"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?