July 22, 2019

"Those on the left have been going over how we’re supposed to feel about him for decades, but in the arguing about it, we have been asked to focus again and again on Clinton and his dick and what he did or didn’t do with it."

"The questions we’ve asked ourselves and one another have become defining. Are we morally compromised in our defense of him or sexually uptight in our condemnation? Are we shills for having not believed he should have resigned, or doing the bidding of a vindictive right wing if we say that, in retrospect, he probably should have?"

Writes Rebecca Traister, in "Who Was Jeffrey Epstein Calling? A close study of his circle — social, professional, transactional — reveals a damning portrait of elite New York" (a long compendium by the editors of New York Magazine). Traister continues:
Meanwhile, how much energy and time have been spent circling round this man and how we’ve felt about him, when in fact his behaviors were symptomatic of far broader and more damaging assumptions about men, power, and access to — as Trump has so memorably voiced it — pussies?
You wouldn't have spent all that time if you'd been consistent in the first place. Anyone who cared at all about feminism back then already knew the "far broader" picture! That is feminism. If you'd put feminism over party politics at the time, you'd have easily processed the Clinton story long ago.
After all, Clinton was elected president during a period that may turn out to be an aberration, just as the kinds of dominating, sexually aggressive behaviors that had been norms for his West Wing predecessors had become officially unacceptable, and 24 years before those behaviors would again become a presidential norm. So yes, Clinton got in trouble, yet still managed to sail out of office beloved by many, his reputation as the Big Dog mostly only enhanced by revelations of his exploits.
I don't understand the logic of this "After all... So yes" rhetoric. I feel that I'd need to rewrite those 2 sentences to begin to understand them. I invite your efforts. Here's mine: Although Clinton became President after America had officially rejected sexual harassment in the workplace, many people gave him a pass and even loved him more because he did it anyway.
But the election of Trump over Clinton’s wife, and the broad conversation around sexual assault and harassment that has erupted in its wake, has recast his behavior more profoundly.
Ha ha. What's "profound" about partisan politics? It's not profound. It's laughably shallow!
The buffoonery, the smallness and tantrums of Trump, has helped make clear what always should have been: that the out-of-control behavior toward women by powerful men, the lack of self-control or amount of self-regard that undergirded their reckless treatment of women, spoke not of virility or authority but of their immaturity.
To "undergird" is to fasten something securely from the under-side. According to this sentence, lack of self-control undergirded recklessness. When I see writing like this, my hypothesis is that the writer is declining to be straightforward. Here's my paraphrase: Things that are perfectly visible go in and out of focus depending on what you want to see.
And the people who have paid the biggest price for these men’s fixation on sex as a measure of manhood have, of course, not been the men themselves.

In Clinton’s case, it has been Monica Lewinsky, whose life and name became defined by her relationship to him. It has been his wife, Hillary, who, in addition to having been celebrated and pilloried for her defense of her husband, also had to conduct one of her three historic presidential debates with women who’d accused him of sexual misconduct sitting in the audience, invited there by her opponent as props to unsettle and disempower her. It has been decades of left feminist women who have had Clinton’s misdeeds thrown in our faces as proof of our own hypocrisy.
See, I would have put Juanita Broaddrick, Paula Jones, and Kathleen Willey first on that list. And give me a break!  "Decades of left feminist women"! You did it to yourselves! You're saying YOU suffered because you got called a hypocrite?! But you were a hypocrite. How about those of us who cared about feminism all along and saw what you were doing and experienced shunning from you? What about our suffering?
I try sometimes to imagine a contemporary Democratic Party without Bill Clinton in its recent past — yes, of course, from a policy perspective, but also simply from a personal one. What if so much energy had not been eaten up by his colleagues, by his wife, by feminists, by his supporters and friends and critics, all of whom had to dance around him, explain their associations with him, or carefully lay out their objections to him without coming off as frigid reactionaries?
Frigid?! Whoa! "Frigid" is a classic misogynist taunt, and Traister is using it to express her fear. I just walked away from my desk and ranted out loud for 5 minutes. Sorry, I didn't make a recording, and now I'm in no mood to type it out.
What else might we have done with our politics had we not been worrying about Clinton and his grubby buddies? What further power have they taken from us? 
My question is: What power did you set aside in your eagerness to perform a pleasing dance of non-frigid leftism?

230 comments:

1 – 200 of 230   Newer›   Newest»
Shouting Thomas said...

Althouse: "True Marxist feminism has never been tried."

BleachBit-and-Hammers said...

The left's problem is the "I just don't believe it." They don't beleive anyone on the left could possibly be guilty.

**See: Maddow on Hillary. (oh it's just e-mail! bs)

With the Clintons - the hive-mind left simply do not believe a single negative thing.
No enemies on the left - no crimes on the left.
Ted Kennedy never left a girl to die in an over-turned car water under a bridge.

If Epstein abused minors, it's ALL Trump's fault. Certainly we can all see the collective left have transferred Epstein's crimes onto Trump. Then they twist and wiggle their inconsistent application of belief when it comes to the Clinton. As you say Ann - they could have dealt with the Clintons a long time ago. But, they simply don't believe it.
This is how their brains work. consistently. decade after decade.

TJM said...

Horndog Clintoon was scum. If he had been a Republican, he would have been driven from office. Since the Party of Moloch protects its own, that did not happen.

n.n said...

Or drop feminism or female chauvinism, and discover observable, reproducible, reconcilable principles applicable to both sexes. Instead, it has been a Pro-Choice, selective, opportunistic, politically congruent progression.

Shouting Thomas said...

Watch "Fleabag" on Amazon, prof.

It's the first major TV or film production that I've seen that ridicules your truly ridiculous Marxist ideology for rich ladies.

DarkHelmet said...

The West Wing occupants known to indulge in male-pig behavior during my lifetime include Clinton, LBJ and JFK. Probably many other before them, but those are the ones we know. Nixon was a lousy person in many ways, but I know of no woman abusing/philandering behavior in his case, nor in the case of Ford or GW Bush. GHW Bush got pretty handsy in his dotage, but if he was chasing interns around the Oval Office during his term it's news to me.

So we have JFK, LBJ and Clinton. All rotten human beings. All Democrats. All excused (if not deified) by the media. Lady, you want a do-over on Clinton? It's never to late to say "I was wrong. I let my partisan rooting interest override my morals and sense of decency. I should have condemned Clinton in no uncertain terms. I should not have voted for him. And I should not have voted for his wife, who was his primary enabler."


BleachBit-and-Hammers said...

Trump saying " They let you grab em by the pussy" - on old tape...

is FAR worse that WHAT Billy Jeff did to Paula Jones or Juanita Broderick.



Drago said...

BleachBit: "As you say Ann - they could have dealt with the Clintons a long time ago. But, they simply don't believe it.
This is how their brains work. consistently. decade after decade."

We see this truism on display everyday at Althouse by the resident lefties.

narayanan said...

Suppose Billy Jeff had announced his decision to divorce Hillary and proposed to Monica - what would feministas and soap-opera women have done?

That would outdo any of Trump antics on WWE

rcocean said...

Frigid, yeah. You see that word a lot in 40s, 50s novels. Women who are frigid and puritanical and are a "Walking freezer unit". Usually this is yoked with Freudian crap about "Repression". I' currently reading the letters of Martha Gellhorn (aka Mrs E. Hemingway mark III) and around the 1960's she's linking hatred of Negroes and Jews with sexual repression. This despite the fact that she claimed not to care for sex.

gspencer said...

"if you'd been consistent in the first place"

You mean, like having one standard for all? Like honoring to the principle of equal protection under the law?

Like not having your fist on the scale favoring Democrats and/or leftist policies favoring more and more government control over all aspects of our lives, blunting the very idea of self-government?

All of these underlying leftist practices are being continued as I write, even as they are being exposed more and more.

Dave Begley said...

I have never understood why Hillary didn't divorce Bill. He totally and completely humiliated her with his sexual activities with other women. Doesn't marriage MEAN something?

Can someone answer that for me?

The main theme of my script, "Frankenstein in Love," is love and marriage. Blackstone's comment "marriage is one of the great relations of private life" is cited three times.

rcocean said...

Its amazing the same people who were disgusted at "Our obsession" with Bill Clinton's sex life and told us that "everyone lies about sex" are the same ones who talk about Trump's sex life 24/7. Of course, they have the microphone so they never get called out on it, except by Althouse and a few lonely voices on the internet.

Shouting Thomas said...

Every school and college in the U.S. uses taxpayer money to fund a Marxist feminist indoctrination center.

Taking your beating from that indoctrination center is required for graduation.

Those indoctrination centers stage hoax hate crimes routinely for fund raising purposes.

Althouse continues to fantasize that she's an outsider fighting for equality when she's the thug boss beating everybody over the head with the aid of government money.

BleachBit-and-Hammers said...

While Hillary made mega-bucks in Russian cash flow during her stink at head of the state dept - the left yawn and know in their little hearts that Trump is a Russian spy. They learned that from hours and hours of Maddow-Schit propaganda.

henry said...

Don't forget Ted Kennedy and Dodd... the waitress sandwich boys of Feminism.

Face it, the label "feminism" is not about equal rights or respect for women. It is one in a long line of brands used to further communism. Clinton furthered communism (by selling the defense industry to China), so he is free and clear. Ditto Al Shakra Gore (AGW as a brand for communism), Ted Kennedy (nationalizing healthcare to set up communism), etc. The list is near endless.

BleachBit-and-Hammers said...

Hillary cares about money and power and Bill delivered that despite his appetite for a good blow job from anyone who would care to kiss it. Come on - It's Bill Clinton! Certainly you'd want to - just for his abortion stance.

Mattman26 said...

Gotta love Ann.

Sorry I missed the in-home tirade.

Lyssa said...

Of all the Althouses that I love, Althouse rages about feminism in the era of Clinton is my all-time favorite. It’s a reminder that I’m not crazy or the only one who sees this. That said, the fact that she seems so often to be the only voice in the wilderness in this is both electrifying and disgusting.

rcocean said...

Chris Wallace was talking yesterday about the "Scandal that was rocking DC" aka a Trump tweet. Which no one on my world was upset about one way or the other. Like Charlotsville its a completely manufactured piece of political theater to hurt Trump.

tim maguire said...

Interesting that the buffoonish behavior of Trump, who has only been accused of sexually aggressive behavior, sheds light on the actually sexually aggressive behavior of the non-buffoonish Clinton. God forbid we just look to Clinton for insight.

I believe this essay is what the phrase "word salad" was invented for.

rehajm said...

How about those of us who cared about feminism all along and saw what you were doing and experienced shunning from you? What about our suffering?

I've heard there's a special place in Hell for you...

William said...

Sleight of hand: Bobby Kennedy was not killed by a Palestinian nationalist but rather by America's gun culture, as was his brother before him. FDR didn't turn away those refugees on the St. Louis. It was America's anti-Semitism. Clinton didn't abuse those women: it was America who empowered men to abuse women.

n.n said...

Trump saying " They let you grab em by the pussy" - on old tape...

As far as we know, Trump only exposed a socially liberal orientation, was judged by the best and brightest, and has been sentenced to an in progress abortion attempt for exposing the practice.

rcocean said...

Even worse than sexual harassment, Clinton lied under oath, and tried to get others to perjure themselves. For which, he was impeached and disbarred for a couple of years.

If Bush or trump had done that, you would never have heard the end of it. But since its a D, it just fades away like Kennedy killing a woman. 11 Years after Chappaquiddick Teddy was running for President, and might have won the Nomination if he hadn't been such a terrible candidate.

Kevin said...

That sound you hear is the realization that Epstein’s revelations aren’t going to stick to Trump, and the Dem’s plan to win in 2020 by increasing the gender gap has just been nuked.

The rest is all post-disaster rationalizing about how it all went so terribly wrong.

tim maguire said...

Shouting Thomas said...
Watch "Fleabag" on Amazon, prof.

It's the first major TV or film production that I've seen that ridicules your truly ridiculous Marxist ideology for rich ladies.


And here I just thought it was a brilliant portrayal of a deeply flawed woman struggling with guilt after the consequences of her deeply flawed behavior destroyed someone she loved.

rcocean said...

All these NYT and Wapo 'Word salads' support the Left and the Democrats in some way. Usually in defense of the indefensible. That's why they're written.

n.n said...

his appetite for a good blow job

I'm not sure about the "urban dictionary", but in the urbane dictionary it is listed as a good "cigar". We live in sophisticated and euphemistic times.

J. Farmer said...

I suppose I understand why people obsess over Clinton's philandering. It's salacious. But in terms of the consequences of his presidency, it's not even in the Top 20 of consequential things he did to help screw up the country. While the globalist agenda was already underway before Clinton, he helped kick it into hyperdrive. Clinton was the first Baby Boomer president and represented the new model of the uniparty candidate. A model that was quickly followed by Bush and Obama. Tony Blair was the equivalent in the UK.

Shouting Thomas said...

Remember Althouse yesterday complaining that we need a centrist candidate for president, as if she is a centrist?

She's kind of a centrist on everything but her Marxist feminist and gay everything obsession.

Feminism and gay adoration was enforced on the general public primarily by rich corporate law firms. Both ideologies are extreme, Marxist, anti-Christian doctrines that every blue collar person I know loathes.

I worked for the corporate law firms that were instrumental in forcing Marxist feminism and gaydom on us. This was top down, aristocratic extremism at its worst, designed to satisfy the sexual habits and perversion of the very rich.

Althouse is an extremist. How in the hell would she know what a centrist looks like?

Heartless Aztec said...

Women and feminists first have took at their own behavioral sexuality and the way it works around men in powerful positions. My example: I taught college classes as an adjunct. I was 28 years old, good looking and it was a daily a struggle to keep the 18-22 co-eds off of me. I wasn't always successful. Luckily it was during the late 70's and women were owning their sexuality. None of this happend in a vacuum. There is that constant push and shove between the sexes that modern woke feminists seem to deny. Is it just me or have they taken all the fun out the game of love?

Kevin said...

If only Hillary were President there’d be no need for such questions...

cacimbo said...

The idea that HIllary is a "victim" of her husband is the opposite of what a feminist is supposed to be. Hillary is a highly educated woman with a financially comfortable family she could have turned to for support. Instead Hillary opted to attack her husbands true victims - her fellow women. That women like HRC continue to be put forward as the face of feminism is why so many independent working women disown the word 'feminism'.

AAT said...

It was never about “his dick,” it was about his abuse of women. So yes, you are morally compromised, or maybe you unapologetically think that what he did was OK, in which case you are hypocrites. It’s not that hard.

BleachBit-and-Hammers said...

NY Hag says
...also had to conduct one of her three historic presidential debates with women who’d accused him of sexual misconduct sitting in the audience, invited there by her opponent as props to unsettle and disempower her. It has been decades of left feminist women who have had Clinton’s misdeeds thrown in our faces as proof of our own hypocrisy.

OMG - WHAT GARBAGE. It's the same old crap from these asshole leftwing feminists. .geeez.
Self awareness is 0%

Victims of unwanted sexual assault by Bill Clinton - are non-human props. Got that?

Giovan Pietro Bellori said...

They didn’t care then, I don’t care now.
Der Wille zer Macht.

Dave Begley said...

Shouting Thomas:

You are way, way too hard on Ann. Cool your jets, dude.

EDH said...

I just walked away from my desk and ranted out loud for 5 minutes. Sorry, I didn't make a recording, and now I'm in no mood to type it out.

Althouse should do one of those animated "animojis"...

"Hey!"

Lawrence Person said...

The sentence our leftwing elites can't let themselves write: "We knew Clinton was a rapist, and we voted for him anyway because there was a (D) after his name."

AAT said...

If it was about consensual blowjobs, nobody would care.

The left likes to conflate things, like the struggles of the descendants of enslaved Africans with the problems of economic migrants from Central America.

Sydney said...

I remember well the women reporters swooning over Clinton. The way they gushed, one could easily get the impression that they would let him grab them by the..., well you know what I mean.

Mattman26 said...

Leftism is confusing for leftists.

I was re-watching The Death of Stalin the other night (hilarious and super dark). There's a scene where Beria goes to release Mrs. Molotov from dark solitary confinement. He tells her that Stalin is dead and so she's free. She looks utterly heartbroken and exclaims, "Our Stalin?"

The effects of brainwashing are hard to watch.

William said...

George Stephanopoulos (sp approximate) has apologized for accepting an invitation to the dinner party that celebrated Epstein's release from prison. George said that he didn't properly research who Epstein was. "My bad." There's the apology and there's the end to it. We all look forward to George's continued unbiased reporting on how awful Trump is. Trump, at one time, used to socialize with Epstein. What kind of man does that? Thank God we have a free press as exemplified by George and Katie Couric to report on Trump's moral failings.

Michael K said...

When the Clinton-Lewinski story first broke, I remember Sam Donaldson reporting on TV that Clinton would have to resign and soon !

Then he got the memo.

robother said...

The Big Dog got his pussy and his money. All you "feminists" got was Ruth Bader Ginsberg, the Walking Dead of SCOTUS justices. Break out the Presidential kneepads, ladies, unless you want to labeled frigid.

The country boy from Arkansas figured this all out in Law School. Hillary was his first mark, the feminist leftist who'd sell out everything for career advancement. She didn't become POTUS and thus the whining and recriminations. Music to the ears of the bad boy his whole life.

AAT said...

It has been decades of left feminist women who have had Clinton’s misdeeds thrown in our faces as proof of our own hypocrisy.

Yes, *proof* of your hypocrisy. A three decade conspiracy of silence on the behalf of an abuser and his enabling wife.

Sebastian said...

"Those on the left have been going over how we’re supposed to feel about him for decades”

And concluded, as always, that they should feel what serves the cause—the cause of gaining power. So?

“Are we morally compromised in our defense of him?”

Well, that assumes there is such a thing as supra-political morality on the left, that lefties in pursuit of the cause can ever be morally compromised

“access to — as Trump has so memorably voiced it — pussies?”

Of course, what Trump also said was that, “when you're a star, they let you do it.” Women, as they have for millennia, trade sex and beauty for money and status. So?

@Althouse: “That is feminism. If you'd put feminism over party politics at the time, you'd have easily processed the Clinton story long ago.”

Sorry, no. I know it’s hard to acknowledge that actually existing feminism, promoted in the actual public sphere by actually existing feminists, does not fit your own self-conception, but there it is: actual feminism is the proposition that women are special; ergo, anything that promotes their specialness goes—including, for a while, Billy Jeff. Now that he is less useful, a little moral preening can get “feminists” ready for the new phase in prog politics.

“See, I would have put Juanita Broaddrick, Paula Jones, and Kathleen Willey first on that list.”

See, “feminists” still can’t be honest. And why would that be?

“How about those of us who cared about feminism all along and saw what you were doing and experienced shunning from you? What about our suffering?”

You did not “suffer.” Except perhaps from the occasional pin-prick to your own illusions.

“I just walked away from my desk and ranted out loud for 5 minutes.”

Whoa! I guess you, as a “feminist,” suffer after all.

Gahrie said...

Bill Clinton harasses an intern; feminists who enable and excuse his actions are his biggest victims.

h said...

William at 8:38 am : insightful.

AA is rekindling in me (and in herself?) the anger I felt at the time of Clinton's impeachment. I did feel like I couldn't say the obvious criticism of WJC. And, over the years when my anger should have been fading away, it was instead continually bellowed back to life by Hillary Clinton's career, which (we will someday come to recognize) was an inconsequential career propelled only by her connection to a famous man. It's about the most unfeminist story one could invent.

Now I'm going to tread on thin ice: Is it possible that women are more susceptible to social pressure and group think than are men? Why have so few women (pace Camille Paglia) been willing to criticize the Clintons?

BleachBit-and-Hammers said...

Feel the loony tune loop

The Vault Dweller said...

Ha ha. What's "profound" about partisan politics? It's not profound. It's laughably shallow!

At least it didn't reach the level of being deeply shallow.

Ann Althouse said...

"She's kind of a centrist on everything but her Marxist feminist and gay everything obsession."

Equality for women and gay people is entirely middle-of-the-road. It should be a given, so obvious it's boring. Your rants on the subject just look stupid to me. What's your problem?

Fernandistein said...

the out-of-control behavior toward women by powerful men

Epstein had procuresses hire prostitutes for him.

spoke not of virility or authority but of their immaturity.

A girl wrote that.

rhhardin said...

Obsession with sex scandals is click bait. It's audience-based.

The modern addition is there's no advantage to ignoring high politicians. News is no longer a public service with license at risk. So cater to the public tastes as needed.

Following the click bait is the problem.

buwaya said...

"just as the kinds of dominating, sexually aggressive behaviors that had been norms for his West Wing predecessors..."

As in so many areas, this whole business is a lament about the realities of human nature. It is a fantasy that demands inhumanity.

Leadership contests in human societies tend to select for libidinous and charismatic males. And dominant ones. Leaders dominate, men and women both. This attracts women.

It comes with the territory, and at best it is controlled by prudence and iron discipline, or, failing that, careful discretion. Sometimes it comes with costly displacement behaviors.

Clinton could have supplied his needs with a compliant mistress or three, which he has always also had apparently, without random assaults or making depredations on the staff. His real faults, in terms of leadership, in a historical sense, were personal indiscipline and a substantial degree of viciousness.

The Vault Dweller said...

Wasn't there some notable woman, who publicly offered to give Bill Clinton a blowjob because he was keeping abortion legal?

Virgil Hilts said...

DarkHelmet beat me to this point. I did not read the whole article (I read all of Ann's post), but WTF does this mean?
"After all, Clinton was elected president during a period that may turn out to be an aberration, just as the kinds of dominating, sexually aggressive behaviors that had been norms for his West Wing predecessors had become officially unacceptable..."
What is she talking about? Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush Sr.? Even Nixon I believe was probably faithful to Pat. Aside from JFK, I think the prior 50+ years had seen a West Wing occupied by fairly honorable men who did not seek BJs from interns (to be honest, I don't know what kind of crap LBJ did - but after LBJ we had 25 years of good behavior).

rhhardin said...

Equality for women and gay people

Second-rate men.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

What further power have they taken from us?

Taken? You were oh-so happy to GIVE whatever power your intellectual credibility had to people like Bill Clinton because it helped advance your narrow political and ideological causes. Nina Burleigh: "I would be happy to give him a blowjob just to thank him for keeping abortion legal. I think American women should be lining up with their Presidential kneepads on to show their gratitude for keeping the theocracy off our backs." That wasn't something you were forced to do--you ladies took that on willingly to prevent the THEOCRACY of mullah George Bush Sr!
People like this woman willingly supported people like Clinton and did their best to aid and abet his actions (personal and professional), making him both fabulously wealthy and popular and allowing his various predations to continue. To try, now, and cast herself as a victim of the consequences of that is a bit much!

There's probably a parallel case to be made: some NeverTrumper could probably frame the center-Right's willlingness to vote for Trump in similar terms and deny those people the chance to later complain that their moral outlook wasn't well represented (although the enthusiasm isn't really comparable), but I doubt our resident LifeLongRepublican has the wit to build the argument.

AAT said...

The natural thing to do regarding the right’s justified criticisms of Bill Clinton for the left would have been to say, “Even a stopped clock is right twice a day” and thrown him overboard. Talk about a unifying gesture! But that tiny concession was too much, so they sold out their supposed ‘core beliefs’ for three fucking decades.

stevew said...

It's all power and politics for them. They have no principles. They aren't feminists, they don't believe sexual harassment is always bad, they only believe, in this case, the Bill was their guy and so he had to be defended.

Accept this and their mental troubles about him will end.

AAT said...

“Clinton could have supplied his needs with a compliant mistress or three, which he has always also had apparently, without random assaults or making depredations on the staff. “

Too much to ask.

chuck said...

> but of their immaturity.

Live by the insult, die by the insult. There is no thought among the intellectual class, no examination of what the story of David and Bathsheba says about mature human nature and power, no, it's all about silly labels. They could up their game and talk about sin, as it used to be called, instead of hedging about.

Dave Begley said...

Ann:

Shouting Thomas hates you. You represent something bad to him. I've never understood why he attributes Marxism to you.

Shouting Thomas said...

Equality for women and gay people is entirely middle-of-the-road.

The problem is that you're lying about women and gay people ever not being equal.

AAT said...

LBJ mostly used his dick to intimidate other men.

buwaya said...

" Is it possible that women are more susceptible to social pressure and group think than are men? "

Yes, this is obviously the case, apparent to anyone with experience.
It has nothing to do with Clintons as such, you can see it in everything.
There are whole industries founded on it.

Gahrie said...

Equality for women and gay people is entirely middle-of-the-road.

How about men and bakers?

PhilaGuy said...

Left and Right are the same. Feminists on the left ignored Clinton's transgressions just as religious people on the right ignore Trump's. Plenty of hypocrisy on both sides. And our worst anger is at those on our own side who care to criticize our heros.

wwww said...

Yes, her article is annoying. But she didn't vote him into office. She wasn't a prominent writer and feminist in 1992.

The author was 17 in 1992. She wasn't old enough to be responsible for Clinton. When did she publish her first book? Wasn't it 2010 or something? What's up with blaming people who were too young to vote?

All of the adults who didn't vote in D primaries in the early 90s for somebody else--responsible for W. Clinton. All of the adults who voted for him in the general: You are responsible. Blaming children, who were too young to vote, is irrational. When people get older, it's easy to forget how time flies. Younger generations grow up. Adults now, who were children during significant parts of your life. Children don't stay kids forever. People who are adults with children now were not adults 20 years ago.

BleachBit-and-Hammers said...

Ann's comments after the fold are spot-on.

Shouting Thomas said...

Shouting Thomas hates you.

No, I don't. I like Althouse and enjoy her writing.

I've been following her blog since she started.

I worked for the most famous legal minds of our generation. I know a great legal mind when I see one, and Althouse certainly is one.

She's just goofy when she goes off on her Marxist feminist and gaydom ranting.

She got caught up in the early 70s in the "women are just like blacks under Jim Crow" lies, and she liked the power it gave her to hustle men. And, she's one of the great office politics manipulators. Feminism and gaydom were the great office back stabbing weapons of my years in the world of offices, and Althouse really knows how to employ both.

Amadeus 48 said...

I found the "feminist" defense of Clinton predictable, because it was always about defending the redoubts of the Democratic Party and abusing his accusers.

Kathleen Willey, Paula Jones, Gennifer Flowers, and Juanita Broaddrick were victims of Democrats. The MSM savaged them to the cheers of the phony feminists.

Monica Lewinsky was another woman of whom Bill Clinton took advantage. She was in her early 20 and Clinton was 50 and POTUS. But look at the history of JFK and his escapades--Judith Exner, Marilyn Monroe, Mimi Alford, and the unforgettable Fiddle and Faddle.

There is a pattern here. The MSM and the Democrats are always willing to overlook the sexual peccadilloes of their own squad.

Trump and his supporters are giving them some of their own medicine.

William said...

Hitler was the object of repeated assassination attempts. Well and good. The tragedy of Stalin was that nobody even tried to kill him. People in the labor camps wept when they heard of his death....Something similar seems to be going on with Clinton, Kennedy, and LBJ. When it comes to horndog behavior, Trump isn't even in their class. Well, the Dems were able to absorb rabid segregationists into the New Deal coalition. I see no reason why they will not be able to absorb a few rapists and philanderers into their new Woke Awareness coalition. Propaganda is their business, and they're good at it.


rehajm said...

access to — as Trump has so memorably voiced it — pussies?

Since this a place what's persnickety over language, pussy would be the proper convention. Pussies refers to the behavior of men- acting effeminate, bailing on their responsibilities, caving their fears, to the whims of their women, etc.

n.n said...

It's all power and politics for them. They have no principles.

I watched an episode of "Buck Rogers" the other day. Apparently, the problem is principles, and the solution is justice (based on something), which has progressed into social justice (i.e. empathy, emotion, political congruence). It's amazing how much influence was disseminated under the fold; but, in retrospect, with a very overt presentation.

The Vault Dweller said...

just as the kinds of dominating, sexually aggressive behaviors that had been norms for his West Wing predecessors had become officially unacceptable,

Which predecessors is she referring to? I doubt H.W. Bush was a lothario, nor Reagan. While Carter confessed to having lust in his heart and I think that is probably where it stayed. Gerald Ford probably didn't even have time to set something up with anyone. I doubt there were many who found Nixon appealing. LBJ? I've heard stories of him displaying his penis to other people, but only to other men as an intimidation tactic. JFK? Sure he did. But that 1 of Clinton's past 7 predecessors. Hardly enough to call his actions a West Wing norm.

Fernandistein said...

Equality for women and gay people is entirely middle-of-the-road.

That depends on the definition of equality.

This isn't true, but it sounds spiffy: "The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal."

Article: "about men, power, and access to — as Trump has so memorably voiced it — pussies?"

You wouldn't have spent all that time if you'd been consistent in the first place. Anyone who cared at all about feminism back then already knew the "far broader" picture! That is feminism.


So "feminism" is about denouncing and policing private behavior between consenting adults?

BleachBit-and-Hammers said...

The left are simply pissed-off that the Clinton's got caught.

They don't care about their crime. That's the pathology of cult.

Michael K said...

Way back, when I was young, I thought feminism was a drive to get equality in opportunity for women who wanted careers.

Now 60% of college students are women and 60% of medical students are women. They got what we thought they wanted but, like so many causes adopted by the left, success was not enough.

“Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket.”

Eric Hoffer,

buwaya said...

Feminism, generally, is founded on a denial of human nature.

How feminist were human societies 50,000 years ago? 5,000 years ago?
From what we know of hunter-gathering cultures that survived to modern times, not very. The human animal hasn't had time to evolve a different native psychology beyond that, even if the subsequent millennia hadn't been an unadaptable churn of change.

It is an unnatural fashion designed to adapt humanity to an unnatural mode of existence. Its no surprise that none of this brings happiness.

wwww said...

"After all, Clinton was elected president during a period that may turn out to be an aberration, just as the kinds of dominating, sexually aggressive behaviors that had been norms for his West Wing predecessors had become officially unacceptable..."
What is she talking about? Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush Sr.? Even Nixon I believe was probably faithful to Pat."

Generations. Once you see this from a generational perspective you will understand the perspective. If Obama is formative for someone, Clinton is an aberration. Obama was president for 8 years. Bush was president for 8 years before that. Both are good husbands with solid families.

16 years is a large part of adult life if you're 34 years old. You can't expect people to get it, like people who lived it.

narayanan said...

DO FEMINISts have A Gettier problem.

The Gettier problem, in the field of epistemology, is a landmark philosophical problem concerning our understanding of descriptive knowledge

Meade said...

"That depends on the definition of equality."

Equality in the sense of individuals being treated equally by government.

Freder Frederson said...

The left's problem is the "I just don't believe it." They don't beleive anyone on the left could possibly be guilty.

That is just the left's problem?! How many people here claim that everyone who has accused Trump of sexual assault are lying?

Amadeus 48 said...

Clinton was exempt from the rules that applied in every corporate executive office and very major law firm in the United States by 1998. I saw a socially prominent senior partner get thrown out of a major US law firm in 1994 for making a pass at an attractive associate lawyer (after he had been warned about such behavior by the management).

That Clinton was exempt from those rules was revealing. "Feminists" didn't mean what they were saying.

Fen's law in action.

AAT said...

Wow, I just finished the post after being set of on a rant the same way Althouse was, and she said it plenty good.

How many lefty commenters here have called those of us who called out Bill Clinton a prude? Just about as many as reacted prudishly to Trump’s comment that women are highly attracted to fame power and wealth and give up the goodies willingly.

The real problem of the left is the truth of Trump’s statement, and how Bill Clinton used that aspect of female behavior, hypergamy, for his own ends, and they deny that hypergamy is a real thing, even though every man clearly sees it, and the ones who deny it are just trying in their beta way, of keeping hope alive they might get laid.

Amadeus 48 said...

"16 years is a large part of adult life if you're 34 years old. You can't expect people to get it, like people who lived it."

Yeah, but you can expect people to have learned something and not be idiots by their mid-thirties.

We ought to raise the voting age to 35.

rcocean said...

I can remember when Dan Rather was absolutely disgusted "on-air" about the media coverage of Monica Lewinsky and proudly announced he would stop covering it, and would focus on "Real News".

Of course, he's been babbling about the pussy tape and Trump sex life 24/7 for the last 3 years. Mr. Objective reporter -LOL!

wwww said...

Basically people in the younger gens tend to see the Boomers and 60s and 70s as a generation of sexually irresponsible people. Movies about the 60s and 70s. Divorce. Key parties. All of that. Associated with the Boomers.

Dave Begley said...

ST:

Ann is way more than a great legal mind. A Beautiful Mind.

wwww said...

"Yeah, but you can expect people to have learned something and not be idiots by their mid-thirties."

I agree but if she couldn't vote...it's not her fault. I see too many people blaming the younger gens for B. Clinton, which is annoying. For obvious reasons.

narayanan said...

I repeat : Suppose Billy Jeff had announced his decision to divorce Hillary and proposed to Monica - what would feministas and soap-opera women have done?

That would outdo any of Trump antics on WWE

would feministas then champion Hillary as martyr and victim and strong exemplar?!
and/or denounce Billy boy?

The Vault Dweller said...

How many people here claim that everyone who has accused Trump of sexual assault are lying?

So what is the magic number of accusers there needs to be before society can safely assume, at least one must be true and therefore this person now needs to resign, retire, or otherwise go away. Because once that number is established virtually every politician will have at least that number of accusers appear. That is the danger of making it an issue about numbers of allegations.

buwaya said...

We simply don't know what other US Presidents got up to.
And its likely we will never know, in most cases, but be prepared for surprises.
Such as Eisenhowers wartime mistress.
Or Douglas MacArthurs prewar mistress.
There was a considerable allowance for discretion in these matters, in the past.

Third Coast said...

Nina Burleigh is a true feminist, or so she would have us believe. The word hypocrisy doesn't come close to doing justice to her "reporting".

AAT said...

We were informed that “Whataboutism” is bullshit just a short time ago by our betters at the NYT. We are talking about a three decade conspiracy of silence by the left.

Anybody who has a case that will stand up in court is free to pursue it against Trump.

Shouting Thomas said...


Equality in the sense of individuals being treated equally by government.


My Facebook timeline is full these days of pitches from non-profit theatrical groups for their performances. Their sole selling point is that their productions champion and employ women and gays. Not a word about whether the productions are worth seeing on their own merit.

These groups all receive government grants, and they receive those grants by puffing about Diversity and Inclusion propaganda.

This has been going on for decades.

So, in addition to Marxist feminist and gay indoctrination centers in every school and college, the way to get state funding for your arts project nowadays is to carry on about your identity politics scam.

So, you call this equality? Althouse’s Marxist feminist and gay obsessions are supported by government funded re-education rackets.

rcocean said...

"Equality for women and gay people is entirely middle-of-the-road."

Gays deserve tolerance not "equality". When did a sexual practice become a protected class? What about people who like S&M, do they deserve equality? What about people who like threesomes? Why not men who like to "grab 'em by the pussy?"

And women have never wanted "equality". They want all their female privileges and as much power as they can grab from men. They want equality of results, not equality of opportunity. That's why every standard gets lowered if it doesn't let enough women in.

Kevin said...

Now 60% of college students are women and 60% of medical students are women. They got what we thought they wanted but, like so many causes adopted by the left, success was not enough.

When the quest for equality is fueled by victimhood, equal will never be enough.

AAT said...

“There was a considerable allowance for discretion in these matters, in the past.”

Because those men were not reckless the way Clinton was.

PWS said...

I wonder if, 20 years from now, Republicans will have the same reckoning because many of them failed to stay consistent with their principles, as many feminists did not with Clinton?

Francisco D said...

Equality in the sense of individuals being treated equally by government.

Does the government treat individuals equally without consideration of race or gender?

rcocean said...

Of course, I don't really care. I'm more interested in immigration and the economy. There's a large class of men who will always surrender in the war between the sexes. So, female victory is inevitable.

Bay Area Guy said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
The Vault Dweller said...

Blogger PWS said...
I wonder if, 20 years from now, Republicans will have the same reckoning because many of them failed to stay consistent with their principles, as many feminists did not with Clinton?


If it does occur, it will most likely be in regards to deficit spending and fiscal irresponsibility.

Steven said...

Every person who backed Bill Clinton after the revelations about his behavior with women is a hypocrite each and every time they suggest Trump's behavior with women is a valid issue.

Every person who ever opposed the removal of Bill Clinton from the presidency is a hypocrite each and every time they suggest Trump should be removed from office for obstruction of justice without an underlying crime.

Every person who ignored the massive pro-Democrat Chinese interference in the '96 election is a hypocrite each and every time they mention Russian interference in the 2016 election.

Hillary Clinton, of course, is once, twice, three times a hypocrite.

Rob said...

Trump’s peccadilloes are all years in the past. If as President he were to have sex with a WH intern, then lie about it under oath, you can be sure the double standard would be on full display.

Meade said...

"So, you call this equality?"

No. I call your assertion that: "[...]you're lying about women and gay people ever not being equal" ill-informed. Even stupid.

Howard said...

Never voted for the trailer-trash fucker. He needs to be figuratively drawn and quartered, and his consigliere Hillary figuratively burned at the stake because it might help to defeat Trump.

rcocean said...

Being against Sexual harassment isn't about equality its about common decency.

Known Unknown said...

You shouldn't get worked up over shit you read in New York Magazine, of all places.

In a nation of 330 million people, they reach 406,000. That's 0.12% of all Americans.

Known Unknown said...

"Equality in the sense of individuals being treated equally by government."

Ha. I just watched Chappaquiddick on Netflix. We are all fools.

Meade said...

"Does the government treat individuals equally without consideration of race or gender?"

Of course not. That is the problem.

buwaya said...

On the political-media treatment of all this - it is normal.
This is all ammunition in power struggles.

Power struggles are amoral by nature. Hypocrisy is normal.

The only absurdity is the naivete of people who seem to assume otherwise.
As with the writer of this piece.

Michael K said...

If it does occur, it will most likely be in regards to deficit spending and fiscal irresponsibility.

Lyndon Johnson planted this time bomb in our social system, switched it on and left.

The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money.

Alexis de Tocqueville

Seeing Red said...

What a bunch of hooey.

The generational torch was passed.

Hillary was the first co-President.

Feminists sold females down the river for power, access and money.

Hillary NEVER left him. She protected him.

And you supported her for your goals, Professor.

Just like Obama.

No wonder why you want peace and quiet and boring.

There’s been enough carnage.

AAT said...

"Never voted for the trailer-trash fucker.”

Remember when Democrats used to claim to stand up for the poor and powerless? Now they are the party of snobs. Trailer trash, hillbillies, deplorables. “Trailer trash” is a half step away from “white trash."

Look no further if you want to know how you got Trump.

Shouting Thomas said...

There’s a large class of men who will always surrender in the war between the sexes.

A perfect description of Meade.

You get to wear a halo for it, too.

I'm Full of Soup said...

If the unlimited supply of hand wringing analysis by liberal NYT writers could be diverted instead to power plants and used to power our homes and businesses and vehicles, we could do away with all fossil fuels.

Narr said...

Late to the session, comments unread, but --

You go, Prof!

Narr
No More Enabling!

AAT said...

“Republicans will have the same reckoning because many of them failed to stay consistent with their principles,”

As has been said, other than spending and deficits, I would like a list of those prinicples that he has ‘violated’ with evidence. Even one would do, with evidence.

rightguy said...

Feminism gave Slick Willie a pass because he was consistently pro (three trimester) abortion on demand.

John Lynch said...

PWS-

What I was going to say.

We know who and what Trump is. If you give him a pass, you are on the hook for what happens next. There's plenty of hypocrisy in this thread already. It's likely some second-term scandal involving women will catch up with the President, isn't it? The clues are there.

Character matters. Remember when conservatives used to say that?

CWJ said...

I'd add this to Althouse's fisking.

"...just as the kinds of dominating, sexually aggressive behaviors that had been norms for his West Wing predecessors had become officially unacceptable,"

OK, let's test this. Stop me when we get to one where West Wing sexually aggressive behavior was the "norm." Bush 1, Reagan, Carter, Ford, Nixon ... that's 22 years.

Shouting Thomas said...

I was briefly a spokesman for a men’s rights group in the 90s.

I got so fucking sick of listening to prosperous guys bitching that, even though many of their complaints had merit, I couldn’t stand having my life dominated by that bullshit. I decided quickly that wasting my time on that shit when I was eating well and living in a building in Manhattan with a doorman was just idiotic.

I’m bewildered about why this same revelation never occurs to the quite wealthy, comfortable and retired professor.

Bushman of the Kohlrabi said...

1. Democrats write the rules to benefit themselves.
2. Democrats regret these same rules when they are applied to their opponents.
3. Democrats attempt to write new rules to benefit themselves.
4. People recognize the game and refuse to take Democrats seriously.
5. Hilarity ensues.

JackWayne said...

Not gonna read the comments. I hope many others make the same point: Althouse is continuing to propagate the storyline that Clinton was all about the sex. About MeToo. To dumb shits this may be true. To those with a rational mind, Clinton's problem, his ONLY problem was essentially lying in court. He should have been impeached and expelled for that. But, people like Althouse have always been intrigued by the sexual politics, ignoring the true crime.

Meade said...

EDH said...
"Althouse should do one of those animated "animojis"..."

lol

Narr said...

Mattman@850-

The more chilling line was Beria's smirking reply-- "Yup. Your Stalin. The one who put you here."

Says a lot about Lefties.

Narr
None of it good

Bushman of the Kohlrabi said...

My mother was a big Clinton fan. She would smile and affectionately refer to Bill as a "scoundrel."





Bay Area Guy said...

"Those on the left have been going over how we’re supposed to feel about him for decades, but in the arguing about it, we have been asked to focus again and again on Clinton and his dick and what he did or didn’t do with it."

I would revise this to say:

"Those on the left have been going over hoW we're supposed to feel about him for decades. When the alleged sexual harasser is a Republican, we know exactly what to do. Fire, shame, arrest, sue, humiliate him, and blame all Republicans. When it's a Democrat, well.......

Johnathan Birks said...

Hypocrisy isn't a bug for the left, it's a feature. Bob Packwood is exiled for what appears to have been a consensual affair with a staffer. Clinton's long career of "bimbo eruptions" gets a pass or (as with Lisa Myers' interview with Broddrick) censored.

AAT said...

"Not gonna read the comments.”

Of course not, might get infected with a fact that interferes with your certainty! You obviously didn’t read the whole post either.

AAT said...

My mother was a Clinton fan too, but she cried when she watched the Broaddrick interview on NBC.

I'm Full of Soup said...

John Lynch:

Character matters when the rules and laws are applied and enforced equally.

Which of these Repubs would you say had "character"? Paul Ryan, Mitch McConnell, Mike Lee, Mitt Romney, Ted Cruz, Chuck Grassley.

AAT said...

“It's likely some second-term scandal involving women will catch up with the President, isn't it? The clues are there.”

“Clues” but no real evidence, just charges by people who think he must be stopped at any cost. We will see, but I don’t see the other Republican who is standing up for anybody but the elites in America, just like the Democrats.

AAT said...

‘Character’ means that you will lay down in a fight so that you don’t get any mud thrown at you.

bagoh20 said...

" ...the kinds of dominating, sexually aggressive behaviors that had been norms for his West Wing predecessors... "

Who? Reagan? H.W. Bush? Carter?

This is what really irritates me about the left. They try to make "arguments" based on provably false or wildly overstated premises. Even when presented with the falsity of the premise they just continue on with the unfounded argument like a runaway train. We saw that here yesterday with one of them simply stating things they could not back up with a single example when asked. Hearing the falseness of their assertions does nothing to reorient their thinking. It's the reality debased community.

Kevin said...

I wonder if, 20 years from now, Republicans will have the same reckoning because many of them failed to stay consistent with their principles, as many feminists did not with Clinton?

First, there must be a reckoning before there can be a "same" reckoning later.

What we have here is not an actual reckoning, but people reckoning about a reckoning that they reckon won't help.

After all, no one on campus knows anything about Chappaquiddick these days...

Ice Nine said...

>>After all, Clinton was elected president during a period that may turn out to be an aberration, just as the kinds of dominating, sexually aggressive behaviors that had been norms for his West Wing predecessors had become officially unacceptable, and 24 years before those behaviors would again become a presidential norm.<<

"Those behaviors?" Again the norm 24 years later (wink, wink)?

That comment is bullshit, of course. It sets the tone for the other excerpts from Rebecca Traister that show she is determined to conflate Trump's purported "buffoonery, smallness and tantrums" with the behavior of presidents who coinked their girlfriends and female staffers in the White House! Because you know, Trump, who was a good-looking, pre-presidential playboy, said something about pussies back then. It informed me that Traister is to be ignored.

Kevin said...

Hypocrisy isn't a bug for the left, it's a feature.

If the rules were consistent, the Left wouldn't stand a chance.

AAT said...

“I have never understood why Hillary didn't divorce Bill. He totally and completely humiliated her with his sexual activities with other women. Doesn't marriage MEAN something?

Can someone answer that for me? “

Blind ambition.

Francisco D said...

Does the government treat individuals equally without consideration of race or gender?" Of course not. That is the problem.

Are you sure Meade?

I have been told over and over again that discrimination in favor of women and racial/ethnic minorities is the solution.

Shouting Thomas said...

Can someone answer that for me?

Sexual jealousy is not very important to a lot of people, a fact that seems incomprehensible to people to whom sexual jealousy is extremely important.

My guess is that Hillary had her own weird sexual biz going on and she was happy with the money and power.

Gospace said...

Known Unknown said...
"Equality in the sense of individuals being treated equally by government."

Ha. I just watched Chappaquiddick on Netflix. We are all fools.


I was reading just a day or two ago that the people involved in the making of Chappaquiddick had no idea that Ted Kennedy, the Lion of the Senate, had left a girl to drown in his car. They were never told that about him in any of their classes or discussions.

The article didn't mention if they knew he was also driving without a license, having never bothered to renew it. I read a book about the whole cover up a few years back- I forget which one. But I was around and politically aware back then, summer before my 9th grade year, having worked the previous year to help elect Nixon. I still have the scrapbook with all the campaign buttons. Can't find my HS or JHS yearbook after all these years and multiple moves, but that survives.

Something that is true- even after Watergate and Nixon's resignation, if the election had been rerun between Nixon and George McGovern, Nixon would have won again.

George McGovern is one of the very few politicians to actually try to run a legitimate business, that is, not a consulting firm, after leaving politics. And observed that if he had realized the negative impact on business of all the policies he voted for, he wouldn't have voted for them.....

Ted Kennedy was responsible for my observing press bias first hand. He did a campaign rally in Hackensack NJ, and several friends and I went. Small crowd, with supporters being bunched up front, the loudest voice being a lone protester in the front screaming "Tell us about Chappaquiddick! Tell us about Chappaquiddick!" Every time the news cameras panned in that direction the front row of campaign workers all bunched their signs together to hide him. Only applause was coming from the very front rows; the rest of the crowd, like us, was just there to observe. Next day, the Bergen Evening Record reported the large enthusiastic crowd with no protesters that overflowed the square.

dreams said...

"Trump saying " They let you grab em by the pussy" - on old tape..."

A private conversation between two men, I can only imagine what women say about men to other women when men are not around.

wwww said...

"I wonder if, 20 years from now, Republicans will have the same reckoning"

Clinton was younger as Pres. & his wife young enough to stay in politics. The only reason WC is being talked about today is his wife's political career. People who are 75 today are 95 in 20 years. Trump is in his 70s, McConnell 75. 20 years from now they're not relevant political players. People tend to focus on the present.

bagoh20 said...

" To those with a rational mind, Clinton's problem, his ONLY problem was essentially lying in court. He should have been impeached and expelled for that. But, people like Althouse have always been intrigued by the sexual politics, ignoring the true crime."

You need to reexamine your "rational mind". It's not like a person can only do one bad thing at a time. The reason he lied was becuase even he knew the sex was wrong and an affront to the American people. It was not a crime, but nobody was or is arguing that it was. The sex act for a man married to a very public woman with a young intern in the White House while talking to foreign leaders was far worse than the crime of lying under oath. It was the real issue for all of America, left and right, unless you are suggesting those on the left who were embarrassed by it were mostly upset about the lying, which is absurd.

Seeing Red said...

I have never understood why Hillary didn't divorce Bill. He totally and completely humiliated her with his sexual activities with other women. Doesn't marriage MEAN something?


Power access and money.

It would also confirm she was complicit.

All she would have been is the ex-wife of an ex-scum pres.

walter said...

The Vault Dweller said...Wasn't there some notable woman, who publicly offered to give Bill Clinton a blowjob because he was keeping abortion legal?
--
Yeah, but more recently there was:
Madonna offers blowjob to those who vote for Hillary Clinton

By the way, "equality" is far from boring, given the different/changing interpretations of what that means.

Seeing Red said...

It's likely some second-term scandal involving women will catch up with the President, isn't it? The clues are there.”

Trump is keeping binders full of women?

Shocking!

bagoh20 said...

"My guess is that Hillary had her own weird sexual biz going on and she was happy with the money and power."

I don't think she was surprised that he did it, but was pissed off that it got out, at least sometimes. She seems like the kind of person who would pretty quickly calculate how it might work out to her benefit. I mean, I would.

Roy Jacobsen said...

I'm late to the game, but, . . .

BleachBit-and-Hammers said...
The left's problem is the "I just don't believe it." They don't beleive anyone on the left could possibly be guilty.

I see little evidence that the left doesn't believe that anybody on their side is capable of bad behavior. I see plenty of evidence that they don't care.

bagoh20 said...

If he had an affair in a hotel somewhere, I would have 90% less of an issue with it.

Seeing Red said...

We know who and what Trump is.

And what he’s not.

I don’t think anyone’s gonna be dragging $100 bills through the WH.

chuck said...

> It's likely some second-term scandal involving women will catch up with the President, isn't it?

I doubt it. My impression of Trump is that he walks right along the line, but he clearly sees the line, and is very careful not to cross it. I think he learned that lesson in threatened bankruptcy and divorce. If one goes back 30+ years there might be something and I suppose he could make a slip, but it won't be by much.

Seeing Red said...

Open the impeachment files.

Seeing Red said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
chuck said...

> I can only imagine what women say about men to other women when men are not around.

Sleeping on a couch in a dorm lobby (NYC) and overhearing the conversation of the early morning cleanup crew, I don't need to imagine it. I don't know who the guys they were talking about were, but I learned more about them than I wanted to know.

Temujin said...

Frankly- we didn't need this report to "reveal a damning portrait of elite New York." Why do you think the rest of the country just rolls its eyes at these 'thought and culture leaders', ignore them when possible, and get pissed off when they make their proclamations on society?

Money can hide a lot, but not the stink.

Bob Smith said...

Male Clinton supporters “How can I get me some 20 year old valley girl under my desk?”

Female Clinton supporters “Next time it might be meeee”

See how simple it is when you break it down?

BleachBit-and-Hammers said...

Imagine the response from the left if Trump had a sexual affair in the Oval Office, with a young intern, circa now.

And hypocrite left have the audacity to mock Pence for his wise idea to never be alone with a leftwing female not his wife.

wwww said...

"It's likely some second-term scandal involving women will catch up with the President, isn't it?"

People already know he cheated on Melania w/ stormy daniels. they don't care. what was that? 15 years ago? He's not 50 or 60 anymore so doubt he's got the interest level to create a scandal.

Q22 said...

I agree that Trump can be very "unpresidential" with his language but the comparisons to Clinton are pretty stark.

Clinton brought his sexual predator act to the White House while, by all accounts, Trump has has been the model of fidelity.

That doesn't mean Trumps is a good guy and it doesn't erase his past - it just means that Clinton was willing to use the office as a means to achieve his sexual conquests while Trump, thus far, has not.

Q22 said...

I agree that Trump can be very "unpresidential" with his language but the comparisons to Clinton are pretty stark.

Clinton brought his sexual predator act to the White House while, by all accounts, Trump has has been the model of fidelity.

That doesn't mean Trumps is a good guy and it doesn't erase his past - it just means that Clinton was willing to use the office as a means to achieve his sexual conquests while Trump, thus far, has not.

wwww said...

I don't think people should divorce for cheating w/ out working on the marriage if kids are involved. Divorce messes up the lives of kids. I know someone who divorced her husband who went to a strip club, paid for a lap dance, and touched the dancer. Obviously problems with cheating & alcohol & general stupidity but not a reason to divorce. They have 2 kids.

bagoh20 said...

"Madonna offers blowjob to those who vote for Hillary Clinton"

That's certainly a ringing endorsement of the candidate. If Hillary wasn't so bad you could just offer $20 bucks or some cigarettes. If she was any good, you wouldn't need to offer anything, so a blowjob offer is another way of saying "my candidate sucks too".

Marcus said...

When the allegations about Clinton and Lewinsky first arose, my liberal parents declared that the president ought to resign if true. When it turned out to be true, the voiced opinions changed to "it's all about sex and the evil Republicans".

I still loved them because love is unconditional.

THEOLDMAN

A five-minute rant? Should have sat down on her fainting couch and grabbed her pearls.

Drago said...

wwww: "People already know he cheated on Melania w/ stormy daniels."

Assumes facts not in evidence.

What percent of "go away" payment instances are due to the act actually being carried out and how do you know?

We suspect only.

Thus far, Daniels is on record formally saying it did not happen and Trump has never admitted to having engaged in the act.

So again, we only suspect.

Of course, wwww's mindreading capabilities clearly lag Inga's self-proclaimed abilities so we must discount wwww's theories even more.

Brian said...

I have never understood why Hillary didn't divorce Bill

I understand it. They were a team. And Bill is charming.

Sometimes I wonder "what might have been" had Hillary cut him loose. The Drudge Report leaks the story, the much talked about "throwing ashtrays/lamps/whatever it was" incident in the White House residence happens, and Hillary comes out in a press conference the next morning, announcing she's divorcing Bill.

She takes a walk in the woods, meets with feminist leaders, who rally behind her and Bill resigns. No way he could have hung on without Hillary backing him. Gore takes over.

Hillary writes a book entitled "The Real President" portraying herself as the real power behind the man. She was actually responsible for all the good things in the Clinton administration and primes herself for a 2000/2004 run. Rumors of Gore liking rub and tugs during massages surface and he decides to forgo a presidential election.

Would women vote for her? I think so. She had salvaged her dignity. She didn't exchange looking the other way for a cheap political job in the Senate. She was no longer the cold and calculating bitch, but the real intellectual behind the boob she married. The narrative would have been gold.

Bill would have gotten a TV gig (eventually) and all the pussy he could handle. They would have let him grab them by the pussy.

Even Monica would have been better off. No blue dress, no Starr Report testimony, etc. The details of the affair would all have been conjecture and rumors. She'd be the victim, yet another intern taken advantage of by an older man.

doctrev said...

Drago, President Trump ended up being cash positive on his deals with Stormy Daniels. That's not nothing, and probably explains why Melania doesn't care about the allegations, real or fake. Billionaires aren't guaranteed to get away with cheating, Jeff Bezos probably has less game than I do, but charismatic ones with a history of strong negotiation? Yeah, Trump rocks, and it doesn't hurt that he picked a really great wife.

What's interesting is that the Democrats keep screaming, intensely, that sexually creepy behavior is now a White House norm like it was during the Clinton era. The response, of course, is them being LAUGHED OUT of the building. Especially if Democrats are stupid enough to nominate Joe Biden- they won't be, he's just a truly stupid man who doesn't know that he's a placeholder.

And while minimizing Spacey and Weinstein has worked, for a certain value of work, the fact is they won't be able to keep Epstein under wraps. Trump has every reason to burn down all the pedos who took advantage of Epstein's services, starting with Billy Boy.

doctrev said...

Brian said...

She takes a walk in the woods, meets with feminist leaders, who rally behind her and Bill resigns. No way he could have hung on without Hillary backing him. Gore takes over.

7/22/19, 10:49 AM

Hillary correctly realized that she had no chance of winning the presidency, especially if she had to jettison her husband's considerable track record of success to do so. And Bill is not exactly the self-sacrificing type. Looking back on their past decades of ridiculous political and financial gains, Hillary would be fucking CRAZY to have wanted a divorce at any point up until election night 2016. I think she's just going to hope Bill dies of all his sinning, and quite soon.

Michael K said...

Hillary writes a book entitled "The Real President" portraying herself as the real power behind the man. She was actually responsible for all the good things in the Clinton administration

Plausible but for the disastrous Hillarycare secret team.

In retrospect, it might have been better than Obamacare. The people who wrote Hillarycare excluded the insurance companies, which then beat it to death with TV ads. The Obamacare people were insurance lobbyists and 25 year old staff lawyers, What they did was worse.

Gospace said...

Just read this comment elsewhere that seems apt to this discussion:

"If women are upset at Trump’s naughty words, who in the hell bought 80 million copies of 50 Shades of Gray?"

Rick said...

I wonder if, 20 years from now, Republicans will have the same reckoning because many of them failed to stay consistent with their principles, as many feminists did not with Clinton?

Republicans went through this 30-40 years ago. They've always understood any norm-violations they make will be exaggerated by orders of magnitude. "Feminist" institutions and the media only cover for Dems (and left of Dems, ie. Sanders) since they are first and foremost political institutions.

rcocean said...

"...just as the kinds of dominating, sexually aggressive behaviors that had been norms for his West Wing predecessors had become officially unacceptable,"

Basically, we're talking JFK - and MAYBE LBJ. And that's it. Ike? No. Truman? No. FDR? No. Nixon? No. etc. Of course, FDR had an affair with Queen of Norway and Lucy Mercer and possibly Missy Lehand. But the poor guy was married to Eleanor - so i cut him some slack.

rcocean said...

Hillary didn't divorce Bill because he was her pathway to power. "You get two for the price of one". And divorcing Bill AFTER they left the white-house would've been admitting the critics were right. Plus, she needed him helping her out behind the scenes to get elected to US Senate and in 2008/2016. Remember it was Bill that went and saw the AG on that Airplane tarmac.

rcocean said...

Besides, as far as I can tell, the two haven't really lived together for 20 years. The love went out of that marriage a long time ago. I think Chelsea was really fathered by Hubbell. She sure looks like him.

Ralph L said...

had no idea that Ted Kennedy... had left a girl to drown in his car

I suspect this writer was taught in school that sexual harassment wasn't an issue in Washington until Clarence Thomas in 1991. But JFK's lechery became known in the 70s and excused, so for some people, that was correct. Wilbur Mills paying for it didn't count.

LBJ was also a horndog, but not at the drug-fueled Kennedy level.

Ralph L said...

The MSM and Dem elite knew Slick Willie was a creep in 1992 but assumed he quit when elected, so they were shocked, shocked that he hadn't. If Starr had wrapped things up in a month or two instead of 9, Clinton would likely have been forced out of office.

wildswan said...

Two great insights by Althouse
"Anyone who cared at all about feminism back then already knew the "far broader" picture! That is feminism." So why then did feminists not criticize Clinton? "Things that are perfectly visible go in and out of focus depending on what you want to see."

My take on Shouting Thomas is that often when he wants to draw attention to his point (and he has lots of good points), he throws in a red-hot chili pepper, so to speak, by saying that Althouse opposes his point because her blog post of the day reveals her as a Marxist-feminist office-politician (office politician?) rabid in opposition to him. Or at other times he shouts that she is one of the NYT sheeple-readers whom he is denouncing or he snarls that she is being artistic when a stern attention to media propaganda is needed or ... so on and so on.

I've acquired the ability to redact as I read by skipping predictable tropes and this is a useful tool in reading internet comments not redacted by a previous censor.

Ingachuck'stoothlessARM said...

maybe epstein was calling Nicole Junkerman

narciso said...

Couldn't be done ralph, remember sid vicious's campaign to deny and distract, even after Lewinski came forward, then larry flynt's special contribution,

Narr said...

I worked with black folks who liked to assure themselves that Monica was a 'publican plant!

Myself, I learned long ago that a major reason some people go into politics is for the sexual opportunities. It didn't bother me in the least that Monica was polishing knob in the Oval Office--half the young gals (and a lot of the young guys) in DC are looking for a similar lucky break.

I just never liked the Clintons. They're the trashiest people who ever slept in the WH.

Narr
Believe me, I know trash

Ken B said...

Another dodge in the article. It isn’t what he did with his dick that matters but what he did with his power.
And of course, that power is what this kind of feminist wanted to be sure he kept.

Brian said...

Plausible but for the disastrous Hillarycare secret team.

Allow me to echo Hillary for you: "That's just lies spread by the vast right wing conspiracy!" Hillarycare was actually Bill's idea! I've got a better one he wouldn't listen to!

Hillary didn't divorce Bill because he was her pathway to power.

Yes that's why she did it but it denied her the power she really wanted! The Presidency! Bill cost Gore the 2000 election simply because Gore was his VP. It wasn't anything on a cognitive level but you could feel it. The DNC stuck with Bill for power's sake and that was distasteful. If Bill had been forced to resign it would have all been different. And Hillary was young and had the moral high ground. She'd have still been a force in politics. It really is an ultimate irony in some sense.

She'd have been better off leaving him. She had to do it day one though. She can't come out and do the "vast right wing conspiracy" to defend him and then say later that it was too much. Without Hillary, Bill was toast. She stuck by him, so the DNC had to as well.

Fen said...

"Clinton was exempt from the rules that applied in every corporate executive office and very major law firm in the United States by 1998. I saw a socially prominent senior partner get thrown out of a major US law firm in 1994 for making a pass at an attractive associate lawyer (after he had been warned about such behavior by the management).

That Clinton was exempt from those rules was revealing. "Feminists" didn't mean what they were saying.

Fen's law in action."

That's is how the term originated - from watching the Left's response to Clinton after a decade of listening to them lecture us about the evils of sexual predation in the workplace.

Brian said...

Hillary correctly realized that she had no chance of winning the presidency, especially if she had to jettison her husband's considerable track record of success to do so.

That may have looked like the most realistic chance, but it didn't turn out that way did it?

And my theory explicitly states that she takes credit for Bill's accomplishments. Obviously it takes Bill's cooperation, but he's lost the presidency anyway. He can't keep it without her help.

I remember the day the story broke. The long sad faces on the DNC mouthpieces. They knew it was over if she didn't back him. She backed him, and they took their marching orders.

She could have taken short term "loss" for long term gain.

Fen said...

In practice, Fen's Law is meant as a warning to not waste your time and energy debating against positions the Left is pretending to hold. You are shelling a hill they never occupied to begin with. Wasting your ammo. That's why they appear immune to hypocrisy.

For example, why would you expect to shame the Left over how raising the minimum wage hurts the very people they claim they intended to help, when helping those workers was never their real goal to begin with? It was about something else for them, and you have to figure what that was and attack that instead.

Global Warming is a better example. You can argue over the data till your face turns blue, you can even accept their premise and offer nuclear power as the obvious solution. But you are just attacking a position they never really occupied. Because they don't really care about saving the planet, they care about using the crisis to install global socialism - the redistribution of wealth via rationing energy consumption and production.

Fen's Law is about never assuming the Left is arguing in good faith. It's about not wasting your time and energy debating a position they never really held to begin with. You are just spinning your wheels until you figure out what they are really on about.

exiledonmainstreet, green-eyed devil said...

"LBJ? I've heard stories of him displaying his penis to other people, but only to other men as an intimidation tactic. "

LBJ was as horny as JFK, but without JFK's looks or style.

Steven said...

Character matters. Remember when conservatives used to say that?

Yeah, I do. What I don't remember is when a liberal parroting the line was doing anything but telling an offensive joke worthy of a punch in the nose.

rehajm said...

For the record I don’t recall being asked to focus on Clinton’s dick. That one’s all Rebecca...

Fen said...

"Two great insights by Althouse"

Althouse was one of the "100 Con Law Proffesors" who allowed their names to be used on a petition arguing that obstruction of justice, perjury and subornation of perjury did not rise to the level of "high crimes and misdemeanors" that would justify impeachment.

Over the years, there have been polite requests that she square that circle. She has refused.

Rick said...

Fen - I think your focus is wrong. A debate is not intended to convince your opposition to change their mind, it's to convince the audience. From that perspective proving your opponent's public position untenable is worthwhile even if they will never admit it.

Fen said...

Althouse was one of the "100 Con Law Proffesors" who allowed their names to be used

Or was it 1000? I forget.

I do remember that Althouse claimed the cover letter for the petition was changed AFTER everyone had put their name on it. That kind of corruption would be an interesting tale on it's own... but for some reason she never goes near that topic.

Oso Negro said...

Althouse said - "Here's mine: Although Clinton became President after America had officially rejected sexual harassment in the workplace, many people gave him a pass and even loved him more because he did it anyway"

I would say that America had officially rejected sexual harassment in the workplace, but what was rejected was de facto harassment (sex for position or pay, unwanted touching, unwanted sexual advances). We were still fighting over "harassing environment" and that continues to this day. In addition, what happened between Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky was sex between consenting adults. Monica wanted to fuck the President or at least blow him and so she did. By what strange standard is THIS harassment? By the perverse second wave feminist trope that age or power differential makes sexual contact off-limits. This attempts to negate basic human sociobiology. Nubile females DESIRE men in powerful positions. Please note, Monica did not complain of being harassed by Bill Clinton. No harm, no foul. What needs to be accounted for is how can you demonize a consenting sexual relationship between an older man and younger woman, and STILL support Bill Clinton.

wwww said...

Drago,

My point was there will be no discussion in 20 years. Because they're in their 70s. Twenty years from now they will be in their 90s or older. Once people are off the stage there's no discussion because people talk about the present.

Fen said...

. From that perspective proving your opponent's public position untenable is worthwhile even if they will never admit it.

Maybe so. To me, that's like catching all of Moriarty's puppets instead of the man himself.

He'll just crop back up with a new stage of puppets.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 230   Newer› Newest»