As Democrats search for their identity in the Trump era, one aspect has become strikingly clear: Mr. Clinton is not part of it. Just days before the midterm elections, Mr. Clinton finds himself in a kind of political purgatory, unable to overcome past personal and policy choices now considered anathema within the rising liberal wing of his party...."Inability to reckon with his sexual indiscretions"? Does the NYT use the phrase "sexual indiscretions" when writing about other celebrities who've been accused of rape and sexual harassment? "Sexual indiscretions" is very pre-MeToo.
In an election shaped by the #MeToo movement, where female candidates and voters are likely to drive any Democratic gains, Mr. Clinton finds his legacy tarnished by what some in the party see as his inability to reckon with his sexual indiscretions as president with a White House intern, Monica Lewinsky, as well as with past allegations of sexual assault.
Rebecca Kirszner Katz, a veteran Democratic strategist, says... “It was an abuse of power that shouldn’t have happened and if the Clintons can’t accept that fact 20 years later, it’s hard to see how they can be part of the future of the Democratic Party”....What's mystifying? Unless you can articulate a better response, you shouldn't be mystified at what Bill and Hillary came up with. It's not mystifying. It's infuriating. But go ahead. Say you're "mystified," because you who have consorted with Bill Clinton for the last quarter century have no good response for why you stood with him so long.
Few Democrats were eager to talk publicly about Mr. Clinton’s future role in the party. Though they’re reluctant to say it out loud, Mr. Clinton’s political exile is an open secret in Democratic circles....
[M]any Democrats are mystified by what seems like the Clintons’ inability to respond to questions about Mr. Clinton’s past that are inevitable in the #MeToo era.
Efforts to promote a thriller novel he wrote with author James Patterson were overshadowed after the former president said he would not handle the Monica Lewinsky scandal any differently today. Earlier this month, Mrs. Clinton said in a television interview that her husband’s affair was not an abuse of power because Ms. Lewinsky was “an adult.”...
But "mystified," like "sexual indiscretions," is the NYT's word — the NYT's mystification.
IN THE COMMENTS: Lyssa said:
IMO, anyone who ignored their principles to give him a pass when he was still trendy should be named and shamed as well, including Ms. Clinton and quite a few folks at the Times.Meade said:
#your indiscretions are rapey rapes while my indiscretions are merely peccadilloes.
Posts
120 comments:
People of low character, both the Clintons and that caste that supplies the management and staff of the NYT.
Bill Clinton isn't wanted because of his association with Hillary, not because of his sexual activities.
Rape, assault, etc. is a crime. The other stuff isn't.
Hey hot stuff is dealt with in traditional ways very nicely.
If Monica Lewinsky ultimately kept Hillary Clinton from being President, I hereby nominate her for sainthood.
There's a #MeToo perception gap here. It's whining plus the HR department at the moment.
IMO, anyone who ignored their principles to give him a pass when he was still trendy should be named and shamed as well, including Ms. Clinton and quite a few folks at the Times.
To a guy, what happens becomes the deal. You don't go back and break the deal. #MeToo is the opposite, a woman's idea of a deal. No honor.
Oh how the mighty have fallen.
Back in the glory days he was The Rock Star of the Democrat party. He could do no wrong. He bested those curmudgeonly GOPers who dared to impeach him. He made 'em all look like out of touch fools. "Nobody cares if a president gets a BJ from an intern in the Oval Office! In fact, it's actually cool!" we were told. The right was ceaselessly mocked for it's stuffy and out of date morals.
He could out fund raise anybody by miles! Suckers were lining up to throw vast sums of money at him through his "charity". He was just the coolest ever.
""Sexual indiscretions" is very pre-MeToo."
-- It is also post #MeToo. Like, see, Kevin Ellison has unverified claims against him; Kavanaugh is a gang rapist. Bill Cosby is a serial rapist; Bill Clinton had sexual indiscretions. The more useful one is to other narratives the political part of the #MeToo movement likes, the better odds you are to not have to believe all women in a certain case.
"Suckers were lining up to throw vast sums of money at him through his "charity"."
-- Pun: Intended or not?
The importance of immediate reporting is not that it's believable but that it prevents it from becoming a done deal. It's still honorable to complain about it for a short time.
Don't worry Bill and Hillary, you'll always have #IngaKnew.
#your indiscretions are rapey rapes while my indiscretions are merely peccadilloes.
“It was an abuse of power that shouldn’t have happened and if the Clintons can’t accept that fact 20 years later, it’s hard to see how they can be part of the future of the Democratic Party”
Was Ms. Katz a Democrat party member and/or operative back then? You know, when all the Democrats were excusing Clinton's "indiscretions" as just sex. Some were even offering oral sex in return for his policy position on abortion and Roe v Wade.
My how times have changed. No wonder Bubba is confused by this.
I do think it is important to separate the political #MeToo from the legitimate anti-rape #MeToo.
#BelieveAllClintons
If you're overpowered and complain promptly, it's seen as not a deal. You were overpowered. That's not fair.
After a few years, the suspicion is that you got your share from it. The job, or the part, or the being-seen-hanging-on-his-arm status. It's a deal.
now considered anathema within the rising liberal wing of his party....
Rising liberal wing? Where has this writer been for the last ten years? The liberal wing of the Democratic Party has been completely suppressed in favor of the Socialists/Progressives.
You don't need a rape #MeToo. That's just a criminal matter.
Report it quickly though, ut supra.
Alas, poor Lothario! I knew him, a fellow of infinite jest, of most excellent fancy.
Matthew said, "I do think it is important to separate the political #MeToo from the legitimate anti-rape #MeToo."
Separation is impossible where differentiation doesn't exist.
Telling crimes from non-crimes is not a modern social skill.
"That's just a criminal matter."
-- I mean, yes and no. I don't mind people wanting to advocate for more visibility and awareness of sexual crimes, specifically those that are done by people in power. But, the problem is this rather simple, unobjectionable position (Rape is Bad) got morphed into the #MeToo movement that turned it into a standard "Republicans bad, Democrats good" political mantra.
The phrase that caught my eye was this:
in a kind of political purgatory,
What just a political purgatory?
And why just purgatory?
In the late 90s, the entire NY Times editorial page was dedicated to excusing Clinton's "indiscretions."
rhhardin said...
To a guy, what happens becomes the deal. You don't go back and break the deal. #MeToo is the opposite, a woman's idea of a deal. No honor.
One has needs.
One has responsibilities.
Needs change over time.
A lot faster than responsibilities.
"Inability to reckon with the blow jobs he got in the Oval Office from an intern not too much older than his own daughter." TIFI.
Who was more of a party outcast - Trump in 2015 or Bill Clinton today? They're going to show the party hacks that they can take a million a day out of the rubes on this speaking tour, and they will bring the hacks to heel.
They, the lefties, had no problem labeling the alleged "sexual indiscretions" of Kavanaugh as assault and attempted rape.
Bill appears to be predator, but he identifies as indiscreet.
SNL on Bill
Kinda weird how SNL is so hostile to Trump yet so hillbilly funny haha with ole' Bill.
as well as with past allegations of sexual assault.
Is there something in the Times style guide that precludes them from typing the name “Juanita Broaddrick”? She may yet get a measure of revenge, though it’s clear that she will never get a measure of justice.
Separate and apart from his mixed moral calculus (which make him one of us), this is crazy, because he is the only (and I mean ONLY) Dem who when he opens his mouth does not immediately sound as though he's lecturing us.
Fake rape is worse than real rape# because D.
Bill is also a white male...which is problematic in itself.
Indiscretions:
I exclaimed, "What are you doing?" and escaped from Mr. Clinton's reach by walking away from him. I was extremely upset and confused and I did not know what to do. I tried to distract Mr. Clinton by asking him about his wife and her activities, and I sat down at the end of the sofa nearest the door. Mr. Clinton then walked over to the sofa, lowered his trousers and underwear, exposed his penis (which was erect) and told me to "kiss it."
Hillary A_OK to help out Menendez in New Jersey.
ick - what a pile of hot garbage.
wow - try searching for the SNL episode where Darrell Hammond plays Bill and he says "I. AM. Bullet. Proof."
vanished.
"She may yet get a measure of revenge, though it’s clear that she will never get a measure of justice."
-- President Trump instead of President Hillary Clinton may be the closest she gets to either, which... well, who knows how she feels about that.
Which Clinton does Meade have in mind with his sly allusion to a peck of dildoes?
When will Hillary be indicted and prosecuted for mishandling classified information?
She set up a private server to hide her personal enrichment schemes while head of the State Dept.
When?
Why are the Clintons above the law?
kiss it
That's just a clumsy approach.
Saying "Grab em' by the pussy", in a long forgotten dust covered interview, 10 years prior to being a politician, is much worse than actual rape, credible allegations of sexual assault, sex with an intern in the oval office, and paying Paula Jones 850,000 in a settlement.
If feminists were real, they would be out in full force protesting outside during the Clinton rehabilitation tour.
kiss it
Bill was approaching her like a philosopher approaching truth.
Bill didn't deal with her needs. Or most likely assumed they included an affair with the head guy in chief, when they didn't.
This is why more interest in whatever her thing is is necessary, before the ultimate matter is broached.
That's the same mistake that philosophers make with truth.
Does the NYT use the phrase "sexual indiscretions" when writing about other celebrities who've been accused of rape and sexual harassment?
In their article from October 25 about Google supposedly "protecting" Andy Rubin and other executives, the NYT repeated the term "sexual misconduct" several times. But those guys are creepy tech geek Democrats, not (formerly) handsome, charismatic celebrity Democrats, so it's okay for the Times to throw them off the train (pun very much intended).
Truth moves to the other end of the sofa. That's the first clue.
Mr. Clinton finds his legacy tarnished by what some in the party see as his inability to reckon with his sexual indiscretions as president with a White House intern, Monica Lewinsky, as well as with past allegations of sexual assault.
Before Bill Clinton became the Governor of Arkansas, he enjoyed extraordinary sexual success with many women.
After he became the Governor, he continued his promiscuity with the help of several Arkansas state troopers. His use of the state troopers for that purpose was an abuse of his power as state governor.
After he became the US President, that previous abuse of power was revealed in an article titled His Cheatin' Heart, written by David Brock and published by the American Spectator in December 1993.
Clinton's sexual promiscuity was a political problem, but his many sexual encounters seem to be mostly consensual or at least tolerated by the women. Clinton's use of the Arkansas state troopers was a separate, perhaps more important political problem following the publication of Brock's article.
Also, Clinton seems to have become generally more aggressive and reckless in his sexual approaches to women while he was the Arkansas Governor. During that period, he acted within a situation that combined his state power, personal lust, social tolerance of sexual promiscuity and probably sexless marriage.
"'kiss it'
That's just a clumsy approach."
He took it out
Future feminists will look upon the Clintons and the Kennedys, the way civil rights activists now look upon Woodrow Wilson. It takes about one to two hundred years to come to terms with reality......I wonder how long before Jews and Asians look askance at FDR's response to Jewish refugees prior to WWII or to the Japanese internment program during the war.
The Democrats who defended Bill Clinton while he was President believed that his sexual promiscuity involved sexual encounters that were consensual or at least tolerated by the women.
Clinton's affair with Monica Lewinsky certainly was consensual.
Although Paula Jones declared that she did not consent or tolerate Clinton's sexual approach toward her while he was Governor, she simply was not believed on that point by Clinton's defenders. They thought that she was lying, that she gladly gave him a blow job -- as so many other women had done.
Well, they didn't listen to him in 2016, and lost, so why should anyone listen to him now?
[M]any Democrats are mystified by what seems like the Clintons’ inability to respond to questions about Mr. Clinton’s past that are inevitable in the #MeToo era.
This sounds like the NY Times writer signalling frustration with a tactic that is hurting the Left. "Just do a mea culpa and we'll declare the issue over!"
I don't understand Althouse here. The NYT writer used indiscretion and sexual assault in the same sentence. Mystifying take. But more like infuriating how she panders to her commenters. I write as someone who agreed with Hitchens from the outset about Clinton. Remarkable how he turned things around in '12 though.
The thing about calling them "indiscretions" is it suggests (to me anyway) Clinton's problem was simply that he wasn't discreet enough.
By the way, for all the lock her up crowd. Mrs Clinton left office early 2013. Most federal crimes have statute of limitations 5 years or shorter. Do the math.
I have noticed a new term used to shut down a discussion. When accusing the other side of racism, is even too off topic for a subject, something new was needed.
Enter, 'whataboutism'
So when I get lectured about President Trump being accused (not proven) of sexual misdeeds, and I tell the person, "I refuse to engage any Democrat in such a discussion after decades of the left supporting Clinton, and Lionizing Kennedy". The most recent response is now, "dont deflect from President Trumps vile ways by using whataboutism".
The off the charts double standard by the left is almost impossible to define anymore in a cogent way.
The NYT framing of this issue does a beautiful job at illustrating their inherent bias.
This is >20 years old and it's only because of things like "#MeToo" and a "rising liberal wing" that Clinton has entered "political purgatory"
In other words, they still don't frame it that he DID ANYTHING WRONG or that over the past 20 years they (the NYT) have supported him actively. There's nothing wrong about that, per the NYT. It's only that tastes they changed and thus Clinton needs to be put behind them.
It's quite possibly the most open and honest NYT news article I've read in recent times - when you read between the lines, they so transparently push party over principle it's both gagging and and fascinating
Joe
Pun intended.
That's just a clumsy approach.
Agreed. A more sophisticated assault would have involved biting her lip in order to immobilize her, as with Juanita Broaddrick.
Mike Sylwester, you're making excuses for Clinton, and his enabler wife. At the time of the assaults, Clinton was the person of ultimate power. Atty General of Arkansas, the Govenor of Arkansas, then President of the United States. During his Arkansas time, late 70's and 80's corporate HR Depts were kicking off the sexual harassment training sessions. Built on the feminist premise that sex was about power, not sex. A man in power could never have sex with a subordinate, because free will consent was impossible with a man of power. That was always the part of the defense that caused me migraines, when the left claimed in one breath. 'its just sex, get out of adults bedrooms, you hillbilly prudes, get with it, grow some sophistication. And the next breath, tell me that sex is about power, and according to experts, even sex inside marriage is rape.
Remember, these are the standards demanded by the Democrats on the left. Unless you're the Democrat President, that's different because, shutup.
@Big Mike,
Is there something in the Times style guide that precludes them from typing the name “Juanita Broaddrick"
Heh! NYT digs deep into Bill Clinton's "sexual peccadilloes" - by refusing to mentioned the woman peccadilloed against.
This is one of the problems with people in politics and the media never leaving the scene anymore.
Walter Cronkite left the CBS Evening News in 1981 at 65 years old.
Dan Rather was 74 were he was booted off.
Chris Matthews is 72 and still on the air.
Lawrence O'Donnell is 67 and still on the air.
Nancy Pelosi is 78.
Elizabeth Warren in 69.
ALL OF THESE PEOPLE, and a bunch of Republicans/conservatives, should be off the public stage so a younger generation not tainted by the same stupid fights and mistakes can take over.
Mike
readering... Your post with reference to statute of limitations exposes beyond any doubt the sleazy amoral P.O.S. you are.
The Democrats who defended Bill Clinton while he was President believed that his sexual promiscuity involved sexual encounters that were consensual or at least tolerated by the women.
Sorry. No.
They defended him because he shared their politics.
Nothing more.
iowan2 at 12:46 PM
... you're making excuses for Clinton ... During his Arkansas time, late 70's and 80's corporate HR Depts were kicking off the sexual harassment training sessions. Built on the feminist premise that sex was about power, not sex. A man in power could never have sex with a subordinate ... these are the standards demanded by the Democrats on the left. ...
I'm explaining how Clinton was justified by his defenders during his Presidency.
His affair with Lewinsky was justified as being consensual.
The accusations about his Governor years were disputed as being lies. In particular, Paula Jones was lying.
There was "a vast right-wing conspiracy" to remove Bill Clinton, the elected US President, by concocting lies about him.
That is how the situation was perceived by his defenders, such as his wife Hillary.
For decades they knew and denied... Democrats are building walls and tearing down bridges in order to promote political congruence and mitigate collateral damage.
Well he has three strikes against him:
1) His politics aren't "in" right now in the Democratic Party
2) His wife's electoral baggage
3) His sexual baggage
Jim at 1:29 PM
Sorry. No. They defended him because he shared their politics. Nothing more.
Bill Clinton's sexual promiscuity began by the mid-1970s, before he became an elected official. People who lived through that period understood that a charming guy like him had enjoyed plenty of consensual sex.
They did not perceive that he ever coerced women into sexual activities with himself.
Democrats in the 1990s perceived the situation differently than the do in 2018.
You should try to understand how they perceived it then.
her husband’s affair was not an abuse of power because Ms. Lewinsky was “an adult.”
Why are we putting scare quotes around the word "adult"? Are we charging Clinton with statutory rape? Have we raised the age of consent? She was an adult.
Why are we putting scare quotes around the word "adult"?
Often "scare quotes" are simply quotes -- you know, a way of rendering exactly what someone said, in this case Hillary Clinton.
Earnest beat me to it
Mrs Clinton left office early 2013. Most federal crimes have statute of limitations 5 years or shorter. Do the math.
This assumes that she has been totally blameless since then, a very tall assumption indeed.
gahrie @ 10:50am finds the hidden nugget! Indeed that phrase belongs in Althouse's closing catalog with "mystified" and "indiscretions".
They refused to believe what the needs of power forbid them to believe. The rest is rationalization. Nietzsche covered this pretty well.
Their over the top attack on Kavanaugh may have broken through their partisan blindness. But the New York Times stands athwart the tide, printing only what they see fit to print. If you leave out large parts of the story, are you still printing "the truth"?
It's a rhetorical question.
"B.J." Clinton still provides a little usefulness--
as to the job market, etc: "It's the economy, Stupid!"
as to Illegal immigration: "Better put ICE on that"
Maybe it's not so much that Bill Clinton is damaged goods as that he just doesn't have much to offer anymore. For at his peak he was a near genius at campaigning, but now he mostly just looks old and tired; the energy is gone, and so is any reason why you might want him to campaign for you.
It's not so much a moral calculus of "how serious were his transgressions?" but just a cold calculation, that as his liabilities have come to exceed his assets, his value to anyone's campaign is negative.
I like Meade.
@Michael Sylvester.
Your recounting of Democratic thought of the time is severely lacking and one sided. I would say 'blatantly dishonest' but let's be civil here and instead call you almost cripplingly forgetful. Have you been checked for Alzheimer's?
President Bill Clinton signed into Federal Law which stated NO boss could have consensual sex with a subordinate, period!
I remember him signing it. He was surrounded by Feminists (or as I prefer to call them "Future Apologists") all slapping their flukes together in pride as he was grinning like a man who would never have that law applied to him.
Further, the names of Juanita Brodderick and Kathy Willey WERE discussed FREQUENTLY at the time...and never characterized as 'consensual'. Having State Troopers picking up women for a Governor beggars the idea of 'consent'.
Despite KNOWING about Juanita Broderick and Kathy Willey, NO ONE investigated, questioned Bill or talked to those ladies except maybe Fox News. They were not INTERESTED in finding his non-consensual allegations.
The only people they were FORCED to talk about was Monica Lewinsky and Paula Jones. No other woman was questioned or believed because THEY DID NOT WANT TO KNOW.
Willful blindness is not exculpatory. And it wasn't even blindness. It was someone forcefully closing their eyes when a picture was held up to their face.
So your assertions of 'they just didn't KNOW about Bill' is pure and unmitigated bullshit. They didn't want to know and they buried as many of his secrets as they could.
And just to put a cherry on that Sundae News Blackout, remember that Matt Drudge was an unknown blogger until he put out the Little Bit of Bill he left on that Blue Dress...a story that NBC had been sitting on and refusing to reveal until Drudge threatened to scoop them.
Suddenly, alternate media was born, revealing secrets the MSM refused to cover about Democrats...and their collective geese were cooked.
Sorry. "...Sundae (sic)…"
"People who lived through that period understood that a charming guy like him had enjoyed plenty of consensual sex."
Kathleen Willey, Paula Jones and Juanita Broderick were NEVER defined or defended as "consensual sex" by Democrats. And Clinton's "relationship" with Monica Lewinsky pretty much fits the textbook definition of a powerful man exploiting a younger woman AS DEFINED BY LIBERAL FEMINISTS.
Yes, Democrats had a different opinion of Bill Clinton's sexual shenanigans but to suggest the difference was based on any honest or honorable thinking is simply untrue.
Mike
Bill shouldn't feel bad. The new left doesn't really like anyone for long. They're political whores dropping anyone who isn't currently paying off or sending a thrill up their leg.
Bill's relative reasonableness is what they find most unseemly. I mean when was the last time Bill said something really foul, blamed America, called for violence, or threw a brick through a window. He's just not ugly enough to fit in over on the left.
If he called Kavanaugh a gang rapist he would be loved again, but that's not really an option for him.
FIDO at 3:52 PM
Your recounting of Democratic thought of the time is severely lacking and one sided. .... President Bill Clinton signed into Federal Law which stated NO boss could have consensual sex with a subordinate ... the names of Juanita Brodderick and Kathy Willey WERE discussed FREQUENTLY at the time .... your assertions of 'they just didn't KNOW about Bill' is pure and unmitigated bullshit. ...
What I have been trying to communicate in this thread is how Clinton's supporters perceived these accusation during his Presidency.
I know that you, FIDO, do not agree with that perception. I myself don't agree with that perception.
Clinton's supporters perceived that he had been sexually promiscuous but that he had not coerced women to interact sexually with him. He had not needed to do so, because plenty of women had consented to do so, especially during the 1970s.
Clinton's supporters did not believe the accusations of Paula Jones, Juanita Broderick, etc. They believed that such accusations were being concocted by "a vast right-wing conspiracy" that included American Spectator magazine.
In other words, the situation then was a mirror image of the situation now, where Donald Trump is accused of sexually assaulting women. Trump's supporters perceive that he has not had to coerce women, because he has enjoyed the voluntary sexual favors of plenty of women.
Of course, many Democrats now look back with a new perspective and regret that they did not condemn Clinton during his Presidency.
Meanwhile, many Republicans now look back and regret that they tried to impeach Clinton on account of his sexual antics.
So you are telling me that Bill made it illegal to have sex with Hillary if she was in his cabinet. The fucker was slick.
So you are telling me that Bill made it illegal to have sex with Hillary if she was in his cabinet.
No means no, even when you're married, and Hillary has always been a "no" kind of gal.
“Clinton's affair with Monica Lewinsky certainly was consensual”
I’ve been reliably informed by my social betters that a young woman in an inferior position can’t have a consensual relationship with an older powerful man. Everybody used to say that about private sector guys and republicans.
Mike Bunge at 4:00 PM
Kathleen Willey, Paula Jones and Juanita Broderick were NEVER defined or defended as "consensual sex" by Democrats. ... Yes, Democrats had a different opinion of Bill Clinton's sexual shenanigans but to suggest the difference was based on any honest or honorable thinking is simply untrue.
Well, what do we do when a woman who does not report an assault to the police?
We shrug our shoulders and go onto other concerns.
Juanita Broderick did not report to the police that she had been raped by Bill Clinton, and so his Democratic supporters shrugged their shoulders and ignored her.
Paula Jones eventually initiated a lawsuit, but she did so three years after the incident. She did so only after the American Spectator insinuated that she had served as his girlfriend.
In that situation, many Clinton supporters shrugged their shoulders and remained skeptical about her story.
------
I am not arguing that such accusations against Clinton were true or false.
Rather, I am explaining how the accusations were perceived by Clinton's supporters during his Presidency.
It's not generally true that Clinton's supporters believed that he had sexually coerced or assaulted women. Subsequently, it's not true that his supporters gave him a pass, for political reasons, for doing so.
His supporters understood that he had been sexually promiscuous in his past and that he had had a sexual affair with Monica Lewinsky. They did not approve of his doing so, but they viewed his sexual vice with perspective and proportion. Also, they were skeptical about many accusations.
In other words, they viewed Clinton's sexual vice then about the same as Trump's supporters view Trump's sexual vice now.
Saying "Grab em' by the pussy"
When the Access Hollywood tape was released, and everyone was insisting people react to it; here were my thoughts:
1) Reminds me of Brad Paisley's song "Celebrity", which came out in 2003, 2 years before the Access Hollywood recording.
2) NBC had no problem sitting on that tape when Trump was working for them.
3) There are women who will sleep with men simply because they are a celebrity; see all the women that hang around Leonardo DiCaprio, or Stormy Daniel's account of her time with Trump.
#MeToo tried to backtrack item 1 by suggesting it may have happened but it was wrong. #TimesUp tried to backtrack item 2 by suggesting not only was it wrong but now is the time for justice. But the problem still lingering is item 3. It is how some see Hillary's continued marriage to Bill.
Trump just acknowledged a truth about Hollywood. It would take over 10 years for the truth to become an open secret to be confirmed. Does anybody believe Bill's open secret will be confirmed by the left and Bill held to account?
glenn at 5:11 PM
I’ve been reliably informed by my social betters that a young woman in an inferior position can’t have a consensual relationship with an older powerful man. Everybody used to say that about private sector guys and republicans.
Sexually promiscuous people commit lots of misdeeds. They deceive, disappoint, betray and abandon many people.
And they enjoy lots of sexual variety and adventures.
For example, Bill Clinton signed an Arkansas law against sexual relationships with work subordinates but then he nevertheless had sexual relationships with work subordinates.
You can add that to the list of his many, many misdeeds that are involved in his chronic sexual promiscuity.
You can compile similar lists with John Kennedy, Donald Trump and many other sexually promiscuous people.
That's why the public generally disapproves of sexual promiscuity in politicians. Sexually promiscuous politicians are hypocrites, tend to get into trouble because of their promiscuity and embarrass their supporters.
Nevertheless, sexual promiscuity is not the public's only consideration in regard to politicians. It is only one of many considerations.
People who supported Clinton then and people who support Trump now do not approve of those politicians' sexual promiscuity, but they view the vice with perspective and proportion.
"People who supported Clinton then and people who support Trump now do not approve of those politicians' sexual promiscuity, but they view the vice with perspective and proportion."
-- I don't know if I agree with this. A lot of people today may turn a blind eye to Trump's infidelities, but the standard Republican line is: "Hey, the rules were 'it's just sex,' so, eh, guess whatever." Republicans are, as far as I can tell, trying to enforce the Clinton rule on Trump. This is why, I think, Democrats may want to reconsider the sorts of rules they allow for themselves, because eventually, Republicans are going to say: "Hot dog, let's use that rule!"
Sexually promiscuous people tend to get into trouble.
Among such trouble, they frequently put themselves into situations where accusations can be made against them credibly.
======
Suppose for the sake of argument that Paula Jones gave Governor Bill Clinton a blow job gladly.
A couple years later, however, she is identified -- well enough by people who know her -- by a national magazine as Clinton's sexual playmate. Now, however, she is engaged to me married to another man, and so she must deny the insinuation publicly.
Her denial is credible, because Clinton misused a state trooper to bring her into a hotel meeting for a private meeting -- which is what had been done with many other women.
Now, a couple years later, he is the US President, and her belated and false accusation can ruin his Presidency.
Clinton's political supporters voted for him despite his sexual promiscuity, and so they are compelled to defend him and disparage her, because they want him to remain President.
=======
Now President Trump and his supporters have to deal with similar troubles caused by his promiscuity. His supporters will not allow him to be removed from his elected Presidency because of it.
Clinton has become a burden and is deemed not viable. Karma, perhaps.
Well, what do we do when a woman who does not report an assault to the police?
We shrug our shoulders and go onto other concerns.
I have been informed by Ms. Althouse et al that this is not, in fact, the case and no shoulder shrugging is allowed if the victim has a sufficiently persuasive husband.
Sexual promiscuity including infidelity, certainly. He has not denied it. He should repent and sin no more. He should reconcile with his wife and, perhaps, his children. He should reconcile with God, or, if "secular," with the mortal gods who will abort him when he no longer serves their interests. Sexual promiscuity including involuntary and superior exploitation?
Also, Bill Clinton was impeached for PERJURY, which used to be a crime until Bill Clinton. Now everyone is allowed to lie to law enforcement...unless they are Republicans.
Michael, you are still asserting nonsense. They were tactically skeptical and you had MANY Feminists applying all kinds of social pressure and invective to shame and shut up any of the many accusers of Bill.
This is a white wash by you. They never pushed for an investigation and, once again, the press was COMPLICIT in hiding evidence of his misdeeds.
So Mythbusters has proven that you can polish a turd, but at the end of the day, it is still a turd no matter how shiny.
Feminists continue to have zero moral credibility because of Bill Clinton and now Keith Ellison. Rape and domestic abuse do not have statutes of limitations.
Meanwhile the Democratic law enforcement and Democratic DAs office refuses to do their job re Ellison...and zero Feminists seem to be calling for any change in that matter.
Ditto Menendez. ESPECIALLY Menendez.
So, yes Mike, according to their morality then and certainly based on their morality now, they are total hypocrites and you asserting otherwise is apologetics.
Forcible rape, Michael, look at the evidence.
Clinton's supporters steadfastly refused to look at the evidence provided by five contemporaneous witnesses under threat of prison for lying to federal investigators. The New York Times protects their delicate ears, I guess. Any other man would have gone to prison.
but they view the vice with perspective and proportion.
He was fucking an intern with a cigar in the Oval Office while doing official business!
None of this "movement" was about women seeking out jobs in order to get "presidential kneepads."
Clinton's a drag because all he did was implement the Republicon agenda: DOMA, DADT, NAFTA, Glass-Steagall Repeal, crime bill, welfare reform, blah blah blah.
Republicrazies gave SCOTUS nominee blackout Brett a total pass on being an aggressive, belligerent, lying blackout drunk. So Clinton gets a pass also.
But no, we don't want the right-wing corporatist Democrat who got Trump into politics and ushered in the Republicon agenda to campaign with us. He's just not what we're about.
The idea that the groping Trump defenders think they can "call out" Clinton on questionable sexual ethics just goes to show how deluded they are and how big a shark they've jumped.
We definitely should let Mr "The accusation is the conviction" rule over us. I am sure that it will turn out great!
"Rather, I am explaining how the accusations were perceived by Clinton's supporters during his Presidency."
Bill Clinton was invited to speak and received standing ovations and adoring media coverage at every single Democrat National Convention since leaving office, up to an including 2016. So, the suggestion that we're discussing how Bill Clinton's supporters perceived things during his Presidency is flatly untrue.
"It's not generally true that Clinton's supporters believed that he had sexually coerced or assaulted women."
That is true but the question is, what was their basis for making that judgment? Did they carefully consider all the available evidence and come to a completely rational decision? Or did they simply choose to believe the most convenient explanation for their purposes?
Try this example: Bill Clinton lied about Monica Lewinsky for a very long time. Despite what some might like to claim now, a great many Democrats believed those lies and publicly said so. When the truth finally came out...how did those Democrats behave? Did they act like people upset over being lied to? Did they treat Bill Clinton like someone who lied to them and made them look foolish? Or did they baldly decide that both lying and sexual misbehavior no longer mattered?
Mike
Notice how they focus on Monica.
They still don't want to deal with Juanita, Kathleen, and Paula.
Which means they still have not confronted the problem.
Clinton's supporters did not believe the accusations of Paula Jones, Juanita Broderick, etc. They believed that such accusations were being concocted by "a vast right-wing conspiracy"
Not exactly my friend. Look up the "one free grope" theory put forth by Gloria Steinem, noted feminist and defender of (liberal) women.
LOL peepee- a quarter of Bill's sexual deviancy - (deviancy btw- that was accomplished while ON the political highway from Arkansas to the White House), is a mere nothing hotdog to you on the left, compared to a 10 year old dusty clip of Trump saying something like "grab em by the pussy"
Bill wanted a properly sucked dick and you leftists were and are fine with it. Force be damn. BTW - what would your reaction be, Mr. PeePee, if Trump had sex with a 22 year old intern circa now? be a bit hysterical, i'd bet.
Shadenfraude - Karma. Clinton corruption and comeuppance.
President Trump is the master.
Look at this. All of these leftist, #metoo charter members, defending a rapist, and smearing any woman that attempts to be heard and believed.
So soon after the Dems attacked a model citizen, Judge Kavanaugh.
The absence of self awareness is stupefying.
OF course, "Bimbos Dicker" wasn't an adult legally capable of making her own choices at 22.
Hell. She's not even an adult capable of making her own choices at her current age.
How old are you now anyway? 77?
Nobody wants to campaign with Bill Clinton anymore, becasue they don't know where he will stick the danged cigar.
He's a perv - maybe that does not garner the right kind of attention these days?
Bimbos Dicker's vagina belongs to the state. It's a ward of the state's. Trump can grab it, put some sperm in there - prevent her from removing it. Force her to carry a pregnancy to term.
She's got no self-esteem. Republican women! Lol. What a bunch of self-disrespectable crackers.
Just to illustrate how weak an argument this is, I'll swap a few words and be more accurate:
The idea that the raping Clinton defenders think they can "call out" Trump on questionable sexual ethics just goes to show how deluded they are and how big a shark they've jumped.
"Republicans are, as far as I can tell, trying to enforce the Clinton rule on Trump."
This is it. Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Carville and their followers embarked on a crusade to eliminate the sex lives of presidents from consideration. They succeeded.
Poor pee pee. The frapachio machine is broken again.
The left do not really care about the ethics of the Clinton Crime Show - they care about the optics and the Clintons no longer deliver.
The left are faux-moralists. The idea that any of the a-holes like porn star Madonna or pussy hat hysterical screamer Ashley Judd really actually care about Bill Clinton forceably raping someone? Give me a break. They don't care at all.
If the left cared at all about the #meToo of Bill, they would be out full force during the upcoming Clinton rehabilitation blue-city only tour.
Good.
Clinton destroyed the Democratic Party. That and a sexual crackpot can be his (and I'm With Her!) legacy.
Post a Comment