmates & neighbors of The Hon. Al (Oceanside, L. I.) & they constantly excoriated him as worse than a crook or a malfeasant. Ya see he was infra dig; not one of us my dears. They also said that he was “dumb”. I replied that, generally, “dumb” (a childish word) was not the usual description of Chaminade HS & Syracuse Lawschool grads, but to no avail. This was Al’s biggest problem amongst those who are insecure about themselves: “he makes us look bad with the establishment; we’ve risen above that; he hasn’t”. So how dare MoDo make such an invidious comparison? I mean it would be one thing if she’d done that to Rudy, with his Brooklyn roots & Manhattan College, but Hill? Why she’s, um, brilliant & Al D was a nebbish! The most unkindest comparison of all.

(4) I hope I’m wrong, but this seems like what lawyers refer to as “damnum absque injuria"(literally, loss without harm). Hillary blew it, but, sorry, no basis for crowing: She will survive & thrive. Especially since the MSM are Clinton epigones. You know, attack all Clinton women accusers while piously otherwise universally proclaiming that if the accuser is a woman & the accused is a man, the woman trumps morally & legally). Methinks that this mistake of Hill’s will ultimately go into the “de asini umbra disceptare” file (quibbling over trivial stuff, “asini” being appropriate in view of MoDo’s involvement, though I happen to agree with her here).

Simon said...

christopher said...
"[T]he assumption (okay?) behind [John's] question is that the Clinton sex scandals had a basis in fact."

You're proving John's point that you don't understand what a premise is. The factual accuracy of the charges underlying the scandal(s) isn't an assumption of the question. The question only asks you to assess the reactions to the charges.

jeff said...

"Without calling you a name, the assumption (okay?) behind your question is that the Clinton sex scandals had a basis in fact."

Impressive. I don't even think Hillary takes that position.

garage mahal said...

Indeed, if Frontpagemag makes an accusation, hey, it's got some teeth to it, and every liberal in America had better denounce it immediatley and come up with proof against the charge.

And, if MoDo and Ann (men-less and ummarried) assert that Hillary is no feminist because she didn't divorce Bill, then again disprove this assertion by debunking Frontpagemag's allegations!

Wheeeee! Fun!

christopher said...

The question only asks you to assess the reactions to the charges.

When did you stop beating your wife?

Dust Bunny Queen said...

"Without calling you a name, the assumption (okay?) behind your question is that the Clinton sex scandals had a basis in fact."

John Stoddards question to you has nothing to do with the actuality or non actuality of the Clinton sex scandal.

Here is his question yet again: "explain to me how the left's response to the Clinton sex scandals is completely consistent with the feminist principles upheld in the Clarence Thomas and Senator Packwood cases?"

The question poses no premise that the facts of the various cases are true or false. His question is about the reaction of the left to what seem to be similar circumstances.

Dance around all you want, but you have not answered the question.

christopher said...


Dance around all you want, but you have not answered the question.


It's a meaningless question without discussing the facts of the case.

Sorry.

John Stodder said...

the assumption (okay?) behind your question is that the Clinton sex scandals had a basis in fact.

They don't and the question is therefore meaningless.


Actually, that wasn't an assumption in my question. A "scandal" is different from a legal outcome.

On that score, Thomas comes out ahead of Clinton, although mostly on a technicality. Clinton was convicted of perjury. However, Paula Jones ended up losing her case.

No charges were ever filed against Thomas, which puts Anita Hill on the same plane as Juanita Broderick and Kathleen Willey, who made accusations but didn't follow through via the legal system.

Nonetheless, I am willing to call the Hill-Thomas affair a "scandal," meaning "a widely publicized incident involving allegations of wrong-doing, disgrace, or moral outrage." This definition applies to the Clinton episodes too.

History shows clearly that the left and the feminist movement lined up behind Hill from the moment she made her accusations. History shows clearly that the opposite happened when Paula Jones made her allegations.

For one example, Clinton advisor James Carville said something to the effect of "this is what you get if you drag a $100 bill through a trailer park." He was not condemned by any feminist leader, nor by anyone on the left.

Broderick and Willey were also called liars. Allegations that they were threatened after making their allegations became one-day stories and didn't seem to bother anyone. Anita Hill's "courage" for coming forward was lauded. Willey and Broderick didn't have anyone in the feminist movement attesting to their courage.

If your position is that somehow you know that the people making allegations against Clinton were making things up, and you also know that Anita Hill was telling the truth, that's just bias.

My only premise was that both Clinton and Thomas were involved in a scandal, and that's rock-solid. I have no idea if Hill, Broderick, Jones or Willey were telling the truth -- and neither do you.

What I was driving at was: How can that bias be justified as anything but partisanship? On its face, how do you explain the hypocrisy of feminists and the left who spent 20 years before Clinton persuading us that workplace sexual harassment by powerful men was a major social problem, and further persuading us that it was unfair to put the burden of proof on the woman because sexual harassment was hard to prove? These same liberal leaders jumped to the other side of the argument when the allegations were against a president they supported.

The only reason a netroots guy like you is able to say with such confidence that the Clinton allegations were all "pure fabrications" is that feminists gave liberal Americans a signal that taking that position with regard to Clinton was not a contradiction of their purported values. For a further Orwellian twist, anyone who thought the accusations against Clinton had merit was now to be regarded as a right winger!

If it bothered me that Clinton preyed on an intern less than half his age, that made me an enemy even though I voted for Clinton twice (and expect to vote for his wife.) Well, I know what my political beliefs are, and I know I'm no right-winger, but a lot of less intellectually secure people bought that crap and seamlessly switched sides on sexual harassment -- destroying 20-30 years of principled feminist argument in the process. Are you one of them?

former law student said...

As I recall, the distinction the Left made, in the early 90s at least, was that Thomas's attentions and Packwood's attentions were unwanted, while Bill's were wanted, because every woman alive would want to fool around with Bill.

christopher said...

History shows clearly that the left and the feminist movement lined up behind Hill from the moment she made her accusations. History shows clearly that the opposite happened when Paula Jones made her allegations.

History also shows that one woman was telling the truth and one wasn't.

If you think that's irrelevant, mazel tov.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

If you think that's irrelevant,

It IS irrelevant to the question that was posed. If you can't see that then why in the world are you wasting your time on a law blog?

Original Mike said...

History also shows that one woman was telling the truth and one wasn't.

Where, pray tell, did "history" show that Hill was telling the truth?

AllenS said...

christopher said...

"I've got more important stuff to do today -- like alphabetizing my socks."

You'll need to put on an R on half of them, then use an L on the other half. It should speed up the process of dressing in the morning or afternoon when you awake.

christopher said...


It IS irrelevant to the question that was posed. If you can't see that then why in the world are you wasting your time on a law blog?


No, it's NOT irrelevant.

But since when is this a law blog?

I thought it was a comedy site...

From Inwood said...

Simon

Premise. I do not think that you understand the meaning of that word under the Orwellian basis of Ultra Left argument,specifically in this instance, that the Ultra Left needs to get its agenda adopted through via the judicial process since it cannot get it through the Executive or Legislative process. Ergo, things must be understood under that overriding, overweening premise not the false premise, the simplistic analogy logic that you would enforce on Ultra Leftists who have the best intentions. (Sort of a victim position!)

And their logic demands that one think globally. Thus, even if it is an auto da fé & one of the pillars of Ultra Left Theology that the woman accuser is always to be believed, that position is obviously inoperable when it interferes with the greater good of the Ultra Left, in this case the Holy Grail: a Liberal SCOTUS.

And also, in Thomas’ case, even though it is another auto da fé & one of the pillars of Ultra Left Theology that all Blacks are victims per se, this auto da fé, this pillar is inoperable in the case of an Uncle Tom who, by designation (theirs), can be attacked by whites.

To put it in plain English words, then, while Uncle-Tom Clarence Thomas’s accusers come under the auto da fé of “she must be believed”, it would be suicidal to Ultra Left desideratum not to recognize the danger of allowing Slick Willie’s accusers to escape under this article.

Now one has to tread carefully here. One cannot admit that this double talk, this seemingly contradictory result is, well, actually, contradictory. So one must keep the argument focused on the accusers: Anita Hill is a quiet, conservative, religious appointee of Ronald Reagan while Juanita B, Paula J, Kathleen W, & assorted liars are, quite simply “Bimbos”, & per se unreliable.

Regards

John Stodder said...

History also shows that one woman was telling the truth and one wasn't.

You cannot come close to proving that. Jones lost her case, but that didn't mean she was lying. Hill never let anyone test her charges in court either way, having passed up many opportunities to file sexual harassment claims against Thomas.

The only intellectually honest way to say what you said is: "I prefer to believe Hill was telling the truth and Jones wasn't. I can't back it up. I just like saying it."

Dorsai said...

Chris claimed: "All you need to know about Juanita is that the hotel she said it happened at hadn't been built at the time..."

This would be quite damning, if true, but Bruce Gottlieb, writing at Slate, http://www.slate.com/id/1002027/
says that not only was there such a hotel, but that her memory of the scenery outside her window (a prison) checks out as well.

tc said...

Hillary Clinton,gender game,11-5-07
So there are different rules when a woman enters the U.S. Presiden- tial race ? Geraldine Ferraro -who is supporting- Hillary and says so. that is very relevant to the nonsense that Hillary Clinton and Geraldine Ferraro push -and its abysmal failures.
Having been a Family Court Law Guardian for more than a few of the children in question, I know what I'm saying when I say that feminism, multiculturalism and all other similar rot has done nothing other than destroy the foundations of the world.
More than 80% of my work in the Family Courts (nearly 20 years) involved child abuse and neglect. But why are child welfare agencies so overwhelmed with children in foster care ? Because of feminism, that illogic which denies that anyone has any responsibilties at all, and mandates that we,the taxpayers,will pay for millions of children born to unmarried mothers who have 17 children all by diffe- rent fathers (most of whom spend half their lives in prison).
The claim that child welfare agencies are "insensitive to a wide variety of social, cultural and racial considerations for minority families" is feminist rubbish and politically correct balderdash. The child welfare agencies are run by liberals, ultra-liberals and feminists whose good intentions only produce bad -terrible,even- results (no one ever learned the 'law of unintended consequences').
What we have in the Family Courts
and child welfare agencies -nationally- is little more than a sickly blend of paternalistic feminism that hurts us all.
Is that what we want in the USA and the world ? Elect Hillary and you'll get even worse.
Tom

christopher said...

Jones lost her case, but that didn't mean she was lying.

The judge said it shouldn't even have been brought. It was an obvious fraud.

Anybody who says that Jones was anything other than a lying extortionist backed by a bunch of deeply dishonest rightwing zealots with an agenda is either an idiot or being deliberately disingenuous.

Anita Hill's case isn't quite as clear cut, but that has nothing to do with the fact that Jones was unquestionably full of it.

Methadras said...

christopher said...

SGT Ted said...

"Monica ... was nobodys business anyway...."

Bullshit. Thats a cheap excuse. Try again.

So you're saying it was the business of a special prosecutor with an unlimited budget and the full majesty of the law behind him?

THAT's bullshit.


Actually, I would think that something like this would be the business of the special prosecutor since the level of investigation required him to seek all avenues. With respect to an unlimited budget, aren't you talking about all prosecutors in this regard, special or not? Because I have to wonder how many millions of dollars were spent trying to convict OJ only to get an acquittal? Are you also going to make the argument that prosecutorial powers are subject a level of budget and financing and on which level, the federal level or the state/local level? How much money do you want to have spent in prosecuting certain crimes? or will cash strapped municipalities have to stop any investigations because they become to expensive? Also, don't all prosecutors have the full majesty of the law behind them too?

From Inwood said...

John Stodder

"intellectually honest".

Um, I do not think that these trolls know the meaning of those words.

AlphaLiberal said...

If you're interested in cheap shots and the latest schoolyard gossip, then you'll love Dowd.

And when she's ripping on Republicans, I'll admit I enjoy it. But I temper that knowledge and schaudenfraude knowing Dowd's not fact-based and in no way fair.

This comment from MoDo is false: "If she could become a senator playing the victim after Monica..." Hmm, no. She didn't do that and that's not why New Yorkers voted for her. She didn't play the victim card after the Monica thing happened.

Many commenters, beginning with Digby, I believe, have pointed out that males play the gender card all the time. What do you call a group of men clamoring to be the biggest torturer, that is the Republican field?

tc said...

I must apologize...My discussion of Hillary Clinton and foster care was based on two articles in The NYTimes of 11-5-07, p.A1.

Tom

The Exalted said...

sweet jesus

praising a maureen dowd column..will the wonders never cease. she's the most insipid columnist out there outside of jonah goldberg.

hillary! played some sort of gender/victim card in 2000? who knew? certainly nobody conscious at the time.

to the bogus "feminist" points getting thrown around: jones, wiley, etc, were obvious trashy frauds

anita hill was a respectable professional

people, including your mythical "left," make credibility determinations. anita hill had a lot more than these women.

for one thing, jones wanted $$, and lot of it. how much $$ did hill get? all hill got was trashed all over the national media as "a little bit nutty and a little bit slutty." wow, what incentive to lie for her!!

also, john todder, clinton was never "convicted of perjury."

John Stodder said...

also, john todder, clinton was never "convicted of perjury."

Okay, right. He was found by the judge to have given false testimony. The massive distinction between the two eluded me in the heat of the moment.

garage mahal said...

What's wrong with perjury?

Titusdj said...

I want to see SF vlog you naked in a bubble bath with the bubbles strategically placed on your tits.

The blogosphere would be on fire if you did this.

Come on do it please.

Revenant said...

hillary! played some sort of gender/victim card in 2000? who knew? certainly nobody conscious at the time.

Ah, but how many people can stay conscious during a Clinton/Lazio debate? Very few indeed!

Titusdj said...

Rick Lazio is hot.

I would do him.

Gedaliya said...

Christopher is Cyrus.

Guesst said...

Everybody knows sex is dirty any time men are involved.

HRC is just reminding us of it.

Those dirty men! Yuk. Piling on her viciously, ganging up on her in a pack, as men (dirty dogs!) are wont to do--and yet, she came out on top. ON TOP, she tells you.

She's a survivor. etc.

Bruce Hayden said...

When I first heard here about Hillary having legs, I thought the reference was to the reason that she typically wears pants suits instead of skirts and dresses - apparently something after she had Chelsea caused her legs to balloon. But came to find out that it was her campaign that everyone was talking about having legs.

But I am missing something. I seem to remember her husband settling with Paula Jones. That doesn't sound to me like Ms. Jones didn't have a case against him. Anything to the contrary asserted here would seem to be an attempt to rewrite history.

Which brings me to why Bill Clinton's sexual harassments are likely to remain in play during this campaign - Hillary in essence enabled him by essentially running the Bimbo Eruption patrol and the efforts to smear the women who asserted sexual harassment and/or assault by her husband. It calls into question her feminist credentials, and whether she is a good champion of women.

In other words, should women look to her as a hero and a leader when historically she has enabled depredations against women by her husband?

Fen said...

Cyrus/Christopher: Monica ... was nobodys business anyway

Wrong again. Monica was a subordinate employee. Forgetting for a moment the ehtical violation of abusing the intern program [like Foley did], there were several parties who "business" this was:

1) Jones, of course. Under the 1994 Crime Bill, she had a right of discovery to determine if Clinton had a pattern of sexual predatory behavior in the workplace. Once she discovered Monica was involved with Bill sexually, she had a right to interview Monica to find out whether it was consenual or coerced.

2) Every other women working at the White House. Monica was given "jobs for sex" - interviews at Revlon and the UN soley because she sucked Bill's cock. Women in the workplace should compete for raises/promotions/interviews based only their work performance, not on how well they swallow. I only wish you could be employed at a place where your career path depended on whether or not you had sex with the boss, that would be poetic justice.

The ONLY affair that was "nobody's bussiness" was Clinton's involvement with Gennifer Flowers.

So you're saying it was the business of a special prosecutor with an unlimited budget and the full majesty of the law behind him? THAT's bullshit.

I also love the way you blame Starr for spending too much money to uncover Bill's lies and obstruction of justice. Shows a severe confusion of ethics on your part. I guess if a perp tossed a murder weapon into the bay, and a detective was forced to spend $3 mil dredging the harbor for it, you'd blame the detective instead of the perp...

Shorter: if Clinton had simply told the truth: "yes we were sexually involved but it was consenual", he would have saved the taxpayers alot of money, and saved the country alot of grief.

former law student said...

fen: evidently bill believed "eatin' ain't cheatin'" and oral sex isn't sex, which I would expect from an early baby boomer who grew up at the dawn of the sexual revolution.

Fen said...

Hat tip to some of the Lefties on the board. Its nice to see you guys shoot down idiots on the Left who would whitewash Clinton's sexual abuse. Its heartening to see you defend the principles you've championed, even when the perp is one of your own.

Thanks.