January 20, 2016

NYT: "'90s Scandals Threaten to Erode Hillary Clinton’s Strength With Women."

Why headline that now? Is it because anonymous sources say that Lena Dunham — before heading out to stump for Hillary — told some people at a dinner party at the Park Avenue apartment of the chief exec of HBO, that "she was disturbed by how, in the 1990s, the Clintons and their allies discredited women who said they had had sexual encounters with or been sexually assaulted by former President Bill Clinton"?

That's the anecdote that begins the story, but I don't believe having this particularly juicy nugget is what motivated the NYT to move this old issue — always available to hurt Hillary — to the front burner.

Another question is: What motivated "several people" from that exclusive dinner party to rat out Lena? The ratting out doesn't hurt Lena as much as it hurts Hillary so I don't think it's that Lena has enemies. I could see HBO-dinner-party co-guests having something against Lena, but it seems as though it would have to be political opposition to Hillary. That opposition could arise out of genuine, true-to-the-core feminism. Hillary really did get caught up in a sickening web of anti-feminism. That's something I've personally cared about for more than 2 decades.

I hope that's what motivated the dinner party guests to rat out Lena. But I suspect it was that they're feeling the Bern. They want Bernie Sanders.

And that connects to the NYT motivation to run the story. Does the NYT want Bernie Sanders? I doubt it. But I'm sure they want the Democratic nominee to win the election. Bernie's heating up so strongly, Clinton's weakness as a candidate is becoming more obvious, and the NYT is certainly privy to far more oppo-research material on Hillary than I know. Just yesterday, it ran the story "Hillary Clinton Email Said to Include Material Exceeding 'Top Secret.'" The FBI investigation looms. What else is coming? Is it not too late to bring Biden back out?

I suspect there's utter panic behind the scenes as Trump and Cruz dominate the GOP race. It would be one thing to let Hillary do her best, maybe fall short, and let nice Mr. Bush sit in the Oval Office for 4 years while the Democratic Party rebuilds itself. But Trump/Cruz won't be docile seat warmers. It's a dire emergency.

And so, at long last, what Hillary did to women matters. Women aren't Hillary's natural constituency, we're her victims.
Now that the stories...
The stories...
... are resurfacing...
You submerged them! You submerged them for partisan political ends and you're participating in dragging them back up because of — I can't help presuming — partisan political ends.
... they could hamper Mrs. Clinton’s attempts to connect with younger women, who are learning the details of the Clintons’ history for the first time.
Ha. Learning for the first time because you worked to submerge the story. If this had been out in the open all along, it wouldn't be coming as a surprise now. Of course, Clinton herself worked to submerge the story — the story not just of what Bill did sexually but of how Bill's people, including Hillary, discredited the women. This has gone on for more than 20 years, 20 years of distorting the development of women's equality in the workplace. 
Several news organizations have published guides to the Clinton scandals to explain the allegations to a new generation of readers. Alexis Isabel Moncada, the 17-year-old founder of Feminist Culture, a popular blog, was not old enough to remember the 1990s, but lately she and her thousands of young female readers have heard a lot about the scandals.

“I heard he sexually harassed people and she worked to cover it up,” Ms. Moncada said of Mr. and Mrs. Clinton. “A lot of girls in my age group are huge feminists, and we don’t react well to that.”...

“You have to give Trump credit,” said Jennifer Weiner, a best-selling novelist and feminist. “He’s a genius at poking and prodding his competitors until he finds their soft spots.”...
Ugh. The visual. Rape-y. 
Mr. Trump’s attacks make Mrs. Clinton look less like “a strong, self-actualized feminist leader who women can proudly get behind,” Ms. Weiner added, and more “like a craven opportunist, and an apologist for a predator.”
Mr. Trump's attacks! Why would it take a Trump attack to make you see Hillary that way? He can only make her look that way because the factual material is there. But you were looking away, conveniently. That looking away that you did on your own I call anti-feminism.

If you read far enough into the article, you'll get to a quote from Camille Paglia: "It’s not about Bill Clinton’s peccadilloes... It’s about Hillary Clinton’s behavior towards her husband’s accusers for all those years." Exactly.

(By the way, I recorded a Bloggingheads dialogue with Glenn Loury on Monday, and "peccadilloes" was the word he used to minimize the problem. I'll let you know when the diavlog is available.)

ADDED: The Drudge presentation is very funny:

88 comments:

Birkel said...

How dare they submerge and resurface those true things that Republicans have been saying for years.

Keep rocking that belief that the NYT deserves reading...

Curious George said...

"That opposition could arise out of genuine, true-to-the-core feminism."

Bless your heart.

MadisonMan said...

Hard to believe that's 20 years ago! Hard to believe that anyone cares what Lena Dunham thinks.

If the Democrats had a front runner who wasn't in politics 20-30 (or 40 or 50) years ago, Clinton (WJC) could be trotted out as an elder statesman at the Convention. But his history drags Clinton (HRC) down, and they both deserve this for how they treated women.

History will be far kinder to Bush than Clinton.

Bob Boyd said...

"Hillary really did get caught up in a sickening web of anti-feminism."

Hillary was one of the spiders who spun the web. She's only now getting caught up in it.

Daniel Richwine said...

They're feeling the Burn because its becoming clear Trump is a nightmare matchup for Mrs. Clinton. She'd easily handle Bush or whomever else the GOP could trot out there, and as Trump has risen in the polls, the dirty laundry is starting to air.
I wonder if Sanders finishes her quickly if the establishment GOP might not push for Cruiz over Trump. Sanders seems a tougher match for the Don, who has as one of his biggest assets the ability to beat Mrs. Clinton.

AllenS said...

The NYTs is bringing it up now, so later than can join the chorus, and say "that's old news" "we've been over this before, and nobody cares."

traditionalguy said...

Pecca deilloes needs your patented Etymological analysis... so far it sounds like maybe a fish dildo.

PB said...

A Park Avenue Dinner Party sets New York Times editorial and news coverage direction.

I think that says it all.

PB said...

Hillary was always the nasty one.

Derek Kite said...

Oh so minor. Just picadillos.

My daughter started working around the time when this scandal hit. Her boss, my age, decided to take a fancy on her. She did everything except kick him in the nuts, but he was stupid. I told her that she didn't have to tolerate that, even if it was a good job. We would back her up.

The whole of the media and liberal establishment were pounding on anyone who dared think that it was inappropriate behavior.

And Hillary was leading the cause.

traditionalguy said...

A strange crowd is gathering for a public stoning of the woman caught in flagrante delicto as Sweet Old Bill's life partner in charge of Secrecy. I smell the Obama Gang.

What would be great now is to see Hillary do a mea culpa, tell all on Imam Barack, and go into Witness Protection.

David Begley said...

This NYT story has to be understood in the context of the Fox News story that the info in Hillary's emails is way more secret than first thought. And lots of it.

The NYT is just preparing the Left for the fact that the FBI is going to recommend a criminal referral. She will drop out and Biden will get into the race in order to erase his regret.

Michael K said...

Is Loury a member of JournOlist ? They seem to have a limited vocabulary.

Several other examples this week.

Michael K said...

"She will drop out and Biden will get into the race in order to erase his regret."

Yes, or that young whippersnapper, Warren.

Bill, Republic of Texas said...

Hillary really did get caught up in a sickening web of anti-feminism. That's something I've personally cared about for more than 2 decades.

Says the woman who voted for Clinton twice.

Hillary didn't get caught up in anything. She was the general in the war on women. Super smart law professors got caught in the web of anti-feminism spun by Bill, Hillary, feminists and democrats. Ask yourselves why.

mezzrow said...

(applause)

It is for moments like this that I visit this place. The rest is gravy.

Lovely deconstruction, Professsor. The plates progressively wobble on their long, elegant spindles.

Original Mike said...

A peck of dildos sounds like a lot to me.

Martha said...

WOW
amazing to see the New York Times moral relativism exposed
if Hiilary! were a viable candidate, Bill could keep sexually harassing underlings and Hillary! would be allowed to slime the female victims.
But Hillary! is a disaster as a candidate without a coherent inspiring message. Hillary! has only a tired resume filled with corruption, dereliction of duty, and incompetence. So now the New York Times brings up the nineties and finds what the Clintons were up to then is disqualifying now.

Brando said...

Here's why they "sat on it" so long--a year ago (even maybe five months ago) it looked like Hillary was being anointed by the Dems, as Sanders was some oddball no one knew and Hillary was historical greatness. And god forbid we allow good oppo to surface when it would only help the evil Republicans (even before Trump emerged, any GOPer was unacceptable to the Left). But now that Sanders has narrowed the lead and looks likely to win the first two primaries, it is acceptable to skewer Hillary if it means getting the candidate they prefer (who even may test better in the general election than her). So, if it helps the GOP, it's bad, but if it helps the Bern, it's good. Maybe even Lena Dunham is starting to see that she can pick an alternative to Hillary and not have to answer uncomfortable questions from young feminists who haven't yet drunk the Clinton Kool-Aid and might have problems with someone who covered for a sexual harasser.

I don't think the Dems are that scared about the prospect of losing to Trump or Cruz. Both of them are at such odds with the Congressional Republicans that if they somehow won the general it would simply mean four years of gridlock (which is also what we'd see if a Democrat wins).

Amadeus 48 said...

The NYT--don't read it and be uninformed; read it and be misinformed.
Chickens, meet your roost.

Original Mike said...

It'll be Warren and I can see her winning the general. Bernie without all the sharp edges. And she has a vagina.

David Begley said...

Yeah, Liz Warren. Fake Indian, Harvard law prof, screechy voice and a first time back bencher. Perfect for a GOP win in 48 states.

Brando said...

"She will drop out and Biden will get into the race in order to erase his regret."

I think it's too late for that. Either she will win the nomination as a scandal-plagued candidate, or Bernie will pull off an Obama. I still think she has the edge over Bern because unlike Obama, Bernie doesn't have as much appeal with black voters or Democratic moderates, and even Obama only barely pulled it out last time.

But if the DOJ surprises me and indicts, that all goes out the window.

AllenS said...

David Begley said...
The NYT is just preparing the Left for the fact that the FBI is going to recommend a criminal referral.

Even if the FBI recommends a criminal referral, it won't matter if the DOJ does nothing about it. Besides, Hillary will never quit.

jr565 said...

"Another question is: What motivated "several people" from that exclusive dinner party to rat out Lena? The ratting out doesn't hurt Lena as much as it hurts Hillary so I don't think it's that Lena has enemies"

Oh, Lena has enemies all right. Heterosexual males, for one.
But not sure if it doesn't hurt Lena, since she is on the stump for Hillary. if she is saying this behind closed doors right before going on the stump it makes her seem like a liar. and by extension makes Hillary seem like a liar.

traditionalguy said...

Whomever the Dems replace Hillary with had better get to cracking. Trump has reached 48% in Florida polls. And the Dems are all afraid of being exposed by Trump with a few lines about heir weakness like he did to The Inevitable Woman Hillary.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Ann Althouse said...Hillary really did get caught up in a sickening web of anti-feminism.

"Get caught up in" is passive, Professor. She was a driver of that activity, or at the very least an enthusiastically willing participant. She wasn't "caught up", she helped spin the web.
Arguably the "nuts and sluts" were "caught up"--if they're the flies then Hillary's the spider.

Laslo Spatula said...

"Huma, they're bringing it all up again. The women. Bill's fucking women. I'm losing the 'Woman Card'..."

"Hillary, women understand that you did what you had to do."

"Old senile women, maybe. These younger girls have no idea what a woman had to do to get power."

"So we'll concentrate on the 'Old Ladies' vote. Maybe we'll get you a cat..."

"But I'm already losing the blacks and Jews --"

"Hillary, I have told you before: you know I am of Muslim heritage. The Blacks and Jews are the very most ungrateful and lowest of people."

"Yes, you have told me that before, Huma. But if I lose the women's vote it'll be over for me. No one will put money into my Foundation if I don't have the political power to give them things."

"Let's not get desperate, Hillary..."

"Huma: Marry me."

"What?"

"Let's divorce our husbands and get married. It'll show we have thrown off our shackles and reclaimed our Feminism. And it'll cement the Gay Voters. And the people that watch Lena's show."

"Hillary, you know my Heritage. My Family would turn their backs on me. Or worse."

"Oh, please. Can't the Muslims fucking get over themselves? They're already making things hard enough to be a Progressive."

"Hillary --"

"Can't you see, Huma? Young people LOVE the Gays. And then I can play the 'Anti-Gay' Card -- that would shore up my Voters."

"Hillary --"

"It's not like Bernie can come out Gay. He'd just be creepy. Like child-molester creepy."

"Hillary --"

"Huma, have we ever looked into Bernie's past to see if there is anything that could be construed as child molestation? Maybe he showered with young boys at a Socialist Camp-Out or something..."

"Hillary --"

"Yes, Huma, what IS it?"

"Hillary, I'll marry you..."

"Great news, Huma! You'll be First Lady!"

"I'd make a POWERFUL First Lady..."

"Don't get ahead of yourself, Huma. You'd be my Wife, but you'll still be my Bitch."

"Understood, Hillary: understood."

"And Huma...?"

"Yes, Hillary. You are shitting yourself...."

"But at least I'm shitting myself because of Happiness..."


I am Laslo.

MadisonMan said...

Yeah, Liz Warren. Fake Indian, Harvard law prof, screechy voice and a first time back bencher. Perfect for a GOP win in 48 states.

At first glance, I'm inclined to agree. A Michael Dukakis result.

I've been wrong before (IGWS).

Cath said...

Speaking of Drudge, check out the composition of the NYT picture accompanying the article. That's some Drudge-worthy visual suggestion there. Doesn't even need a picture of Lewinksy juxtaposed with it.

Roy Jacobsen said...

90's scandals. Right.

Pay no attention to the fresh new scandals behind the curtain!

#whyisthatwomannotinprison

M Jordan said...

We are truly in uncharted waters here, as both the Democrat and Republican fields collapse towards populism. I believe Trump will emerge as our next president and -- fingers crossed -- will grow into a truly post-partisan president.

MadisonMan said...

I believe Trump will emerge as our next president and -- fingers crossed -- will grow into a truly post-partisan president.

There are many people who had the same thought about Obama. That didn't happen.

However, I concede that Trump appears to be beholden to no one, and I don't think the same could have been said about Obama back in '08.

Michael K said...

Good one, Laslo.

" I still think she has the edge over Bern because unlike Obama, Bernie doesn't have as much appeal with black voters "

I suspect blacks are not that interested this year. The ones who are paying attention are thinking about Trump. A small number, agreed.

Big Mike said...

Question for the multiculturalists out there. What is black inner city culture like, given that Glenn Loury would refer to rape as a "peccadillo"? Just askin'

M Jordan said...

"There are many people who had the same thought about Obama. That didn't happen."

You make a sobering point. But the difference is, Obama was never for one second post-partisan. He was always a hyper-leftist.

Oso Negro said...

It will be a interesting read the day you convince yourself to vote for Hillary instead of Ted Cruz.

Big Mike said...

They want Bernie Sanders.

No, they want ABH (Anybody but Hillary). Right now that's Bernie Sanders. It could have been someone else, and may still be someone else.

Curious George said...

"Hillary really did get caught up in a sickening web of anti-feminism. That's something I've personally cared about for more than 2 decades."

All evidence to the contrary.

kjbe said...

Hey, everyone here's a feminist! Yay!

bwebster said...

When Bill Clinton was running for re-election in 1996 -- and I was still a registered Democrat, as I had been since turning 18 in 1971 -- I said to my wife, "If Clinton's re-elected, he'll be impeached before he completes his 2nd term." Even then, the aura of corruption and misbehavior around him and Hilary was so great that I doubted they'd make it through. When the Lewinsky scandal came out, and particularly after Bill finally confessed he'd been lying about their relationship (and getting others to lie for him), I fully expected the Democratic Party leaders to go to Bill and tell him it was time to step down, just as the GOP party leaders had done with Nixon in 1974. When they instead rallied around him and blamed everyone except Bill, the Dems lost whatever moral high ground they might have had, and they did (IMHO) great damage to the country in the process. I did remain a registered Democrat for another 12 years -- though really in name only -- but finally re-registered as a Republican after the onslaught of vicious mysogyist attacks from the Left that followed Sarah Palin being picked by McCain as his running mate.

cubanbob said...

M Jordan said...
We are truly in uncharted waters here, as both the Democrat and Republican fields collapse towards populism. I believe Trump will emerge as our next president and -- fingers crossed -- will grow into a truly post-partisan president.

1/20/16, 8:39 AM

1- a probable yes. 2- a probable no. Unless the Democrats do fairly well in the Congressional elections there isn't going to be any great sentiment for any wealth tax in Congress or any new form of income redistribution schemes. Trump as President will get mostly his immigration plans and not that much more which is fine as not furthering the left ward trend will give the economy the room to finally recover.


I'm starting to wonder if Ken Starr inadvertently left a political IED for Hillary.
As for the NYT, in their hearts they want Bernie and in their minds they know he will gloriously lose 45 states. Hence the grudging support for Hillary unless and until they find an alternative.

cubanbob said...

A fun scenario for the Democrats: The FBI has the goods on Hillary, makes a referral to the DoJ which declines to prosecute and Hillary barely wins with Republican gains in Congress. The hearings will be marvelous entertainment and the prospect of a real impeachment and removal scenario with Hillary reprising Nixon with a resignation will be an epic karmic payback.

rhhardin said...

Hillary really did get caught up in a sickening web of anti-feminism. That's something I've personally cared about for more than 2 decades.

That's high on the don't care list for guys, unless they're trying to use it to influence the fickle and unselfaware women's vote.

An actual feminism would be high on a guy's list, but this is all bogus stuff.

Original Mike said...

bwebster said: "When the Lewinsky scandal came out, and particularly after Bill finally confessed he'd been lying about their relationship (and getting others to lie for him), I fully expected the Democratic Party leaders to go to Bill and tell him it was time to step down, just as the GOP party leaders had done with Nixon in 1974."

I did to, then grew increasingly shocked (and then disgusted) that they did not. Taught me a lot about the political left.

amielalune said...

Dear God. The NYT is reduced to running a major, thoughtful story about how Lena Dunham feels about Hillary Clinton. I didn't think there was a "lower" for them to go.

Our society may not deserve to survive.

Todd said...

kjbe said...
Hey, everyone here's a feminist! Yay!

1/20/16, 8:52 AM


Sorry, no. I am not a feminist. I actually believe in equal rights.

Michael said...

I really don't think that it is a problem for Chief Executives to bang interns that work for them. Or get blowjobs. I think the Republicans should insist that the Dems agree on this. Because what else would a female "intern" be useful for ? Just a couple of consenting adults up there in the executive suite. And the stockholders or voters will be down with it as well since the CEO needs a way to relieve the terrible tension caused by his important role. Dems should certainly agree with that.

And a CEO "caught" getting blowjobs from an intern would not likely lose his job in today's freewheeling environment when feminists are cool with consent. Because yes means yes.

And that is why it is not a problem that Bill Clinton consented to getting blowjobs from an intern that worked for him who agreed to provide them. Because yes means yes.

Char Char Binks said...

No rape conviction, no serious sin, so Bill's infidelities are "peccadilloes", in comparison. It depends on your definition of "serious".

khesanh0802 said...

Ann; Great piece of analysis! I love it when you get angry.

The only exception I would make to your comments is that you give Trump too little credit for making Bill's sexual harassment a topic of conversation. If the NYT, WaPo, etc. don't cover it they know Trump is going to force them to, perhaps by chapter and verse.

Ann Althouse said...

"Ann; Great piece of analysis! I love it when you get angry."

You should enjoy the Bloggingheads then. And thanks.

"The only exception I would make to your comments is that you give Trump too little credit for making Bill's sexual harassment a topic of conversation. If the NYT, WaPo, etc. don't cover it they know Trump is going to force them to, perhaps by chapter and verse."

Not here, but elsewhere I've given him credit. Here, I want to complain that the issue was submerged in the first place.

Quaestor said...

If Hillary Clinton had any actual brains she'd dump Lena Dunham, the Scarlet O'Hara of the Upper East Side, like... a hot potato is too appetizing... like hot plutonium. With her pouty peevishness and pollyanna petulance Lena Dunham embodies all the feminine quirks that led prudent republicans on both sides of the Atlantic to limit the franchise to men over 21 years. Why remind us of that abandoned wisdom here on the cusp of the suffragettes second century by allowing Miss Dunham to mount the Hillary! tribune and do what? Whine and snivel about "microaggressions" at HBO, or tell us more about diddling her siblings? The smart play would be to foist her on Bernie. The New York Post could have have a ball composing one of their signature salacious headlines, Feminist Bedwetter Supports Paleo-Socialist Crank. That should be worth an extra 20 points in the SC primary at least.

But the really smart play, the one Machiavelli would endorse, would be to somehow saddle the Trump campaign with the Lena load.

eric said...

It's interesting. I've read several different conservative sites, powerlineblog being one of them, saying Trump shouldn't go after Hillary that it will backfire. Republicans always have one reaction, retreat. Look at the governor of Michigan. He is apologizing for lead in the water in Flint Michigan. What the hell is he apologizing for? They asked him if its his Katerina and he says yes. Was Katrina the governor of Louisiana's Katrina? Nope, that natural disaster belonged to Bush.

This man made disaster doesn't belong to the mayor and city council? It doesn't belong to Obama? Of course not. Because they know how to fight and argue and hit back. The governor of Michigan is a punk being played. Retreat!

But Trump isn't a punk who gets played. He attacks. He isn't afraid to attack Hillary for her lies and corruption.

Wish we had more Republican politicians with a spine.

I wish, Ann, you kept a new tag on your site. Probably too late now, but it would be historically interesting. If Trump wins, what will they say? If he wins in a landslide what will they say? Remember the commenter here who calls us all hillbillies and insists Hillary will win easily? Where did he go.

I suggest a "things they said about Trump" tag, or something similar, to remind us years from now what they claimed about Trump today. Because they were surely lie once proven wrong.

Birkel said...

Althouse: "...was submerged..."

All the wonderful Liberals, with whom you deal daily, are to blame. And you suffer them, seemingly happily.

Best not to question too much.

FleetUSA said...

Remember she used a heavy weight enforcer to convince the women not to come forward. A guy named Palladino. Mafia style.

alan markus said...

Another question is: What motivated "several people" from that exclusive dinner party to rat out Lena? The ratting out doesn't hurt Lena as much as it hurts Hillary so I don't think it's that Lena has enemies.

I think it is the money sending a message - as in Big Entertainment saying, "at this time campaign cash may not be served at the buffet."

YoungHegelian said...

The Hillary! back story that never ceases to amaze me is "Why, in God's Name, did the Democrats put all their eggs in this most rickety of baskets?" I can't remember a weaker & more scandal-ridden candidate going into a presidential election in my lifetime. She may very well be one FBI report short of a campaign implosion.

Why are no other Democratic candidates coming forth? Because I think, after examining this graphic & this one, that they simply don't have any other candidates. The Democratic backbench is simply empty.

Theranter said...

Traditional guy "A strange crowd is gathering for a public stoning of the woman caught in flagrante delicto as Sweet Old Bill's life partner in charge of Secrecy. I smell the Obama Gang.
What would be great now is to see Hillary do a mea culpa, tell all on Imam Barack, and go into Witness Protection.


I smell it too. Never underestimate the depth of a powerful woman hating another powerful woman. I suspect the "Obama gang" consists solely of Jarrett (with a little legal help from Lynch.) Jarrett will get rid of Hill and any threat she may pose to her pseudo-son by waving ready to file Indictments at her. Next question then is whom is most likely to acquiesce to Jarrett maintaining her power behind the throne--Bernie? Warren? Biden? I'm going with Warren/Biden. Only hitch is absent a "sudden health event" for Hill and given the various candidacy filing deadlines in all the states, is it even possible to run other people at this point?

Michael Fitzgerald said...

Hillary "got caught up in a wave of anti-feminism". LOL! Poor Hillary, there she was fighting for the right of all Americans to have free superlative *Healthcare*, when suddenly along came this wave of anti-feminism that just swept her away. Oh dear, dear Hillary, why do terrible things keep happening to you?

Gahrie said...

When the Lewinsky scandal came out, and particularly after Bill finally confessed he'd been lying about their relationship (and getting others to lie for him), I fully expected the Democratic Party leaders to go to Bill and tell him it was time to step down, just as the GOP party leaders had done with Nixon in 1974."


I never expected the Democrats to do the right thing...they had already established that power was all that mattered.

I was surprised however about how blatantly the feminists rolled over for Clinton, especially so soon after Packwood and Thomas. I'm not a huge fan of Tammy Bruce, but a far as I know, she was the only prominent feminist who had the character to hold Clinton accountable.

Gahrie said...

given the various candidacy filing deadlines in all the states, is it even possible to run other people at this point?

The Democrats never let a little thing like electoral law get in their way....

See Sen. Torricelli as a perfect example.

Mac McConnell said...

The feminists are turning on the Grifter and the intel investigators had to be vetted to receive the highest security clearances to even read the Grifter's latest email releases. We will see if the FBI is as corrupt as the DOJ, ATF and IRS. They are, we will see no indictment of the Grifter.

FullMoon said...

From the NYT story "....according to multiple accounts at the time, documented in books and oral histories."
Does "oral histories" mean gossip? Or is that a sly reference to "that woman, Ms. Lewinski" ?

Hagar said...

I still think the drip, drip of icky, sticky stuff is being orchestrated from the White House.

Brando said...

"I never expected the Democrats to do the right thing...they had already established that power was all that mattered.

I was surprised however about how blatantly the feminists rolled over for Clinton, especially so soon after Packwood and Thomas. I'm not a huge fan of Tammy Bruce, but a far as I know, she was the only prominent feminist who had the character to hold Clinton accountable."

I was a bit surprised that there weren't at least a few prominent Democrats ready to bail on him. But I think what kept most of them in line (compared to how the GOP bailed on Nixon in '74) came down to:

1) The economy was in great shape in the late '90s, but in the toilet in mid-1974.
2) Related to 1), this meant Clinton's approval ratings were a lot higher at the time of his impeachment than Nixon's were in '74. Public opinion suggested they could do better staying with him.
3) Democrats are far more scared of the opposition than Republicans are. Hence, more likely to circle the wagons as he has the "right enemies". Nixon never had the GOP as scared of Mike Mansfield as Clinton could get the Democrats over Gingrich.
4) Democrats could claim that Clinton's scandal--while illegal and unethical--was more personal in nature, and did not much involve his office. Nixon's scandal was pretty much all to do with his office. If they could tell themselves that (and most voters could agree) they could express their "disappointment" while voting against impeachment.

Of course, removal would have backfired on the GOP, as Gore would have been in office two years before the 2000 election and his incumbency likely would have made that close election swing for him. So the Dems kept their wounded calf going a little longer, and gave Bush the chance he needed.

Brando said...

"The Democrats never let a little thing like electoral law get in their way....

See Sen. Torricelli as a perfect example."

Yes, but in all 50 states? That's risky--even missing a ballot in one state may not be worth it. Though I think the bigger issue is it takes a lot of time to get a campaign going nationally, and the time to have done this was a year ago. The Dems waited too long, and I think they're going to be stuck with Clinton (unless Sanders keeps gaining).

Michael K said...

I'm not a huge fan of Tammy Bruce, but a far as I know, she was the only prominent feminist who had the character to hold Clinton accountable.

She was fired by NOW for criticizing OJ after he was acquitted.

"Racism" they said.

Her conflicts arose from her vociferous opinion about Simpson, then culminated with her defense of talk-show host Dr. Laura Schlessinger when the psychologist was attacked for allegedly being a homophobe. Bruce's book, "The New Thought Police," has left many of her former liberal cohorts gasping and fuming.

Yes, she is not a good person to the Times.

I like her a lot.

JAORE said...

"Yeah, Liz Warren. Fake Indian, Harvard law prof, screechy voice and a first time back bencher. Perfect for a GOP win in 48 states."

A similar tale could have been told about back bencher Obama in 2007. Except for the voice and fake Indian. But with scandalous cohorts and zero accomplishments one could bring forth in polite company.

Michael K said...

"Yes, but in all 50 states? That's risky--even missing a ballot in one state may not be worth it. "

Do you think that would be a problem for the party of election day resurrection?

Come on. You ARE kidding, right ?

JAORE said...

If Hillary drops out and Warren does not engage what will happen to all those young vaginas yearning for that first pull of the lever?

Perhaps Laslo knows.

madAsHell said...

Paleo-Socialist Crank

Hilarious! Every time I see that guy I hear "GET OFF MY LAWN!!".

damikesc said...

Hillary really did get caught up in a sickening web of anti-feminism. That's something I've personally cared about for more than 2 decades.

The ironic part is that the most "anti-feminist" group happened to be "feminists". They were the ones who have Clinton the one free grope rule and attacked the women who dared to be harassed by him.

I think it's too late for that. Either she will win the nomination as a scandal-plagued candidate, or Bernie will pull off an Obama. I still think she has the edge over Bern because unlike Obama, Bernie doesn't have as much appeal with black voters or Democratic moderates, and even Obama only barely pulled it out last time.

Doesn't she have enough super delegates in her back pocket to make it all moot anyway?

...and why do Democrats accept the concept of "super delegates"? Why should some voices mean more than others?

A fun scenario for the Democrats: The FBI has the goods on Hillary, makes a referral to the DoJ which declines to prosecute and Hillary barely wins with Republican gains in Congress. The hearings will be marvelous entertainment and the prospect of a real impeachment and removal scenario with Hillary reprising Nixon with a resignation will be an epic karmic payback.

Her spokesperson, on TV no less, said that the IG is working with Republicans to hurt Hillary.

An IG in Obama's administration is a Republican stooge, according to him.

...and, no doubt, other Lefties when they finally get up.

Larry J said...

Brando said...
"She will drop out and Biden will get into the race in order to erase his regret."

I think it's too late for that. Either she will win the nomination as a scandal-plagued candidate, or Bernie will pull off an Obama.


There's another option, what I call my nightmare scenario. I call it that because the notion popped to mind and woke me from a deep sleep. The Dems go to a brokered convention. Who are they going to nominate? Sanders? He's a proud socialist who, while popular with the economically illiterate free stuff crowd, would be poison to working people due to the tax increases necessary to pay for his wet dreams. Lieawatha Warren? She's a vagino-American but that wouldn't be enough. Biden? In addition to being a world-class moron, he has his issues with women as well. Remember those creepy photos?

Who's left? Gore? Kerry? They're yesterday's losers. What about a different female, one who already has widespread name recognition? Who is also black, so any criticism would automatically be derided as both sexist and racist. Michelle.

cubanbob said...

Hagar said...
I still think the drip, drip of icky, sticky stuff is being orchestrated from the White House.

1/20/16, 11:54 AM"

The question is why? The current crew in the White House aren't squeaky clean and couldn't stand a half serious investigation by a less than willfully blind Republican DoJ. Why would they risk knocking down their own insurance policy? They can't seriously believe a Communist like Sanders can win and that a backstabbed Hillary if indicted won't try to drag Obama and his Svengali down with her. Or perhaps maybe they are that crazy.

Brando said...

"Do you think that would be a problem for the party of election day resurrection?

Come on. You ARE kidding, right ?"

Ha, yeah I wouldn't put it past them to try--but in each of those cases it'd mean court challenges, and enough smoke and confusion that it's less of a sure thing. It's one thing to pull that off in Jersey where they controlled the state govt., but it becomes less sure in Florida, Ohio, etc.

"Doesn't she have enough super delegates in her back pocket to make it all moot anyway? ...and why do Democrats accept the concept of "super delegates"? Why should some voices mean more than others?"

She (initially) had them lined up in 2008 as well, but they bailed when Obama gained a lead among contested delegates. It'd look pretty bad to have the superdelegates overrule the "vote of the people" in the primaries and caucuses. I don't recall the reason the Dems have superdelegates, but it is a pretty antidemocratic idea.

"There's another option, what I call my nightmare scenario. I call it that because the notion popped to mind and woke me from a deep sleep. The Dems go to a brokered convention. Who are they going to nominate? Sanders? He's a proud socialist who, while popular with the economically illiterate free stuff crowd, would be poison to working people due to the tax increases necessary to pay for his wet dreams. Lieawatha Warren? She's a vagino-American but that wouldn't be enough. Biden? In addition to being a world-class moron, he has his issues with women as well. Remember those creepy photos? Who's left? Gore? Kerry? They're yesterday's losers. What about a different female, one who already has widespread name recognition? Who is also black, so any criticism would automatically be derided as both sexist and racist. Michelle."

I don't get the idea Michelle wants to serve in political office. But in a brokered convention, if say they couldn't agree on Sanders (a leftist who seems to have the excitement of the Dem roots) or Hillary (who really has nothing but Clinton nostalgia and the "first woman" novelty), I think there are no obvious choices--the ones with national profiles are pretty old and retired, and the young ones are too green. Maybe Mark Warren?

I'd like to see Clinton fail (again!) but I have a feeling that barring some bombshell she'll overcome the Bern.

cubanbob said...

A fun scenario for the Democrats: The FBI has the goods on Hillary, makes a referral to the DoJ which declines to prosecute and Hillary barely wins with Republican gains in Congress. The hearings will be marvelous entertainment and the prospect of a real impeachment and removal scenario with Hillary reprising Nixon with a resignation will be an epic karmic payback.

Her spokesperson, on TV no less, said that the IG is working with Republicans to hurt Hillary.

An IG in Obama's administration is a Republican stooge, according to him.

...and, no doubt, other Lefties when they finally get up.

1/20/16, 12:17 PM"

It's not 1974 anymore. The left can't blot out the sun with it's thumb anymore. Hillary has all of Nixon's negatives and none of his positives plus she has Agnew's corruption.
Obama had the perfect storm pushing it forward to ride in 2008. This year the Third Obama Term a/k/a Hillary has an nearly equal storm to rideout against. If Hillary is the nominee then the Democrats better make sure they find a Jerry Ford to be her running mate in the increasingly unlikely event of her winning the general election.

Brando said...

"A fun scenario for the Democrats: The FBI has the goods on Hillary, makes a referral to the DoJ which declines to prosecute and Hillary barely wins with Republican gains in Congress. The hearings will be marvelous entertainment and the prospect of a real impeachment and removal scenario with Hillary reprising Nixon with a resignation will be an epic karmic payback."

I think the GOP will have a hard time holding onto the Senate--the seats in PA, FL, NH and WI at least will be tough in a presidential year. But even if they hold steady, they'd need a lot of Democratic votes to get the 2/3 for removal.

In that case, it depends on the charges and evidence against her. It would have to be so overwhelming that it would be political suicide to vote with her.

Maybe her insurance would be picking a running mate so noxious that some Republicans would balk at voting for removal. Imagine removing Hillary and making Barbara Boxer president.

The Cracker Emcee said...

"They can't seriously believe a Communist like Sanders can win"

He can win handily. 50 years of billions of dollars of handouts weren't motivated by altruism. The Donks have built a very high electoral floor for themselves while the GOP stood by with their thumbs in their asses.

David said...

I hope that's what motivated the dinner party guests to rat out Lena. But I suspect it was that they're feeling the Bern. They want Bernie Sanders.

Which completely confirms the "suicide vest" theory.

Brando said...

"Which completely confirms the "suicide vest" theory."

I don't know--Bernie is likely a better general election candidate for the Dems than Hillary, and is less likely to sell them out once elected. Plus, they don't have to excuse the scandals of the Clintons, or try to say with a straight face that Hillary is secretly likable and cares about regular people and gets things done and other such nonsense. At least with Sanders, they have one of their own. Sort of like the Righties who stuck by Goldwater in '64.

If I were on the Left, I'd be all for Sanders--it doesn't make any sense to go with Hillary.

But then, all of these candidates are terrible. The only plus side is that all of them except for one will have to lose.

grackle said...

It'll be Warren and I can see her winning the general. Bernie without all the sharp edges. And she has a vagina.

But how can we be sure about the vagina?

Michael said...

And should a CEO be fired for getting blowjobs in the office from an intern it is up to the wife of the CEO to slut shame the intern and make the board of directors and the stockholders aware of the fact that sluts do what sluts do and to fire the CEO for this matter is wrong and certainly does not rise to a dismissal for cause. In other words, if you fire him he gets 4X his last year's total income including grants.

The Godfather said...

I think some of us are missing the forest for the trees. If (as I hypothesized a couple of weeks ago), Hillary! withdraws from the race after most of the primaries/caucuses are over, and it is mathematically impossible for Sanders to own a majority of delegates, there will be an "open" convention that can nominate anyone it decides to nominate, and the nominee of the Democratic convention will be on the ballot in every state. If (as I hypothesize) Hillary! is forced by Obama to withdraw to avoid prosecution (although the ostensible reason will be health), then Obama will decide who the convention will annoint, and that will be Biden. Biden is the best candidate to preserve the Obama legacy. A Biden administration would really be a third Obama term. Part of the Obama legacy is being the first Black president, and that would be eroded if he were followed by the first woman president; that's why Hillary! must go, and why Warren will not replace her as the nominee.

The one thing that could interfere with this plan is if Hillary! is really such an awful candidate that Sanders wins a majority of the delegates. Then Obama wouldn't have the leverage to force the convention to nominate Biden. The rumors about charges against Hillary! at this stage could reflect that Obama is beginning to think that Hillary! is that bad a candidate. If so, I'm not sure what kind of a deal he could cut with Sanders in return for taking Hillary! out at this point in the process.

Rob McLean said...

90s Scandals Threaten to Erode Hillary Clinton’s Strength

Maybe they mean 90 scandals. Even so, there's some serious undercounting going on...

chickelit said...

Original Mike said...It'll be Warren and I can see her winning the general.

Warren, like Cruz, has zero crossover appeal. So no, it won't be she.

Sammy Finkelman said...

Women aren't Hillary's natural constituency, we're her victims.

To be fair that would only apply to women who had bad personal encounters with Bill Clinton. That couldn't be more than - what? - 200, 300 women? In a nation of 350 million, half of them women - so 1 in a million or make it a half million women.

Of course they didn't do much for other women - or anybody - either, really.

You submerged them! You submerged them

They didn't just submerge these stories, but anything bad about Bill Clinton.

The Clintons made reporters very afraid of being wrong. The Clintons were always accusing people of being conspiracy theorists.

Don't forget - Bill Clinton spread negative (but rebuttable and false ) stores against himself with the idea of tripping them up. From January through mid March 1994, they would leak things to about the Foster case to Christopher Ruddy to be published in the New York Post and then rebut them in the New York Daily News. You had to be there.

In 1992, Clinton had a debate moderator prep a crowd and they got a quesiton about negative campaigning. Anytime anybody said anything about Clkinton it was lways supposed to be partisan Republicans. Maybe hired by Richard Mellon Scaiife.

People know about Paula Jones and Monica Lewinsky and Gennifer Flowers. Not so much these other people, like Juanita Broderick, or the many other wrong things not connected with sex that Bill Clinton did. Sex is relatively safe territory for the Clintons because most of it is not illegal. Campaign finance law violations and brobery are illegal. So is murder.

Sammy Finkelman said...

I don't recall the reason the Dems have superdelegates, but it is a pretty antidemocratic idea.

It came after the 1980 challenge by Senator ted Kennedy to Jimmy Carter.

They had some nostalgia for smoke filled rooms, or the people who substituted Harry S Truman for Henry A. Wallace.

damikesc said...

I think some of us are missing the forest for the trees. If (as I hypothesized a couple of weeks ago), Hillary! withdraws from the race after most of the primaries/caucuses are over, and it is mathematically impossible for Sanders to own a majority of delegates, there will be an "open" convention that can nominate anyone it decides to nominate, and the nominee of the Democratic convention will be on the ballot in every state. If (as I hypothesize) Hillary! is forced by Obama to withdraw to avoid prosecution (although the ostensible reason will be health), then Obama will decide who the convention will annoint, and that will be Biden. Biden is the best candidate to preserve the Obama legacy. A Biden administration would really be a third Obama term. Part of the Obama legacy is being the first Black president, and that would be eroded if he were followed by the first woman president; that's why Hillary! must go, and why Warren will not replace her as the nominee.

I'd argue that a candidate who didn't win a single primary would be a killing blow for that candidate. You couldn't claim anything resembling a mandate and Joe has a TON of baggage and isn't exactly an adept campaigner, either.