Monica Lewinsky back in the news

[YankeeFan]

I totally disagree with Ruth Marcus.

It wasn't raw or fraught. It was old and worthless.

Let's say that's true.

But, since then, we've had a Democratic Party who has tried to accuse the Republicans of a "War on Women".

In this light, it's only fair to examine the Clinton machine's "War on Women" and Hillary's role in it.

I know you want that to be the case. However, it isnt. War On Women is a matter of the GOP's policies. This is another example, of which there are millions by now, of you wanting the Democrats to change their message to help the GOP. Why do you think that makes any sense?

If anything Hillary engaged in a War On Woman, the one pleasuring her husband. People get that.

It wasn't just one woman.

She wasn't alone. It was systematic. It went on for years. Women were smeared. False affidavits were regularly used.

And, let's not pretend this was done out of some sense of jealousy on Hillary's part. This was politics.

 

[LongTimeListener]

Make the hay, then.

I hope this is the GOP's strategy, because the election is going to be a Democratic victory parade starting in mid-September 2016.

 

[old_tony]

People "in the conversation" want it to be different, want this to matter. It's equal parts ridiculous GOP politics and cable TV remembering what a ratings bonanza it was -- if you're looking for the exact time and place that whole medium went in the shirtter, this is it.

But no matter how many of those "in the conversation" people push, or how hard they push, this jut does not matter to the American people. Christ Almighty, we had a 10-year military fork-up since then, with continuing repercussions, that the same people want to say is old history that doesn't matter.

You greatly underestimate the mainstream media's effect in telling the American people what "matters" and what doesn't.

 

[old_tony]

She's the victim here. Stop the slug shaming. It is very unbecoming. Monica Lewinsky is the victim. To paint her as a villain or a slug or a schemer is to dip into some very ugly gender history in this country. And it also, from a political standpoint, is a sacrificing of the high ground in conversations about gender. You don't get a slug-shame-for-free card by declaring yourself pro-choice.

Of course she's the victim here. But it's the left that did all the mental gymnastics to downplay every aspect of the story. Every woman Bill Clinton had an affair with was deemed a nut or a slug by Clinton defenders and the mainstream media (but I repeat myself). Contrast how Clinton-affair women had the media go after them to how the media went after Limbaugh for using the exact same word on Sandra Fluke. The difference is both stunning and appalling.

And yet you say it's the GOP that behaved "deplorably" and you still consider yourself a Clinton fan "with reservations," as though that pardons the fact that you took the wrong side. Anyone with an IQ above room temperature knows that you and everyone else on the left threw victims -- including one who made a very credible allegation of forced rape -- under the bus for politics. You don't get a pass now for having "reservations."

Took the wrong side in what? What's the wrong side?

If you don't know that supporting a rapist and trashing the victims is wrong, I can't help you.

First of all, I reject the premise: "rapist." Second of all, I haven't trashed the victim. I've been supportive of her.

Do I support some of Bill Clinton's policies? Yes. Do I admire some of his personal characteristics outside of his relationships with women? Yes.

It's not binary to me.

Ted Bundy was a charming man with a lot of good traits, too, right? After all, it's not binary, right?

And you should write a letter telling Juanita Broaddrick she wasn't raped.

 

[Baron Scicluna]

If its Hillary vs. Jeb Clinton in 2016, I'm gonna kill myself.

While I think Jeb would be fine, I'm not burning for him to be the nominee or the President.

But, I do find it funny how "the media" and Democratic party are super excited by the prospect of a Hillary candidacy, but find the idea of a Jeb candidacy to be suicide inducing.

Maybe because the previous two Bushes were such failures?

 

[old_tony]

So "she won't have to answer for the prior White House policies" has been narrowed to "no one will ask her directly about her husband's 'war on women' in a sit-down interview that she hand-selects."

If the media that has access to her, doesn't ask her, and influential columnists like Ruth Marcus don't call for her to answer for it, then who will?

Certainly not the Wall Street Journal.

Or Fox News.

Or debate moderators.

Or the New Republic.

I don't need to quote them all, but it's kind of worthless to post a shirtload of outlets knowing that the ones that would ask the question won't get access and the ones that do get access won't ask the question. It appears you've made Yankee Fan's point quite nicely.

 

[LongTimeListener]

If this election is going to be about things that happened more than 15 years ago and the threat they represent to democracy, perhaps if Jeb is the candidate it would be time to take another hard look at Florida's role in the 2000 presidential election. First at the Palm Beach travesty, then the relative staffing levels of suburban and inner-city precincts, and finally the neat trick of barring African-Americans from voting based on "crimes" they "committed" in the future.

As the GOP has ramped up its strategy of disenfranchising those whose presence could swing an election unfavorably, Florida 2000 seems in retrospect like a proving ground for much of the current strategy. I eagerly await a full airing of this issue and Jeb's responses. Whether people get to exercise this most basic right seems, to me at least, a larger concern for the republic than an ancient hummer.

 

[Baron Scicluna]

People "in the conversation" want it to be different, want this to matter. It's equal parts ridiculous GOP politics and cable TV remembering what a ratings bonanza it was -- if you're looking for the exact time and place that whole medium went in the shirtter, this is it.

But no matter how many of those "in the conversation" people push, or how hard they push, this jut does not matter to the American people. Christ Almighty, we had a 10-year military fork-up since then, with continuing repercussions, that the same people want to say is old history that doesn't matter.

We're not allowed to talk about the past, remember?

The thing is, the GOP and Ken Starr kept throwing so much shirt at the wall to try and nail him, and all they got was the Lewinsky thing. By the time they got to Monica, the American public couldn't take anything the GOP did seriously.

 

[JC]

She's the victim here. Stop the slug shaming. It is very unbecoming. Monica Lewinsky is the victim. To paint her as a villain or a slug or a schemer is to dip into some very ugly gender history in this country. And it also, from a political standpoint, is a sacrificing of the high ground in conversations about gender. You don't get a slug-shame-for-free card by declaring yourself pro-choice.

Of course she's the victim here. But it's the left that did all the mental gymnastics to downplay every aspect of the story. Every woman Bill Clinton had an affair with was deemed a nut or a slug by Clinton defenders and the mainstream media (but I repeat myself). Contrast how Clinton-affair women had the media go after them to how the media went after Limbaugh for using the exact same word on Sandra Fluke. The difference is both stunning and appalling.

And yet you say it's the GOP that behaved "deplorably" and you still consider yourself a Clinton fan "with reservations," as though that pardons the fact that you took the wrong side. Anyone with an IQ above room temperature knows that you and everyone else on the left threw victims -- including one who made a very credible allegation of forced rape -- under the bus for politics. You don't get a pass now for having "reservations."

Took the wrong side in what? What's the wrong side?

If you don't know that supporting a rapist and trashing the victims is wrong, I can't help you.

A rapist? Ususally you save that crap for minorities who aren't convicted.

 

[Baron Scicluna]

I totally disagree with Ruth Marcus.

It wasn't raw or fraught. It was old and worthless.

Let's say that's true.

But, since then, we've had a Democratic Party who has tried to accuse the Republicans of a "War on Women".

In this light, it's only fair to examine the Clinton machine's "War on Women" and Hillary's role in it.

Let's see: attacking several women for having sex with married men vs. creating and passing laws and policies that affect tens of millions of women.

 

[Dick Whitman]

So "she won't have to answer for the prior White House policies" has been narrowed to "no one will ask her directly about her husband's 'war on women' in a sit-down interview that she hand-selects."

If the media that has access to her, doesn't ask her, and influential columnists like Ruth Marcus don't call for her to answer for it, then who will?

Certainly not the Wall Street Journal.

Or Fox News.

Or debate moderators.

Or the New Republic.

I don't need to quote them all, but it's kind of worthless to post a shirtload of outlets knowing that the ones that would ask the question won't get access and the ones that do get access won't ask the question. It appears you've made Yankee Fan's point quite nicely.

He widened the scope beyond Hillary-friendly media members who were hand-picked.

 

[YankeeFan]

Let's see: attacking several women for having sex with married men vs. creating and passing laws and policies that affect tens of millions of women.

Baron, you should at least acquaint yourself with the claims of Paula Jones, Kathleen Willey and Juanita Broaddrick.