Monica Lewinsky back in the news

This.

 

That's just the rub, isn't it?

The mainstream media doesn't touch it, and if the Republicans do, the news cycle will be about the Republicans being mean, and raising a "raw" subject.

We already saw this.

We had a Senate candidate with a make believe story about being part Native-American, and the coverage didn't focus on the pretend narrative, it focused on how mean it was for anyone to raise it as an issue.

 

I never dreamt this topic would be so popular.

 

Call me a pervert, but it got off to a good start when the emphasis was on sex. ;D

 

Honestly, I have no desire to discuss Monica Lewinsky.

But, when it comes up, and people dismiss it as a case of strictly consensual sex, absent the power dynamic that was at play, and portray Hillary as strictly a victim in the affair, then it needs to be discussed.

Bill Clinton's issues go beyond one portly intern, and they don't all involve consent. To whatever degree Hillary was a victim, she was also a victimizer.

And, the legal issues include perjury, and suborning perjury. Witnesses were also intimidated.

Those aren't small matters. So, if you don't want to discuss it, let's properly define what happened, and we can all "move on".

 

Hillary's winning strategy here would be to say "that was almost 20 years ago, it involved intense personal feelings between a husband and wife, and it has absolutely no bearing on where this country goes from here."

The arch-wing of the GOP would hate it. The rest of the world would nod in approval. And, yes, move on.

 

Jones was sexually harrassed prior to Clinton becoming president. Yet, he was re-elected.

Willey lied multiple times during the investigation and even sent Bill enthusiastic letters after the alleged incident, wanting to see him again.

Broaddrick made a claim of something that allegedly happened 20 years earlier and had changed her story numerous times.

I won't get into Gennifer Flowers or any of the others. That's between Bill and Hill.

All of which doesn't add up to one political party passing laws against tens of millions of women.

 

No candidate is going to bring this up in the primary -- even the Republican primary. Except for the serious wingnuts. If someone isn't going to vote for her because of what happened in 1998, it's probably someone who isn't going to vote for her anyway. I don't know if by 2016 anyone is even bringing up Benghazi, which at least happened in recent memory.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2014/05/08/the-five-stages-of-gop-scandal-mongering-a-readers-guide/

 

I always did like that facet of the Electoral College ... no matter what you've done, if you get those 270 votes, it's all good.

 

I love how the GOP shriekers are whining about the timing of this now, because they think the American public will forget about it two years from now. Yet, they think bringing something up from 18 years ago will be a winning strategy in 2016.

 

How dare Hillary Clinton not answer for her role in the war on women!

But a war on actual people, based on (at best) bungled and doctored intelligence, or (at worst) complete lies and misdirection and then mismanaged to the tune of trillions of dollars? How dare you liberals try to drag us back into on the past. Why haven't you closed Gitmo (which we opened)? Liar!

Gimmie a freaking break. Thank god no one used chemical weapons during the war on women.

 

She was also at least a lieutenant colonel in the war on Christmas.