January 25, 2016

"Should Bill Clinton’s sexual misdeeds be an issue for Hillary Clinton’s candidacy?"

The NYT does one of its forums on this question, asked of 4 women and one man.

1. Katha Pollitt says there's "no evidence that Hillary actually did 'enable' Bill’s philandering" or that she "slut-shamed Paula Jones or any of the other women who accused Bill of sexually aggressive behavior." She muses "What is enabling, anyway?" Is it really so different from "love, loyalty, credulousness, naivete, practicality, forgiveness, saving the marriage, protecting the children, just getting on with life"?

2. Kristin Collins Jackson (a poet and writer) mildly concedes that Hillary's "victim-shaming" "deserves attention"  for its inconsistency with her "platform that prioritizes women's issues and combating sexual assault on campus."

3. Joshua Coleman, a psychologist, says Hillary's "alleged attempts to discredit the women with whom her husband cheated may not be considered a good form of sisterhood, it certainly could be considered a reasonable act of motherhood." He says we've overinflated the idea of "romantic love" and offers respect to Hillary for staying with her husband instead of reacting in the "more destructive" way he's seen in some of his patients.

4. Cathy Young observes "the ambiguity of [Hillary's] status as a hybrid of modern female politician and traditional political wife" and "the greater paradox... that she is being hurt by the same feminist revival from which her campaign has sought to draw strength." Young puts some blame on "modern feminism" for going "to unhealthy extremes on fetishizing victimhood and conferring absolute credibility on self-proclaimed survivors" and likes the idea that Hillary's current trouble may move some feminists to back off from these extremes.

5. Nona Willis Aronowitz, a Fusion editor, says: "Even I, a progressive feminist, tend to think of Bill Clinton as a sleazy ex-boyfriend I can’t stop drunk-texting but not, you know, a rapist. He’s one of us, after all. One of our dudes." But she's looking critically at that tendency: "Those of us not married to Bill Clinton should ask ourselves why it’s so hard for us to accept that he might be brilliant, likable and a misogynist all at the same time?"

125 comments:

eric said...

I mean, cmon. She only allegedly did bad things. It's not like there is any video or audio of her defending her rapey husband.

Oh, and rapey? Cmon. He is one of us. Let's call it harrassy instead, OK girls? If he is going to give us abortions and free drugs, can't we see past his philandering?

And since he is one of us, surely she is one of us. Girl power!

Todd said...

All the usual suspects excused Bill's behavior back then and the same folks are now trying to excuse Hillary's as well, for the same reasons.

Did anyone really expect anything else?

Bill and Hillary are the correct sorts of people and as a result, nearly any transgression is forgivable.

chuck said...

So, no problem. Today, the NY times finds no real problem for Hillary. Tomorrow the sun will rise.

Hagar said...

Hillary! was Bill's Tom Hagen.

pm317 said...

NO!

Anthony said...

In other words, "Let us try to make our hypocrisy and double standards sound as intellectual as possible."

The Drill SGT said...

Hagar said...
Hillary! was Bill's Tom Hagen.


No, No, No...

Hagen was the only level headed Irishman in the movie.

Hillary was Sonny...

Scott McGlasson said...

Those of us not married to Bill Clinton should ask ourselves why it’s so hard for us to accept that he might be brilliant, likable and a misogynist all at the same time?"

Because maybe in the current, radfem culture, where only certain aspects define you, being a misogynist is where their conversation usually screeches to a halt.

Lem said...

Can Hillary on the one hand make her gender the reason why people should vote for her and in the other hand trot him out to campaign for her?

Bob Ellison said...

Bill Clinton is like all men, and all men are like Bill Clinton.

This conjecture is necessary to modern feminism.

There can be no men who don't do what Clinton does: philander, possibly rape, and definitely sexually abuse subordinate employees.

So all men must be like this. It proves the basic modern feminist conjecture: all men are horrible. Don't even try to say you disapprove of Bill's behavior; it just proves that you're a man, and probably a religious one (ew!).

David said...

Surprise! Hilary gets a pass from NY Progressives.

And note that NYT asked the questions about the activity for which she was probably least culpable.

I will repeat. It is 100% certain that Hilary was knowingly in possession of Rose Law Firm Whitewater files that were under subpoena and supposedly "lost." They were "lost" because Hilary and Bill had them in the White House private quarters. She probably acquired them through her staff's unlawful cleansing of Vice Foster's files after Vince's suicide. She was at least an accessory after the fact to that crime. (No I don't think he was murdered. But with the Clintons' help and encouragement, he had boxed himself into an impossible situation and death was his way out.)

It's always seemed to me that alone is sufficient to disqualify her for the presidency.

Richard Dolan said...

Here is how the NYT sets up the 'discussion': Bill is "one of the most beloved" ex-presidents. Trump raised the issue of "long forgotten" charges with his "snarling comments." And the question is whether it's fair to confront Hillary! with her words and actions about that ancient history, when some think doing so is an exercise in "victim blaming."

Okey-dokey. The discussion proves that, in the main, lefty Dem feminists owe their first loyalty to the lefty Dem side of that description. Which is undoubtedly how the NYT thinks it should come out. It's not like we were dealing with something momentous, compared (say) to whether Romney had been a bit of a bully in high school.

Bay Area Guy said...

Yes. Next question?

The NY Times has consistently glossed over Bill Clinton's misdeeds as a sexual predator (see anything about Jeffrey Epstein), because the NY Times mostly agreed with his political agenda.

Robert Packwood was booted for less.
Mark Foley was booted for less
Mark Sanford was booted for less
Even sleezy John Edwards was booted for less.


Hillary has enabled/condoned Bill's predatory conquests from the get-go - to preserve their lofty political perch.

In the modern era, What kind of woman stays with a man who blatantly cheats on her?

Gusty Winds said...

What Hillary is guilty of is actually being glad that Bimbos were picking up the slack and blowing Bill. So in that sense she was using them as much as her husband.

Bob Boyd said...

You have a right to be believed, but what difference at this point does it make?

sostander said...

They join the long line of "feminist" BJ enablers. No wonder the man has that creepy smile all the time. Good Lord.

Hagar said...

No, Sgt., but I should have said Hillary! was (and is) Clinton, Inc.'s Tom Hagen.
Bill would be Sonny that Hagen would clean up after, and there is no Michael.

Fen said...

Side bet that at least half of these people are made up?

I remember being interviewed by the NYTs when we were protesting during the 2000 recount. He attributed 3 of my quotes to 3 made up people, gave one of them a southern drawl, gave another a baclava hoodie while implying it was KKK fashionwear.

Its all about the Narrative. "It's Potemkin Villages all the way down"

rehajm said...

Tipper Gore was unavailable for comment?

Todd said...

Richard Dolan said...

Okey-dokey. The discussion proves that, in the main, lefty Dem feminists owe their first loyalty to the lefty Dem side of that description. Which is undoubtedly how the NYT thinks it should come out. It's not like we were dealing with something momentous, compared (say) to whether Romney had been a bit of a bully in high school.

1/25/16, 12:48 PM


Don't forget, the left was also just fine with Ted letting a woman drown while he calculated how it could affect the rest of his life. Guess he calculated correctly...

David Begley said...

Delusional must be a New York value.

n.n said...

According to the [left-wing] social complex, sin is not only an inheritable quality, but it also transfers with association through a spooky action.

MathMom said...

Change the name to Ted Cruz, and the answer would be, "Hell to the YES!!!"

traditionalguy said...

There is a little progress. At least it is seen as a man's conduct harming a woman now.

The old approach was, "It is only sex!" And that worked for Sweet Old Bill.

We've come a long way, Baby, thanks to Drudge.

Chuck said...

I'd like to see the American Spectator do its own Forum on this subject. With a different four women:

Laura Ingraham;
Peggy Noonan;
Kim Strassel, and;
Dorothy Rabinowitz.

Rocketeer said...

gave another a baclava hoodie

I know what you mean, Fen, but a "baclava hoodie" sounds like the most delicious adventure survival clothing item ever.

The Drill SGT said...

Gusty Winds said...
What Hillary is guilty of is actually being glad that Bimbos were picking up the slack and blowing Bill. So in that sense she was using them as much as her husband.


Hill would have been a better McKinsey Management Consultant than Chelsea ever was.

Hill knows how to "outsource" her BJ's

Chuck said...

It merits noting this:

The problem is not so much a personal one to the Clintons. Sure, their fake marriage is kind of creepy but that's not even close to the point that I would argue.

And it has nothing to do with any weird campaign ethics, where it might be okay to overlook it if Bill Clinton were a simple retiree who had no more role in his wife's campaign than did Denis Thatcher.

No; the real, serious, issue- and policy-question to go straight at Hillary Clinton's forehead is the one about the Obama Administration politicizing Title IX investigations on collegiate campuses. And the general national executive branch push on alleged sexual assaults in the military, et cetera.

That issue takes us directly to standards and practices where Hillary Clinton herself seems to have taken a side, and taken a side that puts here at odds with her own history with her husband.

Blame Obama and the current administration Democrats, just as much as Bill Clinton, for this hypocrisy. But that's the real issue.

tim in vermont said...

"the greater paradox... that she is being hurt by the same feminist revival from which her campaign has sought to draw strength."

Isn't that like saying "The great paradox is that he wants to play in the NBA but he's not athletic and 5' nothing yet seeks to play in a league that puts a premium on athleticism and height?"

There is no paradox there, or irony, just the plain simple fact that she is not qualified to run on what she wishes so badly to run on.

Plus isn't it easy to come to the correct conclusions when you simply wish away the facts?

BDNYC said...

I admit that my principal instinct is to not blame a woman for her husband's sexual misdeeds. Even today I almost fool myself into thinking Hillary would be a victim of sorts if she actually cared about her husband's infidelity.

Then I come to my senses and remember that the Clinton family is a political machine verging on criminal enterprise. Hillary is a machine leader and has benefited enormously from protecting Bill. For three decades or so, she was Bill's close adviser, his wife, his partner, his hatchet (wo)man. She was definitely complicit in slut-shaming his accusers as well as Lewinsky, his consensual sex partner.

Hillary has done horrible things to protect the machine and thus promote her political ambitions.

tim in vermont said...

. He’s one of us, after all.

Anybody still have questions why Trump is so popular?

jr565 said...

" Katha Pollitt says there's "no evidence that Hillary actually did 'enable' Bill’s philandering" or that she "slut-shamed Paula Jones or any of the other women who accused Bill of sexually aggressive behavior."

Bullshit.

tim in vermont said...

She was definitely complicit in slut-shaming his accusers as well as Lewinsky, his consensual sex partner.

I remember the days before Lewinski when it was impossible for an underling to give consent because of the vast power difference, for example, between the most powerful man in the world and an intern. It used to be that when vesting somebody with great power, we believed that he or she should always bear in mind how easily great power was abused and avoid even the appearance of it. Then Billy Blythe came along and showed us we were all full of shit!

tim in vermont said...

I think what summed it up was when the New York Times, I believe, was ranking on George Herbert Walker Bush for having four names when William Jefferson Blythe Clinton only had three like a normal American.

bgates said...

What is shooting somebody in the middle of Fifth Avenue, anyway? Is it really so different from love, loyalty, credulousness, naivete, practicality, forgiveness, saving the marriage, protecting the children, just getting on with life?

Laura said...

Anna Duggar should be so lucky. Perhaps she should pursue a law degree?

Dan Hossley said...

The problem for Hillary isn't Bill's conduct, it is her conduct. George Stephanopoulus revealed that she ran the "Bimbo Squad" while Bill was AG and Governor of Arkansas. You know, that little group of merry men (and State Troopers) that threatened the women that serviced Bill.

She is a despicable person.

Tank said...

Reason 5,000 why women should not be allowed to vote.

Appalled said...

Based on the standard that every woman should be believed when it comes to an accusation of rape, sexual assault, or the like, the ex-President would have been thrown out of a plurality of colleges, and had his future life ruined for good.

It is perfectly reasonable to bring this up until Mrs. Clinton abandons this standard, and supports action to reverse the Title IX star chamber the President has established (without regard to the regulatory niceties of the Administrative Procedures Act.) If this were not the current hot spot of feminist thought, I'd be inclined to let it drop.

Sebastian said...

Goes to show, as if we didn't know, that for Progs politics trumps gender and morality. Let's remember that the next time AA lectures us on the "real" meaning of feminism.

And on the lack of evidence of Hillary's complicity, there's this from Vox:

"About six months after her initial interviews in 1999, Broaddrick told the Drudge Report that mere weeks after the alleged assault, Hillary Clinton had tried to thank her for her silence on the matter at a political rally:

"[Hillary] came directly to me as soon as she hit the door. I had been there only a few minutes, I only wanted to make an appearance and leave. She caught me and took my hand and said 'I am so happy to meet you. I want you to know that we appreciate everything you do for Bill.' I started to turn away and she held onto my hand and reiterated her phrase -- looking less friendly and repeated her statement — 'Everything you do for Bill'. I said nothing. She wasn't letting me get away until she made her point. She talked low, the smile faded on the second thank you. I just released her hand from mine and left the gathering."

This wasn't included in the initial reports on Broaddrick's story by the Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, New York Times, and NBC News. But after this article's initial publication, Lisa Myers, who conducted NBC News' initial report on Broaddrick, wrote Vox to clarify that Broaddrick did tell NBC that Hillary Clinton had an encounter with her after the alleged assault, though this did not make the final cut of the Dateline segment."

Left Bank of the Charles said...

How does the answer depend on whether Bill and Hillary are in fact separated and living apart but have just not publicly acknowledged that?

If that is the case, does Hillary have an obligation to come out and say that is the case? Or, can she hold that piece of private information close until the time she finds most opportune to reveal it, as President Obama did with the long form of his birth certificate?

PB said...

All you have to do is repeat her quote about the victims being believed.

Laura said...

What, the proper exercise of power isn't knowing which people, especially women, are expendable?

Todd said...

"Should Bill Clinton’s sexual misdeeds be an issue for Hillary Clinton’s candidacy?"

No, they should not. Everything SHE did to enable, make excuses for, cover up, and destroy every "every accuser should be believed" accuser is what she should be held to account for.

Though as others have noted, this is like one of the most least awful thing she has done out of all of the awful things she has done (a sample being): Whitewater, the cattle thing, travel-gate, Hillarycare, filegate, Rose Law records, Bosnia airport sniper lie, the Clinton Foundation, the video and dead ambassador, and least we not forget her private email server with thousands of secret (or better) emails on them as well as SAP level information.

Any number of these would be career ending for you or I. For Hillary! it is just another day.

Against all of that, what is trashing a few "bimbos" (that likely were asking for it)? Besides vagina!

P.S. Don't you think she looks tired?

hombre said...

Bill Clinton a "misogynist?"

I'm sure Clinton's horniness was an expression of his hatred of women - not.

Wilbur said...

Sorry, to me it IS about their "creepy" marriage, and the over-30 years of lies to the public which have sustained it. Those lies include, but are far from limited to, the subject matter at present, Hilary's management of the bimbo eruptions.

Anyone who would lie that much for that long about their marital relationship is de facto disqualified from seeking the Presidency.

SteveR said...

Any republican, and many democrats, with only a small amount of the issues Bill has created and Hillary has tolerated/enabled, would be ravaged by the NYT's little group. They so want her to be president -- and have for so long -- they just can't be realistic. If the NYT just came out and said, "we don't care what either of them are doing, or have ever done, we will support her and you should vote for her", that would save a lot of bullshit.

n.n said...

Progressive liberals are nothing if not selective. It is endemic, not an exception, to their quasi-religion. Women, and babies, hurt most.

Tank said...

Tank says that, if Trump can shoot a person on Fifth Avenue, then Hillary should be allowed to ruin as many womens' lives as she deems necessary.

And if he can't actually do that, then she can't either.

mccullough said...

There are five publicized (to varying degrees) women that offer some insight into Bill Clinton.

Gennifer Flowers -- no dispute that Clinton had consensual sexual relations with her while he was governor of Arkansas in the 1980s. No dispute Clinton lied I'm 1992 on 60 Minutes denying the affair. Disputed how much Hillary knew about Flowers and when. But not unr ask able to conclude she knew about it before 60 Minutes interview when she stood by her man. Also, disputed as to her involvement in trashing Flowers. Not unreasonable to conclude Hillary either directed others to trash Flowers or knowingly went along with it.

Paula Jones -- dispute as to whether Clinton in 1991 had her invited and escorted by state troopers to his hotel room where he propositioned her by exposing himself to her. Not unreasonable to conclude this incident happened. Also not unreasonable to conclude this was an outrageous unwelcome advance outside the bounds of normal sexual propositioning. Also, since Jones was a state employee at the time, not unreasonable to believe Jones could have perceived this reasonably as a form of coercion since Clinton could have retaliated against her. But no evidence Clinton retaliated against her. As for Hillary, disputed as to what she knew/believed and when. Not unreasonable to conclude she directed or knowingly consented to others trashing Jones.

Kathleen Willey -- Disputed as to whether Clinton sexually propositioned her by groping her breast after she met with him shortly after her husband's death to ask for help finding employment. Not unreasonable to conclude that the incident happened and that Willey could have felt pressured to consent because she asked for Clinton's help. No evidence Clinton retaliated against her. Disputed as to what Hillary knew/believed and when. Not unreasonable to conclude that Hillary directed or knowingly consented to other Clinton surrogates trashing Willey.

Monica Lewinsky -- not disputed she perform oral sex on Clinton and that he fondled her breasts and inserted his fingers and a cigar into her vagina. No dispute Clinton initially denied it in a public statement and under oath in grand jury testimony. Disputed as to what Hillary knew/believed and when. Not unreasonable to conclude she directed or knowingly consented to Clinton surrogates trashing Lewinsky.

Juanita Broaderick -- disputed as to whether Clinton raped her in 1978 after inviting her to his hotel room. At the time, he was Arkansas Attorney General running for governor and Broaderck ran a nursing home regulated and funded by the state. Disputed as to what Hillary knew/believed and when. Not unreasonable to conclude she directed or knowingly consented to Clinton surrogates trashing her.

2015 -- Hillary says accusers have right to be believed and later clarifies that right to believe is gone when evidence to the contrary is presented, but vague on what this is. Is it enough evidence if the accused denies it, which is all Bill Clinton has. Can the character and history of accuser be considered? If not, why not.

Until Hillary sits for a long interview and answers the myriad questions her statements on accusers and contrary evidence raise, her position is incoherent. It also requires everyone to believe Bill Clinton's denial even though Clinton is famously shown to have lied to the public twice about his sexual affairs and at least once under oath. His defense would have to be he lied about consensual affairs but would never lie about not raping someone.

Seeing Red said...

Open up the impeachment files.

bbkingfish said...

I think the GOP should hammer away relentlessly about Bill Clinton's sexual misdeeds.

Bill Clinton's sexual misdeeds is one of the very few things the Republicans have had to crow about in the past 20 years. The investigations that uncovered the Lewinsky scandal probably has been the height of recent Republican achievement.

And if they keep carrying on about Clinton's bimbo eruptions of 25-30 years ago, voters might not notice that Donald Trump is their choice on the GOP ticket.

Bottom line: Concealing the identity of the GOP nominee will be critical to the Party's success in November. Blowing a lot of smoke at Bill Clinton can only help them in this regard.

tim in vermont said...

Does it feel good defending a rapist without having the facts on your side BBKF? Is that what being a Democrat has become? Is this the best your party can do? Does your comment represent your highest hopes for what politics could be in this country?

You still have a choice, I don't know why you Democrats let your donors order you around like so many lemmings before a Disney camera crew.

mikee said...

In early 2015 I bet $100 that Hillary will win the presidency. My bet was made on the basis of her utter amoral, unethical mendacity and shamelessness, her lust for power, her desire for revenge against her husband (albeit projected upon those who tell the truth about him), and her delusional self-righteousness. How can anyone think that combination can be beaten by a mere self-aggrandizing businessman, a conservative Senator, or an old Florida governor?

All this old news is unimportant. We should be asking, what absolutely horrible things has Hillary done for us, to us, lately?

Fabi said...

Just more window dressing for Hillary! to claim that it's an old scandal -- time to move on, we've covered this already.

Considering that here are millions of very young voters who aren't aware of their behavior during said scandals, any publicity is bad publicity. More, please!

Birches said...

Joshua Coleman, a psychologist, says Hillary's "alleged attempts to discredit the women with whom her husband cheated may not be considered a good form of sisterhood, it certainly could be considered a reasonable act of motherhood."

I'm sure he'd have the same opinion if it was Sarah Palin we were talking about....

grackle said...

And if they keep carrying on about Clinton's bimbo eruptions of 25-30 years ago, voters might not notice that Donald Trump is their choice on the GOP ticket.

Not notice Trump? Get real.

Levi Starks said...

Oh goody!
I'm so glad we've finally gotten that behind us.

khesanh0802 said...

Bill's misdeeds will be an issue - and I believe an effective one. Too many women today are aware of harassment issues at work to let this pass. Of course it may look small compared to the e-mail issue. No one is going to let her off the hook for either.

buwaya said...

Trump has already defused the Clinton campaigns entire feminist rhetorical strategy AND Bill Clintons value as a campaigner. Bill will sit out 2016 I think.

BTW, as an employee of several Fortune 500 companies in my time, I can say that without a doubt if any senior executive at any such company had been publicly mixed up with a Paula Jones scandal or Monica Lewinsky scandal (especially, as these involved an employee), he would be out of there the next morning. The double standard here glows in the supernova range.
The rest of whats known of the Clintons activities and proclivities could all have been firing offenses, ranging from harming the reputation of the firm by bringing scandal to conflicts of interest.

And Hilary would have been considered toxic in any executive search.

buwaya said...

And the matter of email.
Similarly, forget top-secret. Any F500 executive playing such games of using personal email accounts for company business would violate Sarbanes Oxley and numerous other regulations, and would also be escorted out.

garage mahal said...

The people who have problems with Bill Clinton’s infidelity are the same exact people who don't have a problem with Trump's infidelity.

Roy Jacobsen said...

"Then I come to my senses and remember that the Clinton family is a political machine verging on criminal enterprise."

"Verging?"

VERGING?!?

Gahrie said...

The people who have problems with Bill Clinton’s infidelity are the same exact people who don't have a problem with Trump's infidelity.?

Trump didn't rape, or lie under oath while president.

Mark said...

Some people aren't soulless, cynical opportunists. But you'd never know it by reading the NYT or garage mahal.

Gahrie said...

I polled my juniors at work today, many of whom will be old enough to vote next year.

None of them had heard of Monica Lewinsky, Paula Jones or Juanita Broddrick.

Roughcoat said...

What a load of horseshit.

Gahrie said...

The investigations that uncovered the Lewinsky scandal probably has been the height of recent Republican achievement.

No...that would be the sequester, or we would be even deeper in debt.......

tim in vermont said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
garage mahal said...

I know I know. It's completely different when a Republican does something bad. Bu bu here's why it's different!

tim in vermont said...

I am trying to think of the last time a wayward husband had to pay an $800K settlement to a willing partner in a little extramarital tryst.

Gahrie said...

I know I know. It's completely different when a Republican does something bad. Bu bu here's why it's different!

Yeah...the Republican gets punished

Mark said...

Of course it may look small compared to the e-mail issue. No one is going to let her off the hook for either.

At this point Camp Hillary is praying for more attention to Bill's past and will be happy to fight on the field of whether Hillary was an enabler or a victim of circumstance in service of the Greater Good of not having a Republican in the White House.

If "cutting and pasting" was standard operating procedure in getting info to Hillary, then lots of people have direct evidence against each of them of routinely committing felonies. At any time the Justice Department could put the heat on any or all of them, and that, dear friends, is a bit more damning than arguing about the meaning of the word "is".

I think the Administration is keeping the FBI on simmer mode to ensure Hillary doesn't go into payback mode if she doesn't get the nomination.

DKWalser said...

Good to know that standards of behavior are so malleable. If "you're one of us", no real standards apply -- the standards we impose on lesser-classes don't apply to "us" if they make it difficult to meet the demands of parenthood, profession, or some other really important thing. So, it's okay that Hillary actively worked to destroy other women who had been abused by her husband. She did it to protect her child and her marriage, so all's okay. Just as it was okay -- even noble -- for Bill to lie under oath because he was doing it to protect his family and his political career.

We might require lesser-people to be honest and forthcoming when under oath. We might require lesser-people to avoid unfairly damaging the reputations of women who have been abused by some generic man. But, such requirements do not apply to the Clinton's (or any other member of our class of people). Standards of behavior exist to guide people who are too stupid to know how to live absent such standards. People as smart as we are are able to live without the need of such guidance.

garage mahal said...

"Trump didn't rape"

That's not what Ivana Trump said.

I know, it's completely different.

I Callahan said...

I know I know. It's completely different when a Republican does something bad. Bu bu here's why it's different!


It is different. Trump didn't lie under oath. He also didn't take advantage of an underling. You seem to want to focus on infidelity, when it was really sexual harassment and character assassination.

tim in vermont said...

Funny how garage takes the word of Ivana Trump in a divorce proceeding as gospel, but Juanita Broaddrick under penalty of perjury and her five contemporaneous corroborating witnesses? All LIARS! Every one!

tim in vermont said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
SteveR said...

The people who have problems with Bill Clinton’s infidelity are the same exact people who don't have a problem with Trump's infidelity.

Wrong dude. Some people have a problem with both.

tim in vermont said...

Remember that Hillary is the BEST THE DEMOCRATS CAN DO! They have nobody else, their billionaire donors have said so! So the garage's of the world fall in line, pushing down their values one more time for the Clinton Machine.

MadisonMan said...

Those of us not married to Bill Clinton should ask ourselves why it’s so hard for us to accept that he might be brilliant, likable and a misogynist all at the same time?

No, the question should be:

Can someone campaign as a feminist when she actively tried to hide workplace discrimination based on gender? This is not about Bill: It's about Hillary's open attempts at masking Bill's illegal behavior.

boycat said...

I'm with Hill. Just ask yourself, what normal red-blooded het American male would be out and about cheating around when he has a hot little number like Hillary waiting at home for him in between the sheets?

tim in vermont said...

If I were a Democrat, I would rather vote for Bernie and tell the party elite that they can't get away with this crap. I would rather lose the election than have elections become meaningless because billionaires have their own ideas who should be president.

But this election does seem to have a very Fifth Element vibe, which is highly amusing, except for Hillary "We are not amused" Clinton, of course.

Big Mike said...

Looks like I've exhausted my quota of free NYT articles for the month. If the question really is "should Bill Clinton’s sexual misdeeds be an issue for Hillary Clinton’s candidacy?" then I think a person should not be responsible for the misdeeds of their spouse unless he or she acted to cover them up. I think rape and sexual assault are serious crimes, regardless of whether committed by a Democrat or a Republican, and it is very clear that Hillary did participate in, and my have orchestrated, shaming the victims and the cover ups.

The notion that Hillary Clinton was merely naïve has two rejoinders -- Hillary is not a naïve wife with stars in her eyes; she is a top conniver. And since when is naiveté a qualification for President of the United States? Wouldn't you say that it's a disqualifier?

furious_a said...

...except that the Trump campaign already gave back both barrels to Hillary's crowd, forcing them to (1)stand down on the sexism charges and (2)put Bill in stealth mode.

Think about it, the Donald intimidated the Clintons into backing off. Whatever else (plenty) one can lampoon about Trump, those are not small things.

furious_a said...

The one thing I miss most about the Clinton years is all the sexual healing.

RonF said...

"... and likes the idea that Hillary's current trouble may move some feminists to back off from these extremes. "

They won't. They'll be hypocritical AS USUAL and simply ignore it in order to get Clinton elected President. It's got nothing to do with principles. It's all about power.

Pookie Number 2 said...

Funny how garage takes the word of Ivana Trump in a divorce proceeding as gospel, but Juanita Broaddrick under penalty of perjury and her five contemporaneous corroborating witnesses? All LIARS! Every one!

Well, Garage is a stupid person who lacks the intelligence and integrity to think about things honestly. And if you were as stupid and as partisan, you'd also believe the same claptrap he does.

RonF said...

Gahrie said:

"None of them had heard of Monica Lewinsky, Paula Jones or Juanita Broddrick."

Did you tell them? Did you suggest that they look them up? And see what hand Hillary had in what subsequently happened to them?

CWJ said...

How much is Katha Pollitt being paid? Those comments are ridiculous, but two decades down the road, I guess she assumes you can say anything with authority because no one voting on the dem side will bother to check. I never did anything in business remotely less than truthful because I knew I would always have to face myself shaving in the mirror. I guess there's a different standard when shaving your legs.

Michael K said...

"Juanita Broaderick -- disputed as to whether Clinton raped her in 1978 "

I remember reading about how Stephanopolis was dispatched to the hotel where the rape occurred to look for evidence her story was untrue. He looked out a window to see if she could see what she said was out the window when the rape occurred. It was there and nothing was ever said about proving her a liar.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

it certainly could be considered a reasonable act of motherhood.

The fuck?! Like...geez, that's bad. That's not off the cuff, either, this is written down. That's embarrassingly bad.

Bruce Hayden said...

Most here seem to agree that Hillary should have to answer for her attempts to control the bimbo eruptions of her husband when he was President, and before as Arkansas Gov. and AG. Including all that she and her people did to the women who were claiming that he had sexually assaulted them. But, putting that aside, should Bill's wandering male organ be an issue when it comes to the two of them moving back into the White House. And, yes, I think that it should. On the one hand, voting her into office would essentially turn the White House back into a bordello. And, his lack of caution in this area opens him up to blackmail, and, would potentially deprive her of a security clearance if this happened at a lower level.

Sammy Finkelman said...

What really attracted Hillary Rodham to Bill Clinton was that he could get away with so much stuff, and that he was going to become president.

Laslo Spatula said...

"Nona Willis Aronowitz, a Fusion editor, says:

"Even I, a progressive feminist, tend to think of Bill Clinton as a sleazy ex-boyfriend I can’t stop drunk-texting but not, you know, a rapist. He’s one of us, after all. One of our dudes.""

If I wrote that everyone would say that is Laslo being Laslo.

I AM that accurate.

I am Laslo.

Laslo Spatula said...

For the Record:

I have not had anal sex with "Nona Willis Aronowitz".

If that is her real name.

Maybe I did: I'd have to see the back of her Head.


I am Laslo/.

Sammy Finkelman said...

Juanita Broderick and Kathleen Willey were interviewed on the Sean Hannity radio show last Thursday, and Kathleen Willey has recently published a book called Target: Caught in the Crosshairs of Bill and Hillary Clinton available from Amazon at a low price. ($19.97 - less used $8.99 Kindle)

I learned something from the interview. Besides Bill Clinton raping Juanita Broderick after talking himself into her hotel room, and Hillary Clinton telling her later on, when she attended a fundraiser she didn't want to back out of, "we appreciate everything you do for us. DO YOU UNDERSTAND? Everything you do" (this after the person who drove her claimed he had driven Bill and Hillary from the airport and taht the discussion had been about her)

Besides that, Bill Clinton also telephoned her, several times, after the rape and before the encounter with Hillary, asking to meet again. The first time she herself picked up the phone. The next three times others did and she told them to say she was not there. Asking to meet the victim again and acting like nothing untoward had happened seems to have been a Bill Clinton in those days, at least Kathleen Willey had received a letter from someone in England saying she had been assaulted by Bll Clinton in 1969 and barely fought him off because there were other people around maybe I think, This was before Hillary, she writes, but she wrote he had asked to meet her - after ripping her clothes! Very similar to teh Juantia Broderick story from 1978.

I think both Juantina Broderick and Kathleen Willey were both compromised, in the eyes of Bill Clinton, by prior political association with him, and maybe favors.

n.n said...

Keep rape-rape and sexual exploitation safe, legal, and exclusive.

Sammy Finkelman said...

I see in an Amazon.com review (and the listing) that the book by Kathleen Willey was originally published in 2007.

Quoted in a review: (from page 125 of the book)

"On Monday, two days after I was deposed, I was home alone. Just as the sun was coming up, I opened my front door to let my dogs out. On the porch in front of me was a new horror. A small animal skull was lying on the bricks staring at me. It was bare bone, empty, dry, sitting a few feet from the door. It was the size of a cat's skull.

I thought of Bullseye. Had they killed my wonderful old cat?"

This was just before the Monica Lewinsky case became very very public news.

Killing cats sounds like what the Lyndon LaRouche people would do. The point is, it hurts people very much, but it is not a high level criminal offense.

David said...

Lyndon LaRouche kills cats?

Drago said...

Richard Dolan: "Okey-dokey. The discussion proves that, in the main, lefty Dem feminists owe their first loyalty to the lefty Dem side of that description. Which is undoubtedly how the NYT thinks it should come out."

What do you get when you cross a leftist and a feminist? A leftist.
What do you get when you cross a leftist and an environmentalist? A leftist.
What do you get when you cross a leftist and a SJW? A leftist.
Rinse repeat.

It's all about lefty power and whichever cudgel will work best that day.

Fen's Law as far as the eye can see.

David said...

tim in vermont said...
If I were a Democrat, I would rather vote for Bernie and tell the party elite that they can't get away with this crap. I would rather lose the election than have elections become meaningless because billionaires have their own ideas who should be president.


Same philosophy the GOP is using.

Maybe nobody will win.

Drago said...

HoodlumDoodlum: "Like...geez, that's bad. That's not off the cuff, either, this is written down. That's embarrassingly bad."

Embarrassingly bad? Yes. But politically necessary, thus it is added to the body of "Received Wisdom and Knowledge" that all leftists must accept lest they be photo-shopped right out of the movement.

You have to be a regular Kremlinologist to keep up with the machinations of the left in the writing/re-writing/re-re-writing of history and acceptable thought.

Unknown said...

What tbe hell is wrong with these people?

Drago said...

Big surprise, the people who have no problems with islamists sexually enslaving and murdering thousands of women also have no problem with Bill Clinton raping and sexually assaulting women.

David said...

"Should Bill Clinton’s sexual misdeeds be an issue for Hillary Clinton’s candidacy?"

You are known by the company you keep.

Sammy Finkelman said...

"They threatened my children. They threatened my friend's children. They took one of my cats and killed another. They left a skull on my porch. They told me I was in danger. They followed me. They vandalized my car. They tried to retrieve my dogs from a kennel. They hid under my deck in the middle of the night. They subjected me to a campaign of fear and intimidation, trying to silence me."

And maybe the last thing was they (or somebody) stole the manuscript of her book, pre-publication.

When I guess they found out she didn't know - or was not planning to reveal, perhaps because she did not realize its significance (perhaps because in turn she was not in posession of other pieces of the puzzle) - something her husband had done which it would severely harm the Clintons to reveal - so they left her alone after that.

Kathleen Willey's husband was killed, or killed himself, on the very day that Bill Clinton attempted to seduce her, if that is maybe not a too mild description. She found out he was dead when she got home. Her husband was an embezzler, and had also been involved with the Clintons. She didn't know too much about their finances.

Sammy Finkelman said...

Kathleen Willey had gone to Bill Clinton to ask for a job.

The timing of his death (on the same day) could be coincidental. Both her visit and his death, which she suspects might not have been a suicide, could be related to financial difficulties.

Sammy Finkelman said...

David said...

Lyndon LaRouche kills cats?

Yes, they did it - although that was some time before 1997/8. By that time Lyndon Larouche was in prison.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/cult/larouche/larou4.htm

onathan Prestage was a reporter with the Manchester Union-Leader in 1980 when his editors asked him to write an article on Lyndon H. LaRouche Jr., the right-wing presidential candidate who was then stumping New Hampshire for votes in the state's Democratic primary....In a tense interview with the entire group glaring at him, Prestage said, he asked LaRouche about his organization's intelligence-gathering network.

"He said, 'You can't use that,' " Prestage recalled. "I said, 'Why not?' . . . He said, 'We have ways of making it very painful for people.' I asked, 'Is that a threat?' They just kind of chuckled." The next day, the paper ran an article by Prestage describing the exchange.

Prestage said that the day after the story ran, he awoke in his large old house in rural Barrington to find one of his cats dead on his back doorstep. In all, three cats were left dead on his doorstep over three days.


Sammy Finkelman said...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LaRouche_movement

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LaRouche_criminal_trials

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyndon_LaRouche

I see that by 1998 he was actually out of prison. Lyndon LaRouche was in prison from 1989 through 1994 and remained under parole supervision until 2004. The movement was still active in those days. Among other things his presidential campaign had borrowed money without the intention or ability to repay. They were accused of swindling people too.

Sammy Finkelman said...

@tim in vermont said

Bill Clinton settled the case (which he could win on technical legal grounds - Paula Jones was suing under the wrong tort for one thing and that was no accident by the way - Clinton had probably sent her an adviser) because prosecutors very rarely prosecute perjury that occured in a case that the perjury lost. Once it became clear he committed perjury, he had to scuttle the case. It was the safest thing to do.

Michael K said...

"tend to think of Bill Clinton as a sleazy ex-boyfriend "

He has been the lovable rogue since he appeared on the scene in 1992.

Carly Simon (not Fiorina) wrote a song about it.

Jonathan Graehl said...

I was set to rail on Aronowitz until I saw at the end she has some perspective: "why is it so hard for us to accept that he might be brilliant, likable and a misogynist all at the same time?"

Who *hasn't* known a fun "misogynist" or "misanthropist"? (really, this means someone with the courage to offend, whose approval is conditional and thus craved).

Eric said...

I know I know. It's completely different when a Republican does something bad. Bu bu here's why it's different!

All this time I thought consensual sex and rape were different, but then Garage comes along to set me straight.

David said...

So Lyndon LaRouche probably did not kill cats personally, but got his henchpeople to do it. Sounds very Presidential to me, Sammy.

Gahrie said...

Did you tell them? Did you suggest that they look them up?

I basically said "two of these women have accused President Clinton of sexually assaulting them. Monica Lewinsky had a consensual, but illegal, sexual relationship with the president. When it was discovered, the president, Hillary and his supporters began to destroy Lewinsky's reputation. Fortunately, but strangely, she had preserved a dress with some of the president's DNA on it, and was able to defend herself. I encourage you all to look these people up."

The kids know my political beliefs, because I tell them when they ask (and they do) but I am always careful to tell them when I am expressing an opinion, and not to accept it uncritically. The kids don't always agree with me, but they respect the fact that I am honest with them.

William said...

A few kids just fell on their asterisks and ruined their lives. Shouldn't whoever coined the phrase "bimbo eruption" also suffer some degree of public shaming. Some of Bill Clinton's targets tried to profit from the encounter, but that is more a testament to their courage than to their being a "bimbo". Bimbo eruption is a derogatory term. It serves both to diminish their sense of grievance and to forewarn other women of how sympathetically their grievances will be entertained. The person who coined this loaded term deserves to suffer as much public shaming as the women who came forward..........One of my many reservations about Trump is that the Dems are probably holding fire. A guy like Trump doesn't go through life without participating in a fair number of sexual encounters that don't play in Peoria. On the day before the election, some pornstar or model will be on the news complaining about how Trump wanted to recruit her underage sister for a threesome. Trump could shoot someone on Fifth Ave, and righteous Christians would not complain. In fact they'd probably pay a bounty for every hedge fund manager shot on Fifth Ave. But a sex scandal is a different story. If Christians stayed home because of Bush's DUI, I'm pretty sure the Dems can dig up something to inhibit voting for Trump.

Birkel said...

The idea that manager-employee relations are per se unequal is ludicrous. It was bull shit the first time it was uttered and is accepted uncritically by too many above.

For that matter, it might not be logically consistent with Lawrence v. Texas.

Beaver7216 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
JAORE said...

A handful of women abused, denigrated and cast aside is a small price to pay for maintaining Roe v. Wade or (be still my beating heart) the chance to vote with your vagina.

Rusty said...

tim in vermont said...
Funny how garage takes the word of Ivana Trump in a divorce proceeding as gospel, but Juanita Broaddrick under penalty of perjury and her five contemporaneous corroborating witnesses? All LIARS! Every one!

It's what happens when you have a narrative instead of morals.

Beaver7216 said...

Depressing column. One writer criticizes Hillary and her comments have the "mildly conceded" label. Not sure why Althouse wrote "mildly conceded" before relating that Bill Clinton did something wrong.
And, contrary to Birkel who thinks that employer-employee relations are not problematic it seems obvious that even with the implied or imagined threat or reward there is also the possibility that special benefits were gained by the employee/subordinate. The "victims" may be all the others who lost out on some action because of the employer-employee relationship. France has it right when they consider employer-employee consensual sex felony rape. If you want to have an affair do it with some private party. Then it is a private matter.
Finally, Hillary is running for President, not wife and mother. What may be reasonable for a wife may not be acceptable for a public official with integrity.

Thorley Winston said...

Just so we’re clear – it’s okay for the New York Times to write about Jeanette Rubio’s speeding tickets in order to attack her husband while he’s running for President but Hillary Clinton cannot be asked about her husband’s – who is the only reason she is treated as a serious candidate for any office – misdeeds.

BTW - someone needs to fix the verification system that asks you to select all of the pictures of street signs or street names.

walter said...

"may not be considered a good form of sisterhood, it certainly could be considered a reasonable act of motherhood."

Ah.."so for the children" trumps vagina...

Mama Grizzly? Grizzled Mama?

TMink said...

Ideology uber alles in other words. And man, they use a lot of words.