Monica Lewinsky back in the news

[YankeeFan]

The Clinton WH, with Hillary in the lead, ran a war on women. That's the truth, and that's what Hillary has to answer for.

No, she doesn't.

Of course she does. She didn't just enable Bill, she helped run the slug shaming machine.

Why shouldn't she have to answer for it?

 

[Dick Whitman]

The Clinton WH, with Hillary in the lead, ran a war on women. That's the truth, and that's what Hillary has to answer for.

No, she doesn't.

Of course she does. She didn't just enable Bill, she helped run the slug shaming machine.

Why shouldn't she have to answer for it?

I didn't say she shouldn't.

 

[YankeeFan]

I didn't say she shouldn't.

So, we're quibbling over semantics?

The real question is whether "the media" will ask her these questions, or will they find them unseemly, and too uncomfortable. I think we know the answer as far as most of the media goes.

 

[Dick Whitman]

I didn't say she shouldn't.

So, we're quibbling over semantics?

It's not semantics. Precise language is important here.

You say that she has to answer for what you call the Clinton White House "war on women."

No, she doesn't have to answer for that. She has the woman vote. The idea that the GOP is going to force her into a position where she "has to answer" for that is laughable.

This will be a non-issue. Why you think she "has to" answer for it in order to satisfy a bunch of people who would never vote for her anyway, I don't understand. You know politics better than that.

Now: Should she? "Should" her base think more critically about her? "Should" her extended base think more critically about her? Yes, I think they "should."

But "should" and "has to" are miles and miles apart. This isn't "semantics." It's the kind of precise wording difference that throws you into a tizzy when science journalists use words like "likely" or evolutionary biologists use "theory."

 

[YankeeFan]

She has the woman vote. The idea that the GOP is going to force her into a position where she "has to answer" for that is laughable.

Is it really the GOP's job to "force" her into a position where she has to answer for that?

Shouldn't that be the job of an independent media?

Instead, the media criticizes anyone who raises the issue, from Rand Paul, to Monica Lewinsky. Raising a legitimate issue is seen as partisan and ugly. It's used to delegitimize the person who raises the issue.

 

[LongTimeListener]

YF gets very upset when the Democrats do not follow a strategy designed by Republicans for Republicans.

 

[Dick Whitman]

"The media."

 

[Dick Whitman]

I am sure the Wall Street Journal will stay far, far away from the policies of the prior Clinton administration during the upcoming campaign. Chicago Tribune, too.

 

[YankeeFan]

YF gets very upset when the Democrats do not follow a strategy designed by Republicans for Republicans.

If media = Democrats, you are right.

 

[Dick Whitman]

Fox News will stay far, far away from the policies of the prior Clinton administration.

 

[poindexter]

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

 

[YankeeFan]

"The media."

I am sure the Wall Street Journal will stay far, far away from the policies of the prior Clinton administration during the upcoming campaign. Chicago Tribune, too.

You really think there is some faction of the mainstream media that is interested in asking Hillary about her role in the WH attack machine, that sought to tear down the women who were "involved" -- often involuntarily -- with her husband?

She was his chief defender.

And, look how the press responds to the Lewinsky VF article, it's all about the politics of it, and not the substance: http://wapo.st/QbNIDA