ADDED: From Blair's notes from a phone call with Hillary about the Lewinsky debacle:
[Hillary] is not trying to excuse [Bill Clinton]; it was a huge personal lapse. And she is not taking responsibility for it... But, she does say this to put his actions in context. Ever since he took office they’ve been going thru personal tragedy ([the death of] Vince [Foster], her dad, his mom) and immediately all the ugly forces started making up hateful things about them, pounding on them.That last line must refer to Bill's "I did not have sexual relations with that woman," but what does that last parenthetical mean? Is "standup, liedown, oral, etc." the sequence of actions in real-meaning sex or is it supposed to be a list of things that one might do but that — without more depth of feeling — don't deserve the lofty label "sex"? The phrase "narcissistic loony toon" suggests the ridiculousness of Monica's love for Bill and her delusion that he loved her too. In which case — within the Mind of Hillary (as paraphrased by Diane Blair) — Bill did not have sex with Monica, but Monica had sex with Bill.
They adopted strategy, public strategy, of acting as tho it didn’t bother them; had to. [Hillary] didn’t realize toll it was taking on him.... She thinks she was not smart enough, not sensitive enough, not free enough of her own concerns and struggles to realize the price he was paying....
[The affair with Monica] was a lapse, but she says to his credit he tried to break it off, tried to pull away, tried to manage someone who was clearly a ‘narcissistic loony toon’; but it was beyond control.... HRC insists, no matter what people say, it was gross inappropriate behavior but it was consensual (was not a power relationship) and was not sex within any real meaning (standup, liedown, oral, etc.) of the term.
But Hillary's reasoning is the perfectly banal stereotypical reasoning of a wife explaining why she's staying with a cheating husband. What he did with that other woman wasn't real, because it wasn't love. And to put it that way is to cancel the reality of the other woman, for the sake of one's one alliance with the man, the man who brings you status and power. It's a cancellation because there was love: Monica loved Bill. And that cannot mean anything to Hillary, who nullifies Monica's mind with the pronouncement that the mind is unsound. The woman is crazy.
A little bit nutty and a little bit slutty.
Oh, sorry. Wrong phrase. Wrong nutty slut. Oops!
पोस्ट्स
४० टिप्पण्या:
We know very little about Benghazi, but we suddenly have a treasure trove about Hillary's thinking?? The archive was provided in 2000, but kept from the public until 2010.
Hmmm....ten years to polish off the rough edges??....seems about right!!
The timing is too convenient as well. Doesn't Hillary's book drop on Tuesday?
The Washington Free Beacon?
What next? World Net Daily?
Hillary Clinton’s blunt assessments were not confined to Monica Lewinsky. In a Dec. 3, 1993, diary entry, Blair recounted a conversation with the first lady about “Packwood”—a reference to then-Sen. Bob Packwood, an influential Republican on health care embroiled in a sexual harassment scandal.
“HC tired of all those whiney women, and she needs him on health care,” wrote Blair.
War on Women
bbkingfish said...
The Washington Free Beacon?
What next? World Net Daily?
These journals are publicly available a the University of Arkansas Special Collections library in Fayetteville, Arkansas
So, fail.
Let's take [another] look at Bill Clinton's cock!
What difference at this point does it make?
Blair's husband was the Tyson executive who was involved in "parking" those profitable cattle futures trades in Hillary's account.
Nothing about giraffe futures, however.
Note that you can replace:
“HC tired of all those whiney women, and she needs him on health care
With:
"NARAL tired of all those whiney women, and they need WJC on abortion"
Let's take [another] look at Bill Clinton's cock!
Go ahead. I'm still trying to get through the daily Watergate references that the left continues to paint the Republicans with.
Diane Blair was such a good friend that she kept notes of her conversations with Hillary. That is what I call devotion.
What next? World Net Daily?
Yeah that means it's not true. Right? Of course there's another possibility. We know no one from the NYT or WaPo is going to touch that. Yeah lets talk about all this Hillary stuff and lets attribute all the bad stories to biased sources. People know the truth about Bill and Hillary, just remind them over and over
Boy howdy, I hope the reporter made a lot of photocopies of stuff before operative(s) are sent in to sanitize the collection by carrying stuff out in their socks.
I'm looking at you, Sandy Berger...
Baby Daddy John Edwards - National Enquirer
You left out the commas.
But Hillary's reasoning is the perfectly banal stereotypical reasoning of a wife explaining why she's staying with a cheating husband. What he did with that other woman wasn't real, because it wasn't love. And to put it that way is to cancel the reality of the other woman, for the sake of one's one alliance with the man, the man who brings you status and power. It's a cancellation because there was love: Monica loved Bill. And that cannot mean anything to Hillary, who nullifies Monica's mind with the pronouncement that the mind is unsound. The woman is crazy."
The whole Hillary for prez industry is dedicated to cancelling the reality that is utterly incapable of being honest and ethical. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
and was not sex within any real meaning (standup, liedown, oral, etc.) of the term.
What, pray tell, was it then?
I went to the Washington Free Beacon from Politico, which said: "The trove of documents include correspondence, journal entries, memos and interviews from the mid-1970s to about 2000 from one of Clinton’s best friends, political science professor Diane Blair, who died in 2000. While they have been open to the public since 2010, The Washington Free Beacon reported on and published the contents of the files for the first time on Sunday night."
I'm relying on Politico for my assumption that these quotes really do come from Blair's papers, which really do represent communications with Hillary. If there is any reason to think this is incorrect, please let me know.
actually, the article that I read, HC didn't come off as badly as some are saying. Of course, I already thought of her as ruthless and cold, so it wasn't a stretch.
I want to see what is in the papers that are still in the restricted section.
Last but not least, her realization that Congress critters don't work - only 3 days a week and all they care about is re-election. She had to go to Washington to figure that one out? I knew that long before the first time I was posted there.
"open to the public since 2010…"
Why did no one bother to read them before now?
What else is out there to be seen and is yet not seen?
Let's take [another] look at Bill Clinton's cock!
I'm really enjoying all the Tina Fey/Sarah Palin "I can see the Olympics from my house" jokes! Because Sarah Palin is so relevant!
"Let's take [another] look at Bill Clinton's cock!"
Better yet, let's imagine it's Richard Nixon having sex with an intern in the Oval Office, instead of the young and handsome Bill Clinton.
Here's the question. Why the Washinton Free Beacon and not the Washington Post?
AA And we've STILL yet to see the Khalidi tape, either ... maybe it'll play on a loop in the "neener neener" wing of BHO's presidential library...
(next to the paperwork that indisputably proves that BHO is a natural-born US citizen, but also that he never legally changed his name from Soetoro back to Obama)
I don't think Hillary's best friend would will her papers in such a way as to ruin Hillary. As I read the story, there are a few mildly embarrassing revelations about the Lewinsky affair (and how could there not be), but nothing too hideous. I'm sure that if there were anything truly damaging in these papers, the Washington Post would have long since had a team of investigative reporters tracking down every lead.
Ruthless and incompetent.
As a woman politician, she is ruthless and incompetent, as a woman, she is bitchy.
Don't worry about our would be first woman president though, they are already nailing her once most likely opponent, the pompous, ruthless, incompetent governor.
Rand Paul scores again.
Obama's people looked at these papers. They are beginning to trash Hillary. Wouldn't be surprised if they weren't behind Rand Paul's recent attacks on the Clintons.
And "narcissistic looney toon"? How about "girl" as in "Girls"? "Young woman", if you prefer.
Of course she is denying Monica's reality as a human being, as they both had to do when they brought down the might of the US gov on someone nearly their daughter's age.
Still, there isn't a big difference between that and what Woody and his defenders are doing right now to Dylan and Mia in 2014. Standard Operating Procedure of the duplicitous - rationalize, compartmentalize, and dismiss.
mccullough said...
Obama's people looked at these papers.
Why would Obama care? Just to prevent the off chance she sullies his legacy by proving competent?
Marshal,
Pretty much. Obama cares about his legacy. In 50 years he wants history to go from FDR to LBJ to Reagan to Obama with the in between Presidents minor characters. He'd be happy to be followed by another non-Hillary Democrat or any Republican. Hillary would be another first, so there'd be some pressure to blow up her minor accomplishments. Also, Obama hates the Clinton's, so he'd get to personally experience some immediate satisfaction.
> Why the Washinton Free Beacon and not the Washington Post?
Because Hillary is not a Republican.
mccullough,
Presidents have done stupider things, but it seems a lot to risk. If it gets out he becomes a traitor to leftism which kills him in the history books and on the public speaking circuit.
All I want to know is who got this into the papers.
re-reading the article, I think tho Free Beacon did a service to Hillary. In the Bill and Hillary arrangement, she is portrayed as the smart one (handling the media), the tough one (Packwood reference), the decisive one (Bosnia), the one who could handle the pressure (recount of events of the day after Monica scandal). Nary a word about Travel files, Whitewater, cattle futures, none of the scandals.
Marshal
Bill Clinton is the traitor to leftism. He was not a transformational president. He was a failure to leftism. Just like W was a failure to conservatism.
Available 2010 and no one in the media bothered about it. Why's that? Remember the New York Times outsourcing Palin's e-mails when they became public? They breathlessly promised to expose her secrets, malfeasance, and incompetence. After weeks of poring through them, all they got was 7 misspelled homonyms. But for Hillary's private papers, nothing to see there... But hey, what difference does it make?
mccullough said...
Bill Clinton is the traitor to leftism.
As regards policy there are some who claim so but electorally he was quite good for the left. So his popularity shows which principle the left values more and therefore which would be seen more likely as a betrayal.
"The papers of Diane Blair..."
*******************
I am really absorbed by the idea of being the type of person that has "papers". How important must one be to have "papers"? Will the growing tendency to digitize every word/page mean we'll eventually stop using the term? Will people of the future have "pixels" instead of "papers"?
Funny, the NYT or Wash Post will crowd source going through Sarah Palin's celebrity cook book with a fine tooth comb, but can't muster a modicum of interest in investigating a fellow democrat. Color me surprised.
I love the use of "friend" in a context like this.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा