From "Time's Up, Bill" by Rebecca Traister in New York Magazine.
Random observations:
1. There's that word "feckless" again. Last time we saw "feckless" it was Samantha Bee calling Ivanka Trump a "feckless cunt." But Traister didn't call Bill Clinton a feckless dick. She didn't even call him "feckless." She called his replies "feckless."
2. Key word in that sentence about Monica Lewinsky: "onstage." She wasn't walking down the street or sitting in a restaurant when someone had the nerve to challenge her to say how it feels "to be America’s premier blow-job queen." She'd put herself onstage. That's a choice, and the choice was only there for her to make because she had gotten famous for having sexual relations with that man, Mr. Clinton. What about all the other White House interns who did not get their hands on the fleshly lever of power? Where did they end up? What claim to fame do they have? Monica could have been another one of them. It's less giddy fun, and she chose a path and keep choosing to stay on it. Otherwise, why was she onstage?
3. As for "Hillary Clinton lost the support of many feminists," I'd say: not enough.
4. As for "she decided to stand by her man," let's not forget that when Hillary used that phrase, it was during the 1992 campaign and she said: "You know, I’m not sitting here, some little woman standing by my man like Tammy Wynette." She had her well-thought out reasons for sticking with him. Also, that remark was in the context of Bill's adultery, not the sexualization of power in the workplace.
5. What's a lagniappe? Wikipedia quotes Mark Twain's "Life on the Mississippi" (1883):
We picked up one excellent word—a word worth travelling to New Orleans to get; a nice limber, expressive, handy word—"lagniappe." They pronounce it lanny-yap. It is Spanish—so they said. [NOTE: It's actually Quechua.] We discovered it at the head of a column of odds and ends in the Picayune, the first day; heard twenty people use it the second; inquired what it meant the third; adopted it and got facility in swinging it the fourth. It has a restricted meaning, but I think the people spread it out a little when they choose. It is the equivalent of the thirteenth roll in a "baker's dozen." It is something thrown in, gratis, for good measure. The custom originated in the Spanish quarter of the city. When a child or a servant buys something in a shop—or even the mayor or the governor, for aught I know—he finishes the operation by saying—"Give me something for lagniappe."6. Of course, I agree with Traister that Bill Clinton should be held accountable for his offenses against women, but I have been saying that for 20 years.
The shopman always responds; gives the child a bit of licorice-root, gives the servant a cheap cigar or a spool of thread, gives the governor — I don't know what he gives the governor; support, likely.
When you are invited to drink, and this does occur now and then in New Orleans—and you say, "What, again?—no, I've had enough;" the other party says, "But just this one time more—this is for lagniappe." When the beau perceives that he is stacking his compliments a trifle too high, and sees by the young lady's countenance that the edifice would have been better with the top compliment left off, he puts his "I beg pardon—no harm intended," into the briefer form of "Oh, that's for lagniappe."
134 comments:
...but I have been saying that for 20 years
Yes. Now that the perception that the Clintons a liability is gaining steam it's a politically expedient thing to say, isn't it?
The loyalists will persist with the resistance, however. There's a dark place in Hell and all...
The reasonable, albeit 20 year late, treatment of WJC shows how diminished the Bill/Hill power team has faded.
So Althouse thinks that Lewinsky deserved all the slut shaming. Wow.
You hear that dog that stopped barking?
It's Hillary's "I was wronged and can't wait to run again in 2020 Tour".
It took Bill's Today Show interview for her to finally realize it was all over...
Clinton was always too much talk and not enough action, in other words, feckless. Now some people finally realize the talk is no good, but it never was.
"Clinton’s feckless replies to questions about #MeToo revealed an unpreparedness that spoke volumes about why men have been able to abuse their power with relative impunity for generations while the women around them have been asked to pay the price for them over and over and over again.
If you had been under a rock for the last week, you wouldn't know whether this referred to Bill or Hillary.
"Hillary Clinton’s pathbreaking achievements"
*snort*
"Fleshy lever of power"
Oh my :)
"Hillary Clinton’s pathbreaking achievements"
Now, now. It's quite an achievement to send the DOJ to prison for your lawbreaking.
while the women around them have been asked to pay the price for them over and over and over again
Nature is unfair. The need to nag keeps women down.
"Fleshy lever of power"
Lt. Col. Frank Slade: Hoo-ah!
People in Louisiana say Lan Yap, not lanny yap.
At least the word 'feckless' seems correct and appropriate in this context -- Bill Clinton's remarks clearly were ineffective, if they were supposed to be helping him in some way.
Is there a good way to track the frequency of word use in the media? I'd love to know if a bunch of journalists will start using 'feckless' this month -- mostly because they just learned it after Samantha Bee's classy TBS-approved remarks.
Re: pathbreaking achievements...
Has anyone in the media mentioned the fact that the Trump Presidency is a huge step forward for legal immigrants and jewish Americans? Both are represented in the first family for the first time in history, unless I'm forgetting someone.
As usual, for Clinton it's all about him. The effect on the millions of people who supported him is unimportant.
"Kevin said...
You hear that dog that stopped barking?
It's Hillary's "I was wronged and can't wait to run again in 2020 Tour".
It took Bill's Today Show interview for her to finally realize it was all over..."
It's been a few days dude. She could be just drunk. It will never be over in her mind. Never.
unless I'm forgetting someone
Columba Bush, but she was invisible outside Florida.
As for "Hillary Clinton lost the support of many feminists," I'd say: Not Inga.
Nature is unfair. The need to nag keeps women down.
My, that was a pithy one.
My thoughts always go back to BJC using the Arkansas state troopers to get young Paula Jones into his hotel room for his style of seduction (or not). This was duress using the police to enforce unwanted sex advances. I believe there were other instances - of course, he was using a tried and true method.
The silliest part of this essay is this...
From there, it was just a short leap to view Hillary Clinton’s pathbreaking achievements — as the first woman elected to the Senate from New York, and later as the first American woman to become a major-party nominee for the presidency — as fundamentally unearned, some sick lagniappe benefit of having been publicly hurt and humiliated."
...because Traister is now asking us to assume that despite her demonstrable lack of talent at campaigning against not just Donald Trump, but against Barack Obama and Bernie Sanders, that Hillary Clinton could have gotten close to the presidency without riding the coattails of her husband.
She's making the claim that Bill and his sexual dalliances held Hillary back, when if Hillary hadn't stood by Bill and trashed the women making the claims against him during the 1990s, she never gets elected to the Senate seat in New York, let alone gets two chances to run for president. At best campaigning on her own without Bill's last name and political success, Hillary would have gotten elected to a safe seat in Congress in a heavily Democratic state, and become the Bella Abzug of her era.
Lagniappe is a great catch-all word. I use it a lot.
And I agree with the comment upthread: Lan Yap.
"Hillary Clinton’s pathbreaking achievements"
Why have feminists forgotten the pathbreaking achievements of Lurleen Wallace? Or is being the first female governor of her state just some sort of sick lagniappe benefit of her husband's racist career?
This was duress using the police to enforce unwanted sex advances.
Not exactly, but she was willing to enter the room because the police escort made her feel safe.
it was just a short leap to view Hillary Clinton’s pathbreaking achievements...as fundamentally unearned, some sick lagniappe benefit of having been publicly hurt and humiliated."
Her "achievements" were unearned because marrying someone isn't an achievement. They're still unable to get past their own bias [A Woman!!! All must genuflect!!!] to understand reality.
Improbably, the last person to date Monica Lewinsky in December 1997 before she went viral may have been CNN's Jake Tapper. Here's how he summed up why he went on his one date with Monica:
"And to be brutally honest, I got with her because I figured that behind her initial aggressiveness lurked an easy, perhaps winning, bit of no-frills hookup."
Nothing happened, he says, but would we take Jake Tapper seriously if he had written back on January 30, 1998 that he had also gotten a blow job from Monica Lewinsky?
As for the idea that Monica got some advantage from her relationship with Bill Cinton, which seems to be important to Althouse and rhardin, here's how her reputation proceeded her, even then, before she became famous:
"Upon gentle inquiry, Joe told me that Monica was bad news, that she had left the White House because she had kept wandering into the Oval Office and inappropriately striking up conversations with the commander in chief. 'Some weird shit, man,' he said. 'Stay away.'"
"She called his replies 'feckless'."
Feckless means having a weak character; not behaving in a responsible way. I think "feckless" applies to people not things.
First. Mark Twain was so fucking brilliant.
Second “while the women around them have been asked to pay the price for them over and over and over again...” by whom? By Democrats, It has been demanded of Democrats that they defend Bill Clinton. Democrat trolls here mocked Althouse for running with the Weinstein story (Friend of Bill’s, BTW). The battlements are a bit dilapidated in places, and bear the scars of a few hits, but as long as Democrats can keep the focus on Monica Lewinsky, the edifice stands. “It was just a blow job!”
...some sick lagniappe benefit of having been publicly hurt and humiliated
I always assumed it was a quid pro quo for not torpedoing Bill's candidacy.
I am sure that New York State would have given Hillary that Senate seat anyway if her husband had stuck to his true calling of slip and fall lawyer who advertised on bus stops and park benches.
The #metoo movement was delayed for 25 years by the left's decision to rally around Bill Clinton. the 60's saw the civil rights movement, the 70's saw women's lib, the 80's were spent digesting it all, and the 90's was when a mopping-up movement to clear out those who failed to undergo a change of heart or spirit should have occurred.
There was absolutely no reason for this to wait until 2017. Well, only one reason, and firmly the fault of the left. Am (additional) quarter century of abuse of power by predatory men against women occurred because of Bill, and really, because of Hillary.
“I have a scheme, that one day, [insert way to funnel graft to Bill and Hillary here]”
3. As for "Hillary Clinton lost the support of many feminists," I'd say: not enough.
In the years before Lewinsky, feminists were talking about sexual harassment in the workplace. They said that it was not only in the form of unwanted sexual attention, but also in relationships between powerful men and lower-ranking subordinates. Then came Lewinsky and the infamous blue dress. As fast as the American Communists switched from being neutral to rabid anti-fascists following Hitler's invasion of the Soviet Union, the feminists said that Bill Clinton was entitled to "one free grope" because of services rendered. Here was a relationship between the most powerful man in the world and a White House intern, that that was fine and dandy because he supported abortion rights. If the feminists ever had any credibility, they shredded it that day and for a low price.
I always assumed it was a quid pro quo for not torpedoing Bill's candidacy.
"I want Domestic" was the demand after the election that surfaced years later.
Bill and Hillary did pay for it in a political way. She ran for President twice and lost both times, but the Russians were responsible for the second defeat.
So 'feckless' doesn't refer to a relationship limited to oral sex? As in, "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky. It was strictly a feckless relationship"?
Bill benefitted from a media double standard for Democrats vs Republicans, not a cultural double standard for men vs women. And he still expected it as a given, as his due. That's why he was surprised by the questions, because he's a Democrat, not because he's a male. And he's still getting that benefit even in this article.
Look how the TV hosts portrayed the Lewinsky business as a one off. Traister mentions some other women, but her implication is that their claims are false as she quickly moves on.
Hillary benefitted from the same double standard over and over with regard to her own misdeeds, but MeToo is not the only thing that has changed. When Trump came along, voters started saying, "No more double standards!". #NoMoreDoubleStandards!
Hillary didn't lose because of the Lewinsky affair. She lost because she was largely and correctly perceived as lying crook. Hillary's achievements aren't reduced because of Lewinsky. They are minimized because they were gotten with an unfair advantages, chief among them, the media double standard that favors Democrats.
Ann Althouse asks:
"What about all the other White House interns who did not get their hands on the fleshly lever of power? Where did they end up? "
THIS! THIS, THIS THIS! Why has no journalist EVER investigated the other interns? For me the whole point of the Monica affair is not that Monica traded sex for a job, (or a blow job for a Pentagon Job), but that other deserving candidates for that trusted position of national security were passed over in order to provide that slot to the President's bimbo.
Jimmy Hoffa.
Why is Bill submitting himself to this stuff? Why has Hillary continued campaigning after the loss?
A warning to both of them; don't go to a Yankees game.
I wonder if anyone will ask Nina Burleigh if she still has her knee pads ready to go.
fleshly lever of power
Excellent formulation, Althouse.
It's called networking. Scott Adams recommends it all the time.
The most qualified doesn't get the job. The job goes to the most networked.
Give me a lever and a place to kneel and I'll move the world.
Clinton's feckless replies... spoke volumes about why men have been able to abuse their power...
A facile means to change the subject from Clinton the man to men in general.
For all we know, all the female interns offered him blow jobs. It's the guys who were gypped.
RE: feckless.
I remember when eponymous had a run like this awhile back. It's a feckless time to be alive, I suppose.
It's the guys who were gypped.
Do we know this ?
Clinton is a sex pervert.
Clinton is a man
All men are sex perverts
Lewinsky is a slut
Lewinsky is a women
All women are sluts
"rehajm said...
...some sick lagniappe benefit of having been publicly hurt and humiliated
I always assumed it was a quid pro quo for not torpedoing Bill's candidacy."
I always assumed that a Clinton had to be in office for pay-to-play to work. Bill owed 16 million to lawyers when he left office, but now he has 80 or 100 million from his work at, or with, or by means of, the Clinton Foundation. (I guess that explains General Flynn's problem. He couldn't - or most probably HE WOULDN'T - issue IOU's for that much money.)
And now we are watching Death of A Salesman. The old guy goes out an last time and tries to sell but has to come back early. No one is buying what he has to sell. He reminisces about betraying his wife and how that has reverberated down the years. Clinton was a successful salesman but it's surprising how well a play supposedly about losers applies to Clinton and his "success." Attention must be paid?
The thing about this article and most about Clinton and the Lewinsky Problem, is they use her, the young voluntary receptacle as a stand-in for all the other women. That's somewhat understandable if we are talking about Mondale's daughter or the ex-Miss Arkansas or the lounge singer who also volunteered, or willingly succumbed to Bill's advances. But we aren't ever talking about that revolving door, are we?
What I perceive is the Media-DNC complex using Monica and the mis-treatment of Hillary (if it was so) as a smokescreen. The only reason to focus on these specific "relationships" to the exclusion of the dozen or so rape allegations (some so serious they sent him home from Oxford) is to continue to provide cover for Bill, to ignore his most serious offenses. What does Feminist treatment of Jaunita Broaderick "say" about "abuse of power"? Why not use the strongest examples in a story that purports to explore this subject?
One reason. Continued obfuscation. It's a sickness the Media has, and one Trump will explore again if Hillary and Bill don't find a way to "go away quietly" before the 2020 race. Remember, there are a vast swath of Americans who continually geek themselves up into an anti-misogyny rage at the mention of the Access Hollywood tapes, an allusion to how people "let you get away" with stuff is likened to actual assault by these people. Inga and PeePee both run with that idea all the time. Yet in the era of #metoo the real crimes of Bill against many many women have not been explored. His actions carry less weight with these Hollywood and Media sycophants than Trump's words do.
Bill and Rudy, two big dogs whose day is done.
Stop talking ya big dopey dopes.
From there, it was just a short leap to view Hillary Clinton’s pathbreaking achievements — as the first woman elected to the Senate from New York, and later as the first American woman to become a major-party nominee for the presidency — as fundamentally unearned ...
But her “achievements” were fundamentally unearned. Numerous women had been elected to the Senate before her, and the state of New York had elected carpetbaggers with familial connections to popular Democrat presidents before. Hillary was the first presidential nominee from a major party, but we now — thanks to Donna Brazile, that she did so essentially through cheating.
So, what's the end game?
Brow beat Clinton into admitting he abused women and apologize? Remove this stain from the democrats so they can go on to win more elections by virtue of their newfound virtue?
Ha, Rebecca Traister joined The New Republic after Facebook bought it, and the old staff ran for the hills.
After Facebook was thrown out, she left with the bathwater.
I was always careful to grow my resume. I had a lot of chances of just taking the money, but I was too proud. I said: no, I'm going to take the next step and not try to jump over the fire.
A lagniappe is a petit cadeau in Cajun. Emphasis on petit. Hillary is not petit, and she is no cadeau...
"3. As for "Hillary Clinton lost the support of many feminists," I'd say: not enough."
I'd say "none at all" in any meaningful statistical sense.
Hillary Clinton’s pathbreaking achievements
She throws that down like it's understood. WTF?
1. First laywer kicked off the Watergate Committee for shady actions?
2. First woman to represent a state in the Senate in which she did not reside?
3. ?
What PATHBREAKING ACHIEVEMENTS are they alluding to? She was not the first woman to run for President, or senator, or SecState. This was one of her problems in the 2016 race, she had NOTHING she had DONE to run on.
Win Feckly
The idea that sexual liaisons between bosses and underlings creates an unfair advantage is certainly valid, and has not been pointed out enough.
But it doesn't negate the other point, that this relationship took unfair advantage of a young woman who sought out a relationship with a much more powerful man, I don't think she was innocent by any means, but I don't think she deserved to have her reputation trashed. I don't think she had any idea that she was taking that risk.
I have mixed feelings about whether the law should protect against that kind of abuse of power by people like Clinton (and Weinstein and others) but I have no qualms in saying that those men involved with much younger women are morally wrong in a way that is greater than the young women are (even though the women too are seeking some advantage.) And something that should be noted is the absence of older mentors, parents, and agents (in the case of Hollywood) helping young people avoid these traps when they enter the corridors of power, which is tragic and a large root of the problem.
I thought Hillary drank Chardonnay, not Lagniappe.
What does it say about the US of A that of all the women abused by Bill Clinton only Paula Jones, roundly derided in the media as “trailer park trash,” ever received any form of justice? People are well aware that the vast majority of the $850,000 settlement she received went to her lawyers, but even so I’m sure that she was left with a bit more than the cost of an Egg McMuffin. That’s more than poor Juanita Broaddrick or Kathleen Willey ever got.
As for Monica Lewinsky, I merely note that even her predecessor as most famous fellatrix, Linda Lovelace, managed to snag a husband and make a life for herself.
"Remember, there are a vast swath of Americans who continually geek themselves up into an anti-misogyny rage at the mention of the Access Hollywood tapes, an allusion to how people "let you get away" with stuff is likened to actual assault by these people. Inga and PeePee both run with that idea all the time. Yet in the era of #metoo the real crimes of Bill against many many women have not been explored. His actions carry less weight with these Hollywood and Media sycophants than Trump's words do."
So true!
Feckless with Freckles.
"The silliest part of this essay is this... 'From there, it was just a short leap to view Hillary Clinton’s pathbreaking achievements — as the first woman elected to the Senate from New York, and later as the first American woman to become a major-party nominee for the presidency — as fundamentally unearned, some sick lagniappe benefit of having been publicly hurt and humiliated.'"
It's not silly if you decide the short leap is an appropriate leap that gets you to the actual truth of the matter! It feels like an easy leap because suddenly the truth is visible and you recognize it.
I'm standing up for the women who didn't use a man (or try to use a man) to get somewhere in life. All of us who believed we should make it on our own and no one should be giving me a special boost (especially for reasons that have nothing to do with the substance of my career) and we didn't get so far.
And I am waiting on rh's comments on the BJC rape victims and how that fits his theory of "just a negotiation."
Wow!! How quickly one can fall from grace!
Of course, when all your grace is fabricated by the press.....
I'm standing up for the women who didn't use a man (or try to use a man) to get somewhere in life.
Networking. If it's a male field, you'll need men.
First first lady to get dragged in front of a grand jury!
BTW, the Professor deserves credit for her consistent criticism of the feminists' failure in the BJC affairs. She asserted this long before #Metoo.
#MeToo isn't about rape victims. It's about men in general.
From there, it was just a short leap to view Hillary Clinton’s pathbreaking achievements — as the first woman elected to the Senate from New York, and later as the first American woman to become a major-party nominee for the presidency — as fundamentally unearned, some sick lagniappe benefit of having been publicly hurt and humiliated."
A short, easy, logical leap, especially given her record in both the Senate and as Secretary of State. As the first female POTUS candidate of a major party, she was a slow-motion disaster and everyone knows it, even if they don't want to admit it. I think it will be akin to the OJ Simpson verdict--as the years go by, more and more people that were strident Hillary supporters will admit she was a horrible candidate.
"Clinton’s feckless replies to questions about #MeToo revealed an unpreparedness that spoke volumes about why men have been able to abuse their power with relative impunity for generations while the women around them have been asked to pay the price for them over and over and over again."
All men? What about the men that don't abuse their power? Not sexy enough?
Try getting a mentor without flattering him with your attentions.
"..lagniappe.."
Yep. A yes..a French..or Latin..reference seems to be a big thinker approach to wax a turd of an argument.
Bob Packwood somehow faced the retribution Clinton avoided. Could not have been the R after his name, because look at Menendez, D NJ, and patronizer of child sex trafficking ring... Oh, wait.
It's all in the song Your So Vain, if you look hard enough. "ALL THE GIRLS dreamed that they'd be your partner.." A better title would have been "All the Powerful Jerks I Was Somehow Attracted To."
Accomplishments!?!?!
She married a sterile serial rapist, and then had to fuck the ugliest guy at the Rose law firm to conceive a child.
I wonder why she had to fuck the ugliest guy?? Yes, it's rhetorical.
...as fundamentally unearned, some sick lagniappe benefit of having ... publicly hurt and humiliated Bill Clinton's accusers.
And who granted her that pension plan of power and wealth? People like Traister.
On Little his St James Island excursions, Lagniappe probably means an extra 12 year old child thrown in for free. That explains why Sweet Old Bill seems unprepared. He has been too busy enjoying himself.
But because Mueller and Comey are no longer running the Federal Bureau of Hoax Investigations and Evidence Destruction, Bill and Hill will soon enjoy justice.
“Hillary Clinton lost the support of many feminists who’d adored her when she decided to stand by her man.”
What’s wrong with this picture? Let’s fix it: “[After she lost the election and the Clintons were no longer useful,] Hillary Clinton lost the support of many feminists who’d adored her when she decided to stand by her man.
Continual exposure to NY leftist mediaswine on the Althouse Blog is forcing me to consider the possibly that they are amoral and stupid rather than amoral and evil. They may really believe the crap they write.
"Hillary Clinton’s pathbreaking achievements"
What Rick and Mike said.
Even when progs stop covering for the Clintons, they are still covering for the Clintons.
Even their honesty is situational: they must genuflect before #MeToo just a bit, but they cannot go too far, since it would throw a generation of Dems under the bus and expose the fact that "feminists" never believed their own BS. On the other hand, shoving Hill and Bill aside clears a path for the left to take over the Dem party for real.
Much as I enjoyed November 2016, we may come to regret Hill's loss as the trigger for the real Leftward Lurch.
Louisiana Lagniappe is the best high end restaurant in Destin, Florida, if you can get in.
It remains an article of faith in the Arab world that "that woman, Ms. Lewinsky" was placed in that position by Mossad to act as a honeypot.
While I consider that to be false, it does point out the danger into which the President placed himself and the security of this nation. Blackmail is a real thing, and this President was willing to lie under oath about what happened.
She who must not be blamed.
Hill's "some little woman" comment was the real tell way back.
So much for the sisterhood. It was all about her and them.
The deplorables could go f** themselves. Instead, when we had the chance, we voted for Trump, reluctantly but gleefully.
Blogger Ann Althouse said...
I'm standing up for the women who didn't use a man (or try to use a man) to get somewhere in life.
That was actually the message I learned at Wellesley in the late sixties.
Hillary! the grifter apparently heard something else: stand by by your cheating sexually harassing husband because without a man you are nothing.
I liked "Fleshly lever of power"
Brennen and Clapper belong in jail.
"Ann Althouse said...
I'm standing up for the women who didn't use a man (or try to use a man) to get somewhere in life. All of us who believed we should make it on our own and no one should be giving me a special boost (especially for reasons that have nothing to do with the substance of my career) and we didn't get so far."
I'll believe this when you start criticizing preferential hiring, or admittance, or whatever, for women.
Or were you one?
A friend once told me :
"Its who you know
And who you blow..."
I think Monica was wrong to flash her panties at the President the first time she met him. I think Clinton was wrong to take the bait. I think Stormy Daniels is wrong to work in the porn industry. I think Trump was wrong to cheat on his wife with a pornstar......With sufficient time and effort, I could delineate all the many gradations of culpability and hypocrisy these men and women exhibited in their dealings with each other and that we ourselves exhibit in judging them. I suppose someone here is guiltier or more hypocritical than the other parties.......I have a feeling that this dispute will not be resolved in my lifetime, and I don't hold out much hope for the judgment of history. Did Cleopatra ensnare Caesar and Anthony n her snares or did they use that poor woman to further their own ambitions........One thing is certain: Clarence Thomas is a far worse sexual offender than Bill Clinton, Donald Trump or Harvey Weinstein. At any rate, he received far more condemnation for his alleged misconduct.
Hillary Clinton lost the support of many feminists who’d adored her when she decided to stand by her man.”
I remember talking about this way back when with friend who are more liberal than me. Like c1998- 2000 at the end of his presidency.
I told them she’s never going to divorce him. Then said let me modify that. She might divorce him when she’s 70. (I thought she’d run for pres sooner, reflecting, but 9/11) I told them she’d never divorce him because there’s no cache being the ex-wife of an ex-president and she’d probably lose her Secret Service protection.
Here we are. It was all about the power, access and money.
"That's a choice, and the choice was only there for her to make because she had gotten famous for having sexual relations with that man, Mr. Clinton."
I see what you did there! Bravo!
I think that bit about how Hillary! lost the support of feminists is complete horseshit, and if the author really believes that, then she is a moron.
Clinton's replies say nothing about "men," they are Clinton's, only.
From there, it was just a short leap to view Hillary Clinton’s pathbreaking achievements — as the first woman elected to the Senate from New York, and later as the first American woman to become a major-party nominee for the presidency — as fundamentally unearned, some sick lagniappe benefit of having been publicly hurt and humiliated.'"
Republicans were saying that from the beginning of the end. 20 years now or more. But we’re the haters and know nothing. Or jealous. It took a generation to get it thru her thick skull. Or admit it. Women shouldn’t be allowed to vote.
Well, I read the entire essay by Ms. Traister, and she expresses some pretty harsh opinions about Bill Clinton and his historical record of mistreating women. Well done!
Hmmm. But maybe, I need to re-read the essay, because I noted a glaring omission. No mention of a particular woman, with a name, that name being JUANITA BROADDRICK.
Ms. BROADDRICK has alleged that in 1978 Bill Clinton (Attorney General of Ark) raped her in a hotel room. They were supposed to talk about her becoming a campaign volunteer at a hotel coffee shop, but the Young aspiring Governor insisted on meeting in her hotel room.
There is a witness, NORMA ROGERS, an employee of Ms. BROADDRICK who immediately went to Ms. BROADDRICK hotel right after the RAPE, and who corroborates the significant feature of the allegation -- that Clinton violently bit BROADDRICK's lip, and suggested she get some "ice for it":
Here's the statement of Ms. Rogers:
I went back to the room and I can’t remember if it was because she didn’t come down to the meeting because I expected her to have a short meeting and then come to the meeting. And so I went back up to the room and when I went back into the room and she was just very, very upset. She was crying.
And the thing I think I remember most is that her mouth was all swollen up. It was cut. And she just told me. She started then telling me the story of how he had just basically overtaken her and bit her lip in order to keep her quiet and to keep her from trying to leave or get away from him. And then she proceeded to tell me that he had pushed her onto the bed, and had raped her.
Her pantyhose were all ripped. And she was just in a terrible state. Crying and just, she began telling me, you know, what had happened.
So, one would think this evidence would be sufficient to support a RAPE charge by Mr. Clinton, and, if not a criminal charge, a public discussion under the rubric of #MeToo.
I don't know what the statute of limitations is for RAPE in Arkansas. Maybe, there is some Title IX violation for violating a woman's civil rights by RAPING her with a more extended statue of limitations.
On his recent book tour, Bill Clinton has been interviewed/written about, by 3 people:
Craig Melvin (NBC news)
Stephen Colbert (The Late Show)
Rebecca Traister (New York Magazine)
Funny, none of these 3 seem to want to mention the name, JUANITA BROADDRICK.
They seem to shy away from it. Gee, I wonder why that is? I am confused. Don't we want to stop powerful men from abusing women and getting away with it?
Odd how they are always unaccountable:
http://realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2018/06/07/carter_page_russian_spy__or_fbi_honor_scout.html
@Curious George, Wikipedia says Althouse graduated first in her class at the New York University School of Law. I don't know where it ranked in 1981, but in 2018 NYU Law is ranked sixth in the nation, and first in certain specialties.
The Professor has a good point. Women come in two types: Givers and takers. Men also come in two types: givers and takers. The old way was for men to be givers and women takers. But that seldom worked out because the men became takers. The women then decided to keep what they could take, but ran into social rules against their being earners rather than dependent wives and mothers.
Feminist equality just lets both genders be all they they can be. And we are all the better off for it.
Blogger Wilbur said...It remains an article of faith in the Arab world that "that woman, Ms. Lewinsky" was placed in that position by Mossad to act as a honeypot.
--
Ah. A friend's wife, a lefty academic (redundant, I know) who hails from Barcelona called the Lewinski bit "a setup". She spewed so much crap, that comment slipped by and I never asked what she meant by that.
Ann Althouse said...
I'm standing up for the women who didn't use a man (or try to use a man) to get somewhere in life. All of us who believed we should make it on our own and no one should be giving me a special boost (especially for reasons that have nothing to do with the substance of my career) and we didn't get so far.
The first part is admirable, but this last I think is the source of much of feminist anger and gender conflict. You have gotten far and I find it surprising you don't think so. But people often compare themselves only to those who have achieved more. It's very hard to appreciate the number of people shooting for the same handful of apex positions. Success cannot be defined as reaching these positions because by that measure effectively everyone fails.
I'm standing up for the women who didn't use a man (or try to use a man) to get somewhere in life.
@Althouse, is there a way to search old posts of yours without linking on an existing tag? Because from where I sit you could be describing Sarah Palin, who not only rose from working class roots (her husband was a commercial fishman) to becoming governor of her state, but had to fight the corruption in her own party to get there. But I cannot recollect a decade later whether you admired her for doing what she did to get to where she got, or whether you dismissed her for not aborting a Downs child.
@Rick, I think the point Althouse is trying to make is comparing women who competed head to head with men to get raises and promotions and choice assignments, versus women who got the corner office on their back with their legs spread. Althouse retired from Wisconsin holding an endowed chair in their law school, that's pretty darned good. I don't think she's whining about not doing better.
Hillary Clinton lost the support of many feminists who’d adored her when she decided to stand by her man.”
Is Traister 12?
No. She was born in 1975. She was 20 years old in the Clinton administration. How does someone supplant their own memories like this? It's like Philip K. Dick is her co-author.
The winner in all of this?
Ted Kennedy.
By being dead before all of this started happening.
-LWL
Char Char Binks said...
Win Feckly
Be Feck!
Anyone who watched the 60 Minutes Clintonfest in 1990 knew then he was at least a horn dog and she turned a blind eye. And voted for him anyway.
And then voted for her in 2008 and 2016 and still didn’t care and was willing to put him back there.
The Party knew they had a stinker after the Col Holmes letter & Flowers, but they sucked it up at the convention and cheered enough to get Perot to withdraw.
Stop trying to make feck happen.
A wicked irony: baby steps.
She was born in 1975. She was 20 years old in the Clinton administration. How does someone supplant their own memories like this? It's like Philip K. Dick is her co-author.
The difference between her assertion and the public reality reflects the difference between public and private support. Many feminists did reduce their support of both Clintons but the overwhelming majority still supported them publicly or at least refused to make their criticisms public. Traister is hiding this by ignoring the distinction and focusing on in-group settings as if only they occurred. She hopes this rehabilitates them - see they aren't hypocrites!
But the takeaway from this is that those feminists who split their support this way knew exactly what they were doing (since they were admitting privately Clinton's critics were right even as they publicly refused to say so) which made their choice even more reprehensible and their hypocrisy even more profound.
The question is why after so many trimesters, have the "feminists" Chosen to deem Clinton unworthy and nonviable, and seek his political, social, and fiscal abortion?
Has he become a liability and burden to the National Democrats? #HimToo
If Trump had enjoyed the same “lack of support” that feminists gave Bill Clinton, he would have won 49 states.
Being parachuted into a safe Senate seat after party bosses clear out any credible primary challengers during your husband's presidency is neither a "pathbreaking achievement" nor a "sick lagniappe benefit of having been publicly hurt and humiliated". It's simple, ordinary, nepotistic political patronage.
It is, in fact, the exact same sort of nepotistic advantage as being hired at the state's most prestigious law firm after your husband takes office as Attorney General of the state.
The only jobs Hillary Dianne Rodham ever got without a nepotistic advantage were 1) staff attorney for the newly-founded Children's Defense Fund; 2) member of the House impeachment inquiry staff during the Nixon presidency; 3) faculty member of the second-tier School of Law at the University of Arkansas, Fayetteville; 4) an Indiana state campaign organizer for the presidential campaign of Jimmy Carter.
And for all her claims she sacrificed her own potentially-brilliant career for love, the fact is that she didn't follow Bill to Arkansas until after she failed the DC bar exam. If she hadn't followed and married Bill Clinton, no one would have ever heard of Hillary Dianne Rodham.
"No. She was born in 1975. She was 20 years old in the Clinton administration. How does someone supplant their own memories like this? It's like Philip K. Dick is her co-author."
A lot of 20 year olds do not pay attention to news. By the time she was 20, the Clinton scandals would have been in the news for how many years? 7 maybe? Many people have already tuned out Trump scandals, and it's been less then 2 years.
It's asking a lot to expect a teenager to pay attention to 7 plus years of scandals.
She could be thinking of articles or interviews produced when she was 30 or 35. She may remember more news from the aughts then the early 90s. Early 90s -- before Facebook, twitter, internet, e-mail. 45 year olds are a much more attuned to news. Retired people watch news all the time and can recount detailed events.
What the 1980s or 1990s meant to someone in their 30s or 40s impacts differently for a child 0-10 years or 7-17 or 12-20.
The older we get, the slower time feels. Some people get stuck in a decade & never leave.
Big Mike said...
@Rick, I think the point Althouse is trying to make is comparing women [who make it on their own vs with help from a man's position].
Presuming this is right how could this be known? We don't know the relative populations nor do we know the success rates. At most we see the few high profile people and judge without reference to the population sizes. But there is no reason to believe the success rates in apex positions would be similar to success rates in normal venues.
Hillary lacked the luck of Hattie Wyatt Caraway, first woman elected to the U.S. Senate. Her husband had the grace to die.
“I'll believe this when you start criticizing preferential hiring, or admittance, or whatever, for women.
Or were you one?”
The dumb monkey George could only hope to be as successful as Althouse. And not because he is a male, but because he is stupid.
Can we still not say that it was wrong (morally and ethically) for Lewinsky to knowingly engage in a sexual relationship with her married boss (a man she knew to be married) at their shared place of business?
Clinton should be criticized and is at fault. He was the boss and should bear the majority of the blame in terms of workplace rule violation, etc. He should be criticized as his knowing intentional actions were wrong and probably illegal (using government resources to get material favors for his subordinate in return for their sexual relationship and/or to keep her quiet, then perjuring himself, etc).
But can we not also say what Lewinsky did was WRONG? Or is that slut shaming, still? He was MARRIED. I know he was married to Hillary Clinton, but still.
@Rick, it isn’t all that hard, but it is important to draw a distinction between a woman who has been mentored by a man, and a woman who does not put in much effort but seems to fail upwards because of marriage to a wealthy and powerful man or a sexual relationship with a wealthy and powerful man.
Back before I retired I enjoyed mentoring talented young staff, and that was as likely to include talented female staff. Two women who worked for me (actually one worked with me) went on to win the corporation’s highest engineering honor, and the one who worked with me, a dark-skinned woman of Indian descent, later told a friend that she owed “everything” to me — an obvious lie because she owed her honors to her own talent and willingness to work hard, and I merely advised her how to get onto high visibility projects where her skills would be manifest to anyone who cared to look. This wasn’t totally altruistic on my part; developing a reputation for showcasing and mentoring talented women and minorities attracted talented women and minorities to my projects, which increased the likelihood of success.
But there were plenty of women I worked with and for who had little discernible talent except a knack for screwing up assignments and a seeming ability to fasten fault elsewhere. After thstvthe question was who is there patron — patron, not mentor — and sooner or later one would see her simpering over a senior man, leaving work with him or taking a long lunch break at the same time as he took an abnormally long lunch break.
No, Rick, it isn’t hard to tell the two groups apart.
Ann - you're full on delusional if you think any women got ahead without ever relying on a man. Unless you're talking about the gender studies department, men are in control everywhere else.
@Lyle Smith:People in Louisiana say Lan Yap, not lanny yap.
I'm sure they do now, but Twain wrote in the 1880s and didn't have a time machine--and for all you know HE pronounced "lanny yap" as "lan yap".
Big Mike - I think a major reason James Damore was slammed was he was suggesting that talented men should mentor women in coding and that's something the feminists can't abide. Somehow magically women will become talented coders all on their own despite the fact that 90% of the field are men. F.e., websites like Stack Exchange or Github is mostly male driven. If you're female you will encounter the need to ask questions or get feedback from other coders(most likely men). But this situation is intolerable to feminists so they need to destroy the James Damores of the world out of spite.
Fast forward to 2030 and women coders have increased by 5%. Thanks feminism.
The title of Hitchens' book on Clinton -- "no one left to lie to" -- is no longer accurate. He has a whole new generation to lie to.
"Hillary Clinton lost the support of many feminists who’d adored her when she decided to stand by her man."
Seems to me that we need a semicolon after feminists. Otherwise, somewhat unlikely, they would be adoring her for standing by her man. Although Tammy Wynette would be proud.
"Inga said...
“I'll believe this when you start criticizing preferential hiring, or admittance, or whatever, for women.
Or were you one?”
The dumb monkey George could only hope to be as successful as Althouse. And not because he is a male, but because he is stupid"
Quite happy with my career and success, but of course my comment had nothing to do with one's level of success, but how one achieved it. You are so fucking stupid you can't follow a simple thought. Once again solidifying your role as Althouse's resident dullard.
I'm standing up for the women who didn't use a man (or try to use a man) to get somewhere in life. All of us who believed we should make it on our own and no one should be giving me a special boost (especially for reasons that have nothing to do with the substance of my career) and we didn't get so far.
The biggest beneficiary of Affirmative Action has been the White, educated woman.
"lagniappe benefit" is redundant. Where are all the editors today?
No, Rick, it isn’t hard to tell the two groups apart.
You're referring to the tiny number of people you know personally and well. That process can't be replicated to identify the split in populations like "American women of working age".
Seems to me that a lot of men get ahead with the help of women. My husband, who is in hospital IT, has had some really great women bosses/mentors over the years. Mostly, as an attorney, I've been mentored by males. I haven't had an affair of any kind with anyone and neither has he. Mostly, we concentrate on you know "working" because if we didn't our careers would be over. Most women and men we know do the same thing.
Someday the left will bury Clinton and celebrate him. I wish he's actually face consequences. But he's on the correct team to not have to worry about any.
The problem here is that "for generations".
This thing is a natural state of affairs. A less-than-ideal animal aspect of human behavior, but built into the hardware. Its deceptive to say "for generations" - it goes back to the pre-human, and the pre-pre-human. And the tailless apes no doubt got it from their own lemur-like ancestors.
I wonder if Inga would follow in Nina Burleigh's footsteps.
BJC better hope that she uses extra Polident tin those dentures. Ouch!
Post a Comment