November 15, 2017

"A president who uses the power of the Oval Office to seduce a 20-something subordinate is morally bankrupt and contributing, in a meaningful way, to a serious social problem that disadvantages millions of women throughout their lives."

Matthew Yglesias takes a strange position on why Bill Clinton should have resigned.
[L]ooking back through today’s lens, this whole argument was miscast. The wrongdoing at issue was... a high-profile exemplar of a widespread social problem: men’s abuse of workplace power for sexual gain. It was and is a striking example of a genre of misconduct that society has a strong interest in stamping out. That alone should have been enough to have pressured Clinton out of office....
I think the key to understanding what Bill Clinton did wrong is equality in the workplace.  So Yglesias is right to stress Clinton's use of "the power of the Oval Office" and "men’s abuse of workplace power," but the point shouldn't be that Bill Clinton or some other powerful man achieved "seduction" or "sexual gain." Rather the problem is that the workplace conditions are unequal because of sex. That's why it doesn't matter that Monica Lewinsky was happy and enthusiastic about her love affair with the President. One woman got special access to the President, but other women did not, and the workplace for men had nothing to do with sex.

What Yglesias wrote suggests a more wide-ranging critique of sex — that it's a "social problem" that men can use power that they've acquired in their careers to attract women. I personally believe a woman is better off with a sexual partner who's close to her age and not significantly more powerful economically or politically, and I may privately think less of some men who use their economic or political power to get relatively easy access to a young or naive woman who is — even in her own self-interest — eager to use a man to advance her own condition in life. But I'm not going to call that a "serious social problem" or say "society has a strong interest in stamping out" that sort of thing, especially when the idea is to remove a man from a position of power he's worked hard to attain.

Maybe Yglesias didn't mean to suggest all that. But it's a little funny, as a thought experiment, to think of all the politicians who seem to be part of the "serious social problem" by having spouses they "seduced" when there was a big power differential. I know he's not in Congress anymore, but should Dennis Kucinich have been expelled for getting a beautiful woman 30 years his junior to marry him?

I wanted to find a good video to go with that last question, and look at this incredibly sexist "Daily Show" clip I found (from 10 years ago):


You could never do a comedy bit like that today.

135 comments:

Earnest Prole said...

Don’t hold back, guys, let it all hang out.

readering said...

I said at the time Clinton should resign and when Gore vociferously supported him I became a Bradley supporter.

tcrosse said...

April, 1953: Pravda attacks Stalin. "He should have resigned in 1938".

quizbowla said...

Bah! Members of Congress aren't impeached. (That one senator in the 1790s notwithstanding.) They're denied their seat or expelled by their own house.

Mark said...

What about Clinton's lying under oath?

What about Clinton actively engaging in obstruction of justice to deny Paula Jones her fundamental civil rights in her lawsuit against him -- conspiring with others and using the powers of his office to do so?

Michelle Dulak Thomson said...

He should have resigned earlier than that. For a few hundred reasons why, read Karl Schloegel's Moscow 1937.

Ken B said...

As long as Hillary might be president it was essential to downplay this. Now that she never will it might prove a useful tool against Trump. So it must be taken out and polished.

Mark said...

Obstruction of justice and the attitude of being above the law, we have seen, has been a left/Democrat trademark ever since.

Sebastian said...

"[L]ooking back through today’s lens, this whole argument was miscast." It was miscast only by the left. Righties always noted that he abused his power, that it was textbook harassment, and that it "disadvantaged" women (not to mention men) unwilling to service BJ Clinton. Of course, at the time, the left told us character didn't matter, that is wasn't harassment because -- well, because--and that Clinton being prez benefitted women.

Bay Area Guy said...

Clinton shoulda been impeached for illegal use of a cigar.

You youn'uns are aware of the cigar with Monica, right?

anti-de Sitter space said...

This trap re getting cons to go on-record re WJC and the rest of the offenders is gettin' a little too obvious.

If it's too obvious the cons may be able to see where this logic leads.

Caligula said...

"What Yglesias wrote suggests a more wide-ranging critique of sex — that it's a "social problem" that men can use power that they've acquired in their careers to attract women."

And is it also a problem that attractive women can trade sex for status and power?

It seems undeniable that some degree of trade in access to power and sex exists, and likely will continue to exist.

A libertarian might assert that if men and women want to trade what they have for what they want that should, so long as no coercion is involved, be no one else's business. Unless the public trust is involved, in which case the trade is at least partly a trade in stolen goods.

Is a totally de-sexualized workplace desirable, let alone achievable? And if so, won't the likely effect of ever-more de-sexualized spaces, and more militant policing of these spaces, be to hyper-sexualize those few remaining spaces where open expression of sexual interest is still socially acceptable?

John said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
jrohio said...

The video is unavailable where I am. Can someone do a quick recap?

John said...

Can we get Billy Jeff to resign as ex-president?

Put an asterisk for the years 92-2000 leaving the name blank. Or, between Bush and Bush "*He who shall not be named"

Make him just a regular citizen. As ex-presidents and even sitting presidents are supposed to be.

John Henry

Phil 3:14 said...

Timely.

Patrick said...

should Dennis Kucinich have been impeached for getting a beautiful woman 30 years his junior to marry him? "



No. That dude should get some type of award.

Birkel said...

rhhardin was ahead of the curve.

Those who criticized his position should rethink their own.

Birkel said...

We should all withhold opinion until Harrison Bergeron weighs in.

That is where the mob is taking us.

Drago said...

anti-de Sitter space: "This trap re getting cons to go on-record re WJC .."

You mean like they have been on the record for the last 20 years?

Did you just emerge from a drug induced haze?

Drago said...

The latest 5 Dem impeachment articles:

1) We don't like Trump.
2) We really don't like Trump.
3) We really really don't like Trump.
4) (foot stamping and howling at moon)
5) Did we mention we don't like Trump?

D.D. Driver said...

Did Scarborough really ask whether Fred Thompson's wife "works the pole" or are those my own lying ears? What an asshole.

anti-de Sitter space said...

Drago,

The thing that Althouse missed re this Matt-take (and others) is that the fussiness is always focused on classifying the harm done as being stuff that, by coincidence (ha), DJT has done/been accused of.

Just sayin'.

exhelodrvr1 said...

Good thing that women never use sex to advance in the workplace!!

buwaya said...

"And is it also a problem that attractive women can trade sex for status and power?"

This goes both ways really.

And its very ancient. The ambitious but (relatively) poor man who marries an heiress.
Its the Cinderella story, and the M-F form may be more common than the the F-M form.

I forgot who said that it was every Spaniards ambition to marry a Duchess.

Notable cases -

John Kerry - Teresa Heinz, the billionaire

Randolph Churchill - marriage to Jenny Jerome gave him some financial independence; previously was kept afloat by loans from Rothschilds)

John Churchill, 1st Duke of Marlborough - broke, ambitious, married Sarah Jennings, heiress and a good friend of Princess Anne.

Henry said...

Seduce is a funny word. What if a powerful person "seduces" a subordinate in a way that doesn't involve physical contact?

In Wall Street, Gordon Gecko seduces Bud Fox with money.

People seduce with flattery, with power, with access, with attention.

David said...

Great clip. I really enjoyed the fact that the opening ad was for Fischer Price crawly toys for babies.

pacwest said...

So now that Bill is dead weight can Hillary finally divorce him?

Martha said...

Wow.

Bit late to teach kids a BJ has nothing to do with sex.

How about the President (Democrat) does it, it is not sexual harassment?

MadisonMan said...

Wasn't Matt Y in that famous "Let's Take a Closer Look at those Breasts" picture? Cozying up to Bill when he wasn't apparently repellent?

Char Char Binks said...

No man should ever have sex with a woman unless she feels that he is completely beneath him in every way. Otherwise he would be taking advantage of a power imbalance.

tim in vermont said...

Yglesias is trying to maneuver the mess back at Trump. "When you're president, they let you stick a cigar in their pussy!" He is trying to make lemonade out of the lemons.

MadisonMan said...

I guess he wasn't there. Confused him with some other Matt.

Drago said...

"The thing that Althouse missed re....being stuff that, by coincidence (ha), DJT has done/been accused of."

Jesus. How do you even get dressed in the morning?

FullMoon said...

Biggest deal about the current Clinton destruction is the exposure to the younger voters who really have no idea what happened back then.

Most people are not as involved as commenters here. Most people have minimal info and follow their particular crowd. I have had people tell me what a racist Limbaugh is. I literally have countered that he is married to a black woman and they have several children. They are surprised to hear it, and say he is a racist anyway. Of course, they get back to me later and call me a liar, duh!

It is sad how many normally decent people are full of hate for Trump and by extension, Trump voters.

tim in vermont said...

"The thing that Althouse missed re this Matt-take (and others) is that the fussiness is always focused on classifying the harm done as being stuff that, by coincidence (ha), DJT has done/been accused"

You may have noticed that the woman your party ran against Trump has been sordidly involved in similar but worse shenanigans than anything Trump has been accused of, as frequently noted here. Nobody has been more vocal about WJC than I have, but no, Trump is not going to resign over a theory that Democrats just began to take seriously today.

gg6 said...

"You could never do a comedy bit like that today. "
THAT was "comedic"?!? Hmmm...I guess you had to be there?
Thank gawd we've at least made progress in something, however small?

Curious George said...

"I personally believe a woman is better off with a sexual partner who's close to her age and not significantly more powerful economically or politically"

Well, 'cept you.

tim in vermont said...

Way too transparent.

rhhardin said...

The modern route to political power is

1. Discover a new social problem (here, what used to be a private moral problem)

2. Take ownership of it

3. Claim the discussion is already over.

sociologist Joseph R. Gusfield

MikeR said...

'the point shouldn't be that Bill Clinton or some other powerful man achieved "seduction" or "sexual gain." Rather the problem is that the workplace conditions are unequal because of sex.' C'mon, folks, this is getting really confusing. I'll fiercely fight the evil of sexual harassment - but please work it out first and then get back to me.

I Have Misplaced My Pants said...

Rather the problem is that the workplace conditions are unequal because of sex.

This is what bothers me about it too. I get the rhhardins of the world, etc, arguing that sex is just another form of currency, so accept it and get what you can for what you got, but I'm sorry, that's just not morally right. Call me a prude, call me a scold, call me a nanny, whatever; I do ask myself too, is that what I am? Maybe. I dunno. I don't like SJWs or Bible thumpers imposing their morality on me so maybe I'm a giant hypocrite.

But I can't look at my daughters or myself and say that it's OK that we are reduced to how much advantage we can get for our value as sex objects. Sure, that is and always will be an aspect of our private lives, sure. But the promise of a workplace generally protected from a sexual economy is that it frees us to operate in the world, and to provide for ourselves, and to fulfill our destiny as humans and not as sex objects. Is that something we really have to still fight for? Really?

It saddens me to see some here arguing that the natural order is that women should expect to have to participate in

My oldest daughter has an IQ over 130 and loves airplanes more than life itself. She's gorgeous, but doesn't give a shit about attracting male attention. She just wants to study aviation and fly planes. I assure you that even if you don't feel a moral pull to allow this talented and wonderful human to be more than a set of genitalia and satisfaction of male desire, it is in your interest to give her a workplace where she will be the one flying your A380 because she's a fucking magnificent pilot, not because she successfully traded on her big blue eyes and giant boobs.

William said...

Mrs. Kucinich looks capable of making an informed decision. Why does the blame, if there is any, reside strictly with her husband.......Monica at one time was bargaining for a status position at the UN or with Revlon. I suppose that had she succeeded, she would have been more a victimizer (of the unlucky (and unknown) woman she beat out for the status job) than a victim....... I also think that not every woman's encounter with Harvey led to victimhood. Drag a three picture deal down Hollywood Blvd, and you'd be surprised at what turns up........I agree that it's a corrupt system, but I've never benefited from it, and there are women who have.

I Have Misplaced My Pants said...

Sorry, forgot to finish that third paragraph. It saddens me to that some people seem to think it's totally fine to penalize women because they are unwilling or unable to get ahead by indulging male inability to compartmentalize their sex lives appropriately.

gg6 said...

Matt Egregious bends over backward to feel better about Bill 'the sexual assaulter' Clinton.

Fabi said...

No time like the present, Matt!

buwaya said...

Its the age old story.

Civilization, and moreso, modernity, get in the way of human instinct.

Way back in the Neolithic there was no such thing as "work", or compartmentalization.

So until humans can edit brains with some subtlety this is going to create tension.

AllenS said...

I would guess that breast implants are at an all time high. It isn't because those women want to carry around more weight on their chests so that they can build up their back muscles.

William said...

I wonder if that Comedy Show bit about giving a numerical rating to women predated or post dated Trump's bit on the Stern show. If those bits were in any way contemporaneous shouldn't feminists seek out Stewart and demand an apology? Perhaps he should be completely banned from the broadcast waves. I certainly hope that no late nite comic brings this up when John makes an appearance. They've already deep sized the fact that John used to share an apartment with Anthony Weiner from public consciousness.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Consenting adults, consenting adults!
That's all these fuckers could say back when it mattered.
It's a private matter between consenting adults; it's none of your business and anyone who questions it or tries to bring some sort of moral dimension into the discussion is a hypocrite and probably a pervert.
Everybody lies about sex! You'd commit perjury if asked about your private sex life, too. Consenting adults!

Hey Matt? Hey, Left? I don't believe you. I don't believe you now when you say this matters to you. I don't believe you now when you say this SHOULD have mattered to you then.

Want some proof? Today, now, at this moment there's a Dem Senator on trial for multiple felonies. That Senator is accused of using underage prostitutes (while in the Dominican Republic) although that accusation is not a part of his current charges.
Has Matt or anyone else in a position of prestige or power on the Left called for that senator to step down? Has the Media gone after that Senator and his associates for her alleged use of underage prostitutes, or spending on prostitutes generally? Have you heard ANYTHING of that nature, now, when it might actually matter/make a difference?

I haven't. So: they're lying. They're lying when they say that's what they actually believe as a principle, or that's the standard they actually want applied across the board. Their treatment of Bill Clinton showed what liars the Left feminists were back then. Their treatment of Menendez today, combined with these declarations that they really regret not going after Clinton then, shows they're liars now.

I Have Misplaced My Pants said...

So until humans can edit brains with some subtlety this is going to create tension.

Am fine with tension. Just disappointed with the backsliding, just as I'm disappointed with the backsliding currently taking place in Europe where women's short lived ability to participate in public life without being groped like a choice bit of goat meat is receding.

Assume you taught your daughters that they have the good fortune to have been born in a time and place where their value is calculated with more than their ability to successfully please a man with resources in bed, yes?

Curious George said...

"I Have Misplaced My Pants said...
Rather the problem is that the workplace conditions are unequal because of sex.

This is what bothers me about it too. I get the rhhardins of the world, etc, arguing that sex is just another form of currency, so accept it and get what you can for what you got, but I'm sorry, that's just not morally right. Call me a prude, call me a scold, call me a nanny, whatever; I do ask myself too, is that what I am? Maybe. I dunno. I don't like SJWs or Bible thumpers imposing their morality on me so maybe I'm a giant hypocrite.

But I can't look at my daughters or myself and say that it's OK that we are reduced to how much advantage we can get for our value as sex objects. Sure, that is and always will be an aspect of our private lives, sure. But the promise of a workplace generally protected from a sexual economy is that it frees us to operate in the world, and to provide for ourselves, and to fulfill our destiny as humans and not as sex objects. Is that something we really have to still fight for? Really?

It saddens me to see some here arguing that the natural order is that women should expect to have to participate in

My oldest daughter has an IQ over 130 and loves airplanes more than life itself. She's gorgeous, but doesn't give a shit about attracting male attention. She just wants to study aviation and fly planes. I assure you that even if you don't feel a moral pull to allow this talented and wonderful human to be more than a set of genitalia and satisfaction of male desire, it is in your interest to give her a workplace where she will be the one flying your A380 because she's a fucking magnificent pilot, not because she successfully traded on her big blue eyes and giant boobs."

Look, I get and agree that women shouldn't be reduced to what they are sexually to men, and even if what you say is true, that your daughter didn't trade "on her big blue eyes and giant boobs," don't think for a second that they haven't benefited her. Just like being a tall handsome man doesn't benefit the males in society. And also don't think for a second that there aren't more "fucking magnificent pilots" than there are A380's to fly them. There are.

Joseph Taylor said...

I seem to remember that when pricipled lefties like Christopher Hitchens and Pat Cadell pointed out that Bill Clinton was guilty of, at the very least, sexual harrassment, they were shouted down by other libs. It just shows how fluid the values of those on the left have become, and I speak as a registered Democrat who still believes in the ideals of liberalism.

Jim at said...

For the last, damn time. It wasn't about a blowjob. It wasn't about sex. It wasn't about Monica or any of the other squirrel tactics the left has been spewing for nearly 20 years now.

The President of the United States committed perjury and obstruction of justice, and for that he should've been thrown from office on his ass.

Period.
The end.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Instead, the ultimate disposition of the case — impunity for the man who did something wrong, embarrassment and disgrace for the woman who didn’t — only served to confirm women’s worst fears about coming forward.

Why do we do this? Why do we allow the woman no moral agency? She "did nothing wrong?" She knowingly carried on an affair with a married man, a man who was her boss, while they were both at work. Is that not deserving of at least a little censure, Matt? Nope--she "did nothing wrong." She's not responsible, you see. 'Cause she's a woman I guess.

She was so young! Oh, wait, no, they were both "consenting adults."
He was her boss! Oh, wait, no, he in no way pressured her for sex.
Etc.
Clinton is a scum bag and acted like a scum bag--cheating on his wife with a woman who worked for him and getting busy in his office (an office he was entrusted to protect by the people of the United States). That's shitty behavior.
Lewinsky was an adult and chose to have an affair with a man she knew was married and to get physical with her boss at work (while at least one of them was "on the clock.") That's pretty shitty behavior, too. I don't know if it's worthy of "disgrace" but we ought to at least balk at Matt's assertion that she "did nothing wrong."

Oops! Sorry, sorry, it's "a private matter between consenting adults." My bad, my bad. Or is that only on alternate days?

buwaya said...

Also a father of a very smart and very pretty girl (adult now).
Smartest of the lot I think, and quite scary actually.

Its nature. Nature does not care about the civilizational benefit of a 130+ IQ.

This may be frustrating, but that's the human animal.

Life is all about tragedies of one sort or another.
There are no fully satisfactory solutions, its not all a string of zero-cost victories.

hombre said...

Democrats are sacrificing their icons, including Clinton, and the GOPe is sacrificing its Senate majority in preparation for a renewed attack on Trump for sexual misconduct.

The swamp strikes back.

AJ Lynch said...

Do you think Iglesias realizes that a bunch of us had "today's lens" way back then

William said...

Too bad Weiner wasn't a Republican. I bet Jon Stewart could have done an amusing skit about the pratfalls associated with rooming with a guy like Weiner. Comedy gold, but there are no mining permits granted in blue states. They're worried about he environment in those states.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

I Have Misplaced My Pants said... My oldest daughter has an IQ over 130 and loves airplanes more than life itself. She's gorgeous, but doesn't give a shit about attracting male attention. She just wants to study aviation and fly planes.

Is she...single? I can travel & live within convenient distance to a major airport.

I Have Misplaced My Pants said...

George, you're missing the point a bit, but that's ok.

I don't think men can sleep their way to the top by being tall and handsome, and you don't either. You know that's an apples and oranges comparison.

And also don't think for a second that there aren't more "fucking magnificent pilots" than there are A380's to fly them. There are.

Of course there are. That's not the point. The point is whether or not we should have a workplace where what gets women ahead is how willing and able they are to throw their sexuality on the table as a bargaining chip. My daughters, and yours, should excel because they are awesome at what they do, not because they are good sports when men who are their superiors ask them about their sexual fantasies.

FullMoon said...

Speaking of Clinton, his vice president really has some creepy vids on you tube.

Creepy Joe

I Have Misplaced My Pants said...

Its nature. Nature does not care about the civilizational benefit of a 130+ IQ.

Buwaya, stop being obtuse. We don't live in caves.

Jupiter said...

I Have Misplaced My Pants said...

"This is what bothers me about it too. I get the rhhardins of the world, etc, arguing that sex is just another form of currency, so accept it and get what you can for what you got, but I'm sorry, that's just not morally right."

I don't claim to speak for RH, but I don't think that is the argument. The argument is that some women *will* trade sex for favors. In fact, I know for a fact that a *lot* of women will. So, why exactly is that a problem men are supposed to solve? There are guys who will work an 80 hour week. I'm not one of them. So, how are we going to fix the problem that they get the job, and I don't?

HoodlumDoodlum said...

buwaya said...Also a father of a very smart and very pretty girl (adult now).
Smartest of the lot I think, and quite scary actually.


Is she...single? I feel like some introductions are in order, here.

buwaya said...

"Assume you taught your daughters that they have the good fortune to have been born in a time and place where their value is calculated with more than their ability to successfully please a man with resources in bed, yes?"

That girl chose her own high school and arranged applications, visits, essays and etc. At 14. We had nothing to do with anything other than driving her to where she directed us.

She researched and chose her own college, did all the apps and essays, figured out costs and presented us with a budget.

At 15 speaking to her was like speaking to a 35-year old.

I don't think I managed to teach her anything after age 12. Maybe.
She may have been humoring me. I think I pity her boyfriend.

This is the little girl who used to live on my shoulders, so much so I wonder how she learned to walk.

Boys - one day son walked over and asked
- "When do I take the SAT?"
- "tomorrow"
- "Uh, OK"

Jupiter said...

"The point is whether or not we should have a workplace where what gets women ahead is how willing and able they are to throw their sexuality on the table as a bargaining chip."

Really not getting you here, misplaced. Do you think, for example, that *I* really, really hope some chick will sleep with my boss and get my job? Because I'm delighted to starve in the street as long as my boss gets to sleep with good-looking women?

buwaya said...

"Buwaya, stop being obtuse. We don't live in caves."

No, but we were designed to live in caves.
We are like screwdrivers being used as prybars.

Jupiter said...

The situation you describe is one in which two people have colluded to serve their own interests at the expense of others. And one of them is female.

Comanche Voter said...

I worked with a single guy at the time that Ol Billy Jeff was having his "fun" with his cigar and lying to the American public about it. James--the single man--was probably in his late 30's at the time; he'd been married, divorced and was playing the field as it were with serial girlfriends and "relationships".

He allowed as how Clinton had made a tremendous gift to the married men in the United States when Clinton declared "I did not have sex with that woman." If a blow job wasn't sex, how couid a wife complain if her husband bought a blow job from a hooker? I mean the President of the United States of America had stated that that was not "sex"--so technically getting a blow job in an alley from a hooker wasn't cheating.


Somehow I don't think my own wife would be convinced by such an argument, but I'm willing to bet there were a lot of straying husbands who bought that argument.

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

2:45-2:50 somewhere in there- loled.

William said...

God works in strange ways his wonders to perform. Had Huma not stood by her husband that last scandal for Hillary could have been dodged. Had Bill Clinton resigned, Pres. Gore would have been a shoo-in for reelection and, then, maybe reelection again. People say there is no God but if you could but see the full unfolding of His wonders, your mind would change. All of these past events led to the triumph of Trump. Trump is God's choice. Perhaps as Nixon made peace with China, Trump's Presidency will lead to the curtailment of sexual harassment in the work place. In Hollywood it has already. God's plan.

gg6 said...

MISPLACEDMYPANTS said" "penalize women because they are unwilling or unable to get ahead by indulging male inability to compartmentalize their sex lives appropriately..."
Hopefully, 'Pants', you realize what you just said implies that women who DO 'get ahead' have most likely "indulged" such male 'inabilities'? I'll presume that's unintentional or my own mis-reading.
More importantly, from what I 'sense' in your comments, I have empathy with what I believe you want to say - I certainly stand up and shout for your daughters A310 ambitions or whatever else she chooses in what is assumed to be a "male world" - go for it, girl, make it your own world, too, if u will!
HOWEVER, I urge you to ponder a bit more your call for males to "compartmentalize" their "sex lives'. I believe it s accurate to suggest that 'compartmentalizing' in modern psych terms is a road to neurosis and beyond. 'Sex drives', like hunger, anger, comfort, sleep, jealousy, Love by Adults should NOT be "compartmentalized" but, yes, 'managed' appropriately. Would, some day, we are all willing and able to do so. In the meantime, I'm personally all for calling out the egregious offenders short of becoming Salem-ish ourselves by failing to manage our 'righteousness'.

AReasonableMan said...

To blame God for the Bush Jr's presidency seems a little harsh.

Michael K said...

I remember when the Monica story broke.

Sam Donaldson, the ABC WH reporter, wondered when Clinton would resign.

The the Hillary corps took over,

gnossos said...

I have this strange feeling that there's more to this Dem "deep state" apparent "outing and othering" Bill Clinton.

I get how they can slide on over to condemning Trump, but I've got this feeling that they're trying to get Bill tried and convicted and forgotten without anyone going to the pedo island files.

I've got this feeling that should the lid blow off pedo island the fall out would be worse than Bill Clinton's ruined reputation.

He's past his pull date anyway and I think whoever has started his downfall figures, hopes, that will be enough of a red herring to distract the notoriously short attention span American public from any interest in looking further... Just my WAG.

Bob Loblaw said...

Has there ever been a bigger tool than Matt Yglesias? It's not like there's any new information about Clinton coming to light here. The Democrats can't attack Roy Moore or (kind of) Donald Trump without dealing with Bill Clinton, so under the bus he goes, and Matty puts his back into it like a good soldier.

It's weird how all the feminists and SJWs have simultaneously had an epiphany about Bill Clinton's behavior 25 years after the fact. Hypocrisy is a mainstay of politics, but this is bad even for Democrats.

What about JFK and Lydon Johnson? Clinton isn't the first president to tell a woman on staff "Move over, your country needs you."

William said...

I had a niece who made more working as a waitress in Hooters than she does today working as an accountant. I'm not sure what the moral of this story is.

FullMoon said...


He allowed as how Clinton had made a tremendous gift to the married men in the United States when Clinton declared "I did not have sex with that woman." If a blow job wasn't sex, how couid a wife complain if her husband bought a blow job from a hooker? I mean the President of the United States of America had stated that that was not "sex"--so technically getting a blow job in an alley from a hooker wasn't cheating.

And detrimental to the school girls who had to put up with "c'mon, it's not really sex" . Not only endorsed by BC, but feminists and MSM were his back up crew.

Bob Loblaw said...

He allowed as how Clinton had made a tremendous gift to the married men in the United States when Clinton declared "I did not have sex with that woman." If a blow job wasn't sex, how couid a wife complain if her husband bought a blow job from a hooker? I mean the President of the United States of America had stated that that was not "sex"--so technically getting a blow job in an alley from a hooker wasn't cheating.

I can't even contemplate the existence of a married woman who would find that particular defense compelling.

I Have Misplaced My Pants said...

you realize what you just said implies that women who DO 'get ahead' have most likely "indulged" such male 'inabilities'

Some have, some haven't. This has been widely discussed.

I urge you to ponder a bit more your call for males to "compartmentalize" their "sex lives'. I believe it s accurate to suggest that 'compartmentalizing' in modern psych terms is a road to neurosis and beyond. 'Sex drives', like hunger, anger, comfort, sleep, jealousy, Love by Adults should NOT be "compartmentalized" but, yes, 'managed' appropriately.

Sure, I could have used the word managed. The takeaway is that men (and women) should be capable of keeping their sex lives private and out of the workplace; e.g. compartmentalized within their own personal lives and not bleeding into their work lives. There are lots of places to find someone to play with without the wide range of problems that result from doing that at work.

Rabel said...

Ladies,

Please don't let yourselves be led down the primrose path by the likes of Matty Yglesais and fooled into believing that you can achieve all your hopes and dreams by simply prostrating yourself before men with money and power.

You may be easy but success is not. I don't recall what Mr. Dylan had to say about the matter but as Professor Althouse sat in the audience a more modern poetess and the voice of a younger generation put it this way:

You want a hot body? You want a Bugatti?
You want a Maserati?
You better work bitch
You want a Lamborghini? Sip martinis?
Look hot in a bikini?
You better work bitch
You wanna live fancy? Live in a big mansion?
Party in France?
You better work bitch, you better work bitch
You better work bitch, you better work bitch
Now get to work bitch!
Now get to work bitch!

It's an All-American message that we could all take to heart.

Fabi said...

@gnossos -- I wouldn't be surprised if this entire "crisis" was designed to take out Bill, create a buffer for pedo island, and keep Biden away from a run in 2020.

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

Rabel - RuPaul singing that would be more effective. It all falls apart when you see it's a voice machine.

Molly said...

1. Did anyone but me notice that Robert Mugabe is 41 years older than his (current) wife?

2 I just realized: I'm 65 and I've been in the workforce since I was 22, and I've never had a female supervisor. (I think I'm about to get one, if she is appointed as planned before I retire.)

Rabel said...

It all falls apart when you see it's a voice machine.

Nothing about Britney is falling apart as far as I can tell.

Clyde said...

Speaking of creepy old guys going after much younger women, Dennis Kucinich is 71; his wife Elizabeth is 40. They married 12 years ago when he was 59 and she was 28.

Bob Loblaw said...

I just realized: I'm 65 and I've been in the workforce since I was 22, and I've never had a female supervisor. (I think I'm about to get one, if she is appointed as planned before I retire.)

I've had two. One walked on water and the other was just kind of average.

Of course the company laid off the first one. We can't have competent people here - it makes the rest of us look bad.

The second one left and got a job at Google she would never have even been considered for as a man. Because of the patriarchy, I guess.

DKWalser said...

Clinton shouldn't have been impeached because of his sexual indiscretions. He should have been impeached because he lied under oath about it, used his office to try to cover it up (by getting Vernon Jordan to offer Lewinsky a job to keep her cooperation), and worse, by corrupting the nation's respect for the law by arguing that he had a moral obligation to lie under oath to prevent his wife and daughter's emotional pain that admitting the affair would have engendered. He was the nation's chief law enforcement officer! Yet, he intentionally undermined the respect for legal oaths just to protect his personal interests.

Molly said...

Buwaya: "They have the good fortune to have been born in a time and place where their value is calculated with more than their ability to successfully please a man with resources in bed."

In my opinion this is quite recent in human history. I recall reading that when Abe LIncoln's mother died, his father (after a short mourning period) put on his best suit, and marched down the home of the nearby widow and proposed marriage, and was accepted. This was a largely unromantic exchange: he needed a woman to keep the home fires burning, to bake the bread, prepare the meals, do the laundry, take care of young Abe; she needed a man to do the field and farm work and heavy lifting. This was regarded by both man and woman as a fair and mutually beneficial exchange; it was socially accepted as a moral exchange. By the 1950s (or earlier or later) , the economic basis of this exchange had been eroded: "women's work" could be done much more quickly with machines (vacuums, washing machines, dishwashers, etc); "men's work" did not require the physical size and strength of a man. But there continued to be a mutually beneficial exchange between men and women: the woman provided the man with sexual pleasure; the man provided the woman with material comfort. The morality of this exchange has been called into question by feminism, and the evolving social mores influenced by feminism (and technology and capitalism, blah blah blah). I don't think we have reached a clear and widely accepted understanding of the basis of mutually beneficial intercourse between a man and a woman in the present age.

John said...

Blogger Char Char Binks said...

No man should ever have sex with a woman unless she feels that he is completely beneath him in every way. Otherwise he would be taking advantage of a power imbalance.

But, according to Louie CKs apology if the man admires the woman she is exploiting him.

Perhaps no woman should ever have sex unless it is with some nameless man that she finds via an internest escort service and pays for sex.

John Henry

HoodlumDoodlum said...

You could never do a comedy bit like that today.

When you're a star, a liberal comedian, they let you do it. You can do anything. Whatever you want.

Bob Loblaw said...

In my opinion this is quite recent in human history.

Marriage for love is a 20th century invention. You can find earlier writers advising couples not to get too emotionally attached, since it would interfere with the partnership.

I don't think we have reached a clear and widely accepted understanding of the basis of mutually beneficial intercourse between a man and a woman in the present age.

Well put. There's quite a bit of social inertia behind the current system, but clearly less than there used to be, i.e. the percentage of people who will never marry goes up every year.

tim in vermont said...

Whatever we can pin on Trump is what Clinton should have resigned for. Short MY,"Shhh! Be vewey quiet, I'm hunting pwesidents!"

Jupiter said...

Blogger Bob Loblaw said...

"I can't even contemplate the existence of a married woman who would find that particular defense compelling."

Huh. Hillary Clinton? Granted, her existence is no fun to contemplate.

Bob Loblaw said...

Oh, Hillary would believe no such thing. But she clearly made her peace with Bill's philandering decades earlier, and it really only pissed her off when it affected his, and by extension her, political career.

John said...

Blogger William said...

Had Bill Clinton resigned, Pres. Gore would have been a shoo-in for reelection and, then, maybe reelection again.

How many people who have been vice presidents have ever been elected to the big office?

How many people who have managed to make it to the big office have been re-elected to a second full term? Nixon is the only one I can think of, he did both.

Some others might have been able to be re-elected, like Coolidge or TR.

Most were like Johnson, Ford, Truman, Bush. Not viewed as particularly competent.

That is why I laugh at the idea of Joe Biden running for pres. The vice presidency seems like a pretty absolute disqualification for the presidency.

A VP/former VP running for the whitehouse is a triumph of hope over experience to quote Samual Johnson in another context.

John Henry

glenn said...

Best advice I ever heard about this issue came from Dad. “Don’t put your pe***r with your paycheck”. There’s always going to be some chippie like Monica to play house. A real man avoids them. Boys in man suits don’t. Then you get a POTUS like Clinton. Or Kennedy. Or countless others.

Rabel said...

I'm often puzzled by remarks which indicate that women in the workplace or in authority is a phenomenon that some people have seldom experienced, especially in earlier decades.

I grew up in the deep South in the 50's and 60's. My Mother worked, her Sister worked, my Grandmother worked, 3 of 4 aunt-in-laws worked, among my friends, I would say that a majority of their Mothers worked.

Working in a factory in that same deep South I can recall off the top of my head 5 immediate supervisors and 2 plant managers who were female. I worked with female electricians, mechanics, and tool and die makers on the shop floor on a regular basis.

Some were good, some were bad. I'd say they were about average compared to males in similar positions. I particularly don't recall any of them seeming intimidated by males in the workforce or in positions of authority.

I blame the Damn Yankees. But I blame them for a lot of things so take that with a grain of salt.

John said...

Clarification for the pedants:

Nixon got elected to a second full term. He did not serve it out.

Which buttresses my point about VPs

John Henry

jimbino said...

Any post-pubescent, and especially an adult, woman has a human right to sex with a man of her choosing, regardless of age or power. This implies that a man of any age cannot be blamed, but is entitled to praise, for having sex with one of those women who chooses him.

Amerikan laws have some catching up to do.

Freeman Hunt said...

I once saw a man begin to visibly quiver when an attractive woman started talking to him. Heh.

Freeman Hunt said...

One of the funnier things I've heard a child say:

Child: I wouldn't want to marry a girl who is very pretty.
Me: Why not?
Child: I think it would be too much trouble.
Me: What do you mean?
Child: Lots of other people would want to marry her too.
Me: What about your father? He married a very pretty girl, didn't he?
Child: Yes. What was he thinking?!

narciso said...

In Other newspaper

https://mobile.twitter.com/alimhaier/status/930967801942151175?p=v

Gahrie said...

I don't think we have reached a clear and widely accepted understanding of the basis of mutually beneficial intercourse between a man and a woman in the present age.

A significant number of modern feminists believe this is neither desirable, or even possible. All penis in vagina sex is rape to them...heterosexuality is a tool of the Patriarchy.

Molly said...

replying to Blah blah blah at 7:17: "Marriage for love is a 20th century invention....There's quite a bit of social inertia." The 19th century "equilibrium" is one that had existed for millennia.

I'm wondering if things are changing so quickly that we never have time to overcome inertia and settle into an equilibrium.

In the 1960s the society was okay with the Don-Betty Draper arrangement: Betty provides sexual pleasure and social coordination; Don provides money for material ease and social status. But as women enter the workforce this morphs into situations where : woman provides sexual pleasure; man provides access to employment or promotion. I guess we had a period of time (did we ?) when this was socially acceptable. But that time (if it existed) seems to be over.

I think the current exchange is along the lines of: woman provides sexual pleasure and social and material comfort; man provides sexual pleasure and social and material comfort. This sounds good on paper; but I'm not sure that it is workable in practice -- largely because (in my opinion) men have (on average, or across a distribution) more interest in sexual pleasure than do women.

Crimso said...

"I don't think I managed to teach her anything after age 12. Maybe.
She may have been humoring me."

Reminded me of Teller's suspicions upon seeing von Neumann's interactions with a 3 year old. Teller wondered whether von Neumann might be using the same principles to communicate with his peers.

narciso said...

Alfred will not deny that the yearbook signature could be forged to blitzer

Lucien said...

So years later, when it no longer matters and because the past cannot be changed, MY argues that bums like WJ Clinton should have resigned or otherwise been thrown out of office. Anyone familiar with MY knows that he says this because the Democrats now view that argument as strategically and tactically useful.

I suspect that MY reserves the right to change his mind should this argument ever be unhelpful to the Democrats. Anyone who doesn't look at MY's work and see what a whore looks like is deluded, naive or a Democrat.

gspencer said...

How brave of this writer to take Clinton to task.

Especially now, 19 years later, when there's no cost to bear for criticizing that Democrat president, and when no meaningful correction to behavior could occur.

I nominate him for this year's Profile in Putty award.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Here, I can edit myself down:
Lefty people defended Clinton and his behavior then because doing so was in their political/electoral interest.
Lefty people are now saying they shouldn't have defended Clinton then because doing so now is in their political/electoral interest.
Lefty people are just doing whatever they think is in their political interest and their professions to the contrary should be entirely ignored.
Easy.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Oh, I forgot: "serious" feminists are little more than a special interest group of the Left and should be understood as no more principled/no more worthy of notice than any other (PETA, Greenpeace, MoveOn, ACORN, etc).

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Hey, also: I am 100% serious in asking if your smart, ambitious, attractive daughters are single. I will date your single daughters; you will like me and they may love me. Let's not get in the way of something important here.

officiousintermeddler said...

One woman got special access to the President, but other women did not, and the workplace for men had nothing to do with sex.

You're assuming that the woman with special access was displacing other women who would otherwise have had access. That is a fair assumption in the movie business, but not in the presidential-advisor business. It implies that the President allocates a fixed amount of his time to women and the rest of his time to men, so that when he spends time with the favored woman, he is taking time way from the disfavored women.

But there's no particular reason to believe that's true, is there? In fact, the time that he spends with his mistress diminishes the time that he spends with both men and other women. Men are disadvantaged by her special access just the same as women are.

tim in vermont said...

Imagine outlawing female hypergamy. That'll happen right around the time Muslims manage to outlaw dogs.

Molly said...

"Imagine outlawing female hypergamy."

I believe that the gender gap in pay would be eliminated if all women who profess to be concerned about it would commit to marrying men who are younger and have less education than they (the women) have.

This could happen without legislation, if only these women realized the power they have and how to use it.

AllenS said...

Libs going after BJ Clinton now, tells me that it's just a head fake. The real target is Hillary and stopping any more of her political ambitions for the POTUS. Young Dems want new blood, and they are willing to shed some blood to do it.

Anyone agree?

I Have Misplaced My Pants said...

Hey, also: I am 100% serious in asking if your smart, ambitious, attractive daughters are single. I will date your single daughters; you will like me and they may love me. Let's not get in the way of something important here.

I would be delighted for my daughter to get to know someone intelligent and well spoken (with non-insane views) such as yourself, but unfortunately she is a junior in high school at the moment :)

Really not getting you here, misplaced. Do you think, for example, that *I* really, really hope some chick will sleep with my boss and get my job? Because I'm delighted to starve in the street as long as my boss gets to sleep with good-looking women?

No, of course not! You're not [what I see as] the problem. Tolerating the sand in the engine that sexcapades in the workplace is, is the problem. I'm agreeing with Althouse that if our society accepts and excuses the side deals that take place, it damages the entire system and all its participants including people like you and me who would not participate.

Gk1 said...

Its interesting some people thinking this is all battle field prep for the swamp to attack trump with past bimbo eruptions. If so, why didn't they use it last year? Lord know they tried with the access hollywood tape but it flopped. The Dems are clear cutting and burning down the clinton's legacy in order to do this? That's a pretty exotic theory.

FIDO said...

Liz Kucinich was a sport.

tim in vermont said...

If so, why didn't they use it last year? Lord know they tried with the access hollywood tape but it flopped.

Maybe the Access Hollywood tape was a flop because they didn't do this last year, and they are just coming to terms that.

Hillary ironically called it "a vast right-wing conspiracy" when the actual conspiracy we see, while vast, was anything but "right-wing."

Pookie Number 2 said...

Its interesting some people thinking this is all battle field prep for the swamp to attack trump with past bimbo eruptions.

The most expensive nteresting thing about it is that it's completely unnecessary. If there was enough evidence to convince reasonable people (as opposed to the Chucks of the world that long ago sacrificed their integrity to their Trump-hatred) that Trump raped someone, he'd be forced to resign.

The Democrats mistakenly assume that since they failed this test, that Republicans would as well.

Pookie Number 2 said...

No idea where "expensive" came from.

David said...

"No, but we were designed to live in caves.
We are like screwdrivers being used as prybars."

Actually we were design to be adaptable. It's the key to the success of the human species.

Some adaptations are more difficult than others.

FIDO said...

Here is the thing: Back in the day, there used to be a 'character and integrity' test one used for presidents.

The last one to pass that was GHWB.

When Billy Bob came to town, 'cool' trumped 'character'. He was a weed smoking, draft dodging, pacifist pseudo hippie who talked about this underwear on public television.

And when Ms. Flowers came around, the defense of the Democrats was 'well...everyone already KNEW that! So you can't use that against him.'

Well...everyone knows who Trump is. He is a gropy, libidinous loudmouth. All of that is baked in. And the Dems calling for character from a candidate is about 25 years too late. They set that standard and now they are trying to use it again.

People voted for and support Trump anyway. Because the Right isn't going to allow double standards to destroy their candidates when Dems obviously are happy to select unindicted felons.

tcrosse said...

Would it not be suspicious if there were no push-back from the Clintonistas ? Hard to believe that the Clintons would fall on their collective sword for the Good of the Country.

Seeing Red said...

[L]ooking back through today’s lens,


That really irritates me because it was wrong then and it's wrong now.

Seeing Red said...

Who here explained it was about keeping women available for sex and taxes?

I never thought I'd see or live thru the days/times when it's the vile Progs who are forcing us backwards.

FIDO said...

What makes you believe that this insane time is 'forwards'?

Christopher said...

Yglesias means to help bury the Clintons now that they are no longer useful. That is all he means to do, and nothing he says should merit any attention apart from that.

This is the guy who deleted his entire Twitter history some time ago, and now you know why.

Martin said...

The legal point at the time was not about sex but about how the Clintons' ally Vernon Jordan had helped cover up the Lewinsky business and whether he had done similar for them in other scandals. The Democrats and their media lickspittles changed the public perception to be that Ken Starr was a sex-obsessed Bible-thumper who was going after Bill for just some good clean fun for which his wife had forgiven him.

So now we see such as Yglesias not just twisting history, but twisting the history they had already twisted at the start.

Jose_K said...

"Power is the ultimate aphrodisiac" And sex is the drive of power seeking

Jose_K said...

Jefferson has his lover, an slave , at his house. Sharing home with his wife

Jose_K said...

There was nothing wrong about Lewinsky.
Broderick was raped. Willey assaulted. Jones harassed and assaulted. Those were wrong

0_0 said...

Jose_K- Lewinsky got access that others didn't get because of it. Also, Bill was shown to be an unfaithful cheat. I prefer Presidents who are trustworthy.