For most women, the language of conversation is primarily a language of rapport: a way of establishing connections and negotiating relationships.
–Deborah Tannen
For the reality-based crowd–the crowd that believes in working toward reality, not the crowd that believes they already know it–Ezra Klein has a long, important piece on Hillary Clinton. He doesn’t fawn. He doesn’t tell the truth–only an idiot thinks that he knows the truth about a person. This piece is important because it is one of the first that attempts to understand our next president.
Too often, we fall victim to the notion that people are simple, lacking contradiction and complexity. We forget that what we know is mediated, filtered, in Chris Cilizza’s words, “distilled” by the media. Klein knows a fair number people with a lot of direct experience with Hillary Clinton. He interviewed many more. These people insist that she is much different in person.
Every single person brought up, in some way or another, the exact same quality they feel leads Clinton to excel in governance and struggle in campaigns. On the one hand, that makes my job as a reporter easy. There actually is an answer to the question… Hillary Clinton, they said over and over again, listens.
Klein, with some sourcing, suggests that the campaign trail was not constructed with women in mind. Listening, while not exclusive to women, is more valued by women, says Klein. The modern campaign, however, is focused on the other end of communication: speaking.
Modern presidential campaigns are built to reward people who are really, really good at talking. So imagine what a campaign feels like if you’re not entirely natural in front of big crowds. Imagine that you are constantly compared to your husband, one of the greatest campaign orators of all time; that you’ve been burned again and again after saying the wrong thing in public; that you’ve been told, for decades, that you come across as calculated and inauthentic on the stump.
Klein refers to Clinton’s 2000 senate and 2016 presidential campaigns as evidence.
Clinton began her 2016 campaign with a listening tour, as well, and it is worth considering the possibility that these tours are not simply bullshit. This is, to be honest, a possibility I had not really considered until speaking with past and present Clinton aides who have been forced to take their boss’s process seriously….
It turned out that Clinton, in her travels, stuffed notes from her conversations and her reading into suitcases, and every few months she dumped the stray paper on the floor of her Senate office and picked through it with her staff. The card tables were for categorization: scraps of paper related to the environment went here, crumpled clippings related to military families there. These notes, Rubiner recalls, really did lead to legislation. Clinton took seriously the things she was told, the things she read, the things she saw. She made her team follow up.
Klein doesn’t shy away from legitimate causes of Clinton’s negative approval ratings. The perennial favorites–her Iraq War vote, Goldman-Sach’s speech, and email scandal–are mentioned. And he suggests that her listening style of governance, coupled with her antiquated ability to compromise, could be a potential problem for her presidency. On the other hand, both qualities suggest that perhaps she actually understands the concerns of Bernie Sanders’ supporters and will pursue them.
For anyone who cares enough to understand Hillary Clinton as a person, not a reflection of the media or individual ideology, Ezra Klein’s Understanding Hillary is necessary reading. I wouldn’t be surprised if it eventually turns into part of a presidential biography. It’s took long to gloss over the entire article, but you ignore at your peril and will almost certainly snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
Ezra Klein’s piece is a great read.
I also think his attempt to dismiss her criticisms of the media hearkens to the excellent Noah Chomsky piece cited over the weekend by EB3.
Two EXCELLENT pieces.
I think we need pay far more attention to the way our media is deceiving and manipulating us.
Quite a long article by Klein and as such, difficult to reply in one breath. It has not changed my opinion of her but it reminded me of the time when I heard a radio interview on NPR with the reporter speaking with a political figure that I did not catch the name of and did not recognize by his voice. I liked the guy, thought he had a lot of good points, and his calm, relaxed almost happy tone was a pleasure to listen to. At the end, I learned that guy was Al Gore and even though I was not a Democrat at that time, I thought, “Gee, where was this guy during the campaign?” He would have won in a landslide.”
That’s the problem I have with Hillary. If the person at the podium is not who she is and that person is the one that all her staffers admire, be that person in public.
Her words:, “I really believe that none of us have done what we should have done in being really straightforward about what we know and what we don’t know,,in being willing to say, ‘We reported that story last week; it turns out we were wrong.’”
I wish she was confident enough to follow her own advice, placed message ahead of money. Her campaign is too focused on money and not offending those with lots of money. Do more than listen to us. Look at us. We’re evaporating. We’re still getting hammered (to quote Senator Warren). Working class Americans could be her biggest ally if she would cut her ties with big money, and give it all she has. There is still time and working towards that is my goal for the next four years after her election.
…
You missed the point of the article: it is difficult — perhaps impossible — to be that person in public. The media glare, our own public (and testosterone fueled) mythos and the endless cycle of ( oft fatuous ) “analysis” is an insurmountable obstacle to authenticity.
Maybe you’re the last to think that, between John Kerry and George Dubya Bush, Dubya is the one you’d “rather have a beer with.”. I can guarantee that, after three and one quarter minutes with Dubya you’ll note it is an excrutiating exercise in existential despair whereas after three hours in the company of John Kerry, you’ll feel a better person over all. I daresay the same is true for both Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders….
If “the point” of the article is that it’s impossible to be that person in public, let me point you to Donald Trump who is “that person” in public, albeit not the person that I would be attracted to.
I’m not interested in a beer with Dubya. Self made sons irritate me.
This is a time to be different, bold, break out of the media. The Donald has done so on the dark side. It would be wise, even world shattering, if Hillary were to be brave enough to do so on our side.
due to lack of authenticity.
He is the definition of serial panderer, claiming to be a great friend of whatever group he is speaking about and telling every audience exactly what they want to hear, not to mention how many issues he has turned 180 degrees on. Maybe you agree with this, but I had to get it off my chest because this whole Trump=authenticity meme drives me nuts!
But his message is resonating. He is delivering a positive message to the people. Yes, it’s bullshit and it’s smoke & mirrors, but it’s working. Hillary’s single campaign slogan seems to be “Vote for me because (A) I will be the nation’s first female president and (B) I am not Donald Trump. Down vote me and this post all you want but Hillary is losing or tied in major swing states: Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania.
Yeah, I know, blame the Bernie Sanders supporters……
… to be a downrate. Don’t want you to get the idea I agree: Donald Trump is barely human… authenticity ain’t in it.
(I am still struck by the Gallop polls before the 1972 that showed robust majorities of Americans thought Nixon more honest than McGovern.)
Trump is “authentic” for the following reason: he doesn’t pause and think before he speaks. Listening to Hillary Clinton being interviewed by Ezra Klein, we sees a very thoughtful person trying hard to get things right. Trump has no such commitment. This enables him to appear unfiltered, i.e., authentic.
This isn’t a virtue in a President, but it can play very well on TV.
and I and others see a person who is loose with the truth, hard to pin down, and looking for plausible deniability in case ones false statement is discovered.
As a good friend once told me, “Always tell the truth, it’s easier to remember.”
Looks that way to me.
Certainly…..but it’s too little of one and much too much of the other, based on what we already know about the Clintons.
Your comment reminds me of the famous quote attributed to Mark Twain:
I suggest that there is very little that evidence of Ms. Clinton being “loose with the truth, hard to pin down, and looking for plausible deniability”.
The observation that some of us are absolutely convinced of this does not make it any more true.
CLINTON: “I thought it would be easier to carry just one device for my work and for personal emails instead of two.” News conference, March 2015.
THE FACTS: This reasoning for using private email both for public business and private correspondence didn’t hold up in the investigation. Clinton “used numerous mobile devices to view and send email” using her personal account, Comey said. He also said Clinton had used different servers.
CLINTON: “I responded right away and provided all my emails that could possibly be work related” to the State Department. News conference, March 2015.
THE FACTS: Not so, the FBI found.
Comey said that when his forensic team examined Clinton’s server it found there were “several thousand work-related emails that were not in the group of 30,000” that had been returned by Clinton to the State Department.
CLINTON: “I never received nor sent any material that was marked classified.” NBC interview, July 2016.
THE FACTS: Clinton has separately clung to her rationale that there were no classification markings on her emails that would have warned her and others not to transmit the sensitive material. But the private system did, in fact, handle emails that bore markings indicating they contained classified information, Comey said.
He said the marked emails were “a very small number.” But that’s not the only standard for judging how officials handle sensitive material, he added. “Even if information is not marked classified in an email, participants who know, or should know, that the subject matter is classified are still obligated to protect it.”
CLINTON: “I did not email any classified material to anyone on my email. There is no classified material.” News conference, March 2015.
THE FACTS: Actually, the FBI identified at least 113 emails that passed through Clinton’s server and contained materials that were classified at the time they were sent, including some that were Top Secret and referred to a highly classified special access program, Comey said.
Must I go on? And this is only one instance. I have a goldmine of these regarding other matters.
…she had every reason to believe to be true at the time she stated same, and in some cases have been shown subsequently to have in fact been true, so unless you can read her mind…
“she had reason to believe”….more of that “plausible deniability” garbage. No wonder her negative rating are so high and few trust her. What burns me is that all of this crap is a collection of unforced errors.
When will she learn that Americans are very willing to forgive mistakes but no willing to be fooled by this sort of thing. It’s ironic that she cut her teeth in politics during the Nixon investigations and never learned a thing.
…that she genuinely did not think (notice?) that an email was classified or had genuinely no recollection of hitting “forward” and “send”? My understanding is that buried in the text was a (c) to indicate classified which could have easily been missed. I hope you never grill me on my email practices because I wouldn’t be able to tell you with 100% accuracy which messages I sent and received just this morning without opening up my account and looking, and I’m sure I communicate via email a fraction of the amount that she did as Secretary.
Sure, but then instead of being a liar, she’s extremely inept and careless with government classified information that may put the nation’s security at risk. Which would you rather? Here’s the thing. If she did not have the private server in her basement, this would never have been an issue. Again, and unforced error.
During the 2008 campaign, Clinton said she came under sniper fire in Bosnia during the ’90s. She went so far as to claim her group ran “with our heads down to get into the vehicles to get to our base.” Video of her actual arrival surfaced showing a very calm scene instead, and the Democrat would quickly say she simply misspoke.
And two pages from Politifact
And you still maintain that “I suggest that there is very little that evidence of Ms. Clinton being “loose with the truth, hard to pin down, and looking for plausible deniability”….with a straight face?
You mean you’ve never exaggerated the size of the fish you almost caught?
There was no fish, no boat, and no hook.
…is that Hillary has been named the most honest and accurate presidential candidate of the cycle by Politifact. Even statements by Bill regarding Monica Lewinsky that people mocked were accurate. We also know that the VRWC has worked overtime to discredit both of them AND many of Hillary’s “faults” are magnified due to her gender.
You’ve cited that before and it’s totally bogus if you really look into both what Politifact chose for the statements and their judgment calls.
And you’re defending Bill’s honesty about his affairs!?!? Come on.
I like them on FB and their rulings appear in my feed. They won’t let go of her statements regarding classified email which they continue to insist are false despite new evidence that should bump those statements up to “Mostly True”. They aren’t the only outfit to have studied HRC’s statements overall and reach similar conclusions, BTW.
I am absolutely defending the literal honesty of Bill Clinton regarding Lewinsky. His memorable line, “It depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is,” is actually quite significant. At the time he was asked as I recall, the question about a relationship with ML was phrased in the present tense, but the relationship had been broken off months prior. Therefore, the correct answer to, “Mr. President, are you in a relationship with Monica Lewinsky?” was in fact negative.
Likewise, even his finger-wagging denial, “I did not have sexual relations with that woman – Miss Lewinsky,” was accurate according to definitions agreed upon by opposing legal teams. I’m trying to stay a little more family-friendly than the Starr Report itself here, but in order to have sexual relations party A had to come into contact with certain private parts of party B for the purpose of stimulating party B. While Lewinsky stimulated Clinton in this way it was never suggested the rolls were reversed. I know it sounds odd, but I recall thinking by those standards Lewinsky had sexual relations with Clinton, but NOT the other way around.
Yes, it would have been nice, and maybe ultimately easier, if Clinton had declined to be a lawyer at those particular moments, but I for one was also cheering on his attempts to deliver a one-finger salute to an investigation that had no business happening in the first place.
I guess Clinton Derangement Syndrome flows both ways.
If it’s positive, call it something else, but in this case I call it the truth.
I’m disgusted that we’re STILL arguing about Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky after twenty years. In this case, Christopher is absolutely correct. You are repeating, and therefore solidifying, right-wing lies that never were true.
Monica Lewinsky gave Bill Clinton blow-jobs, he apparently pleasured her (or watched her pleasure herself) with a cigar. That’s it. She’s said so, he’s said so. Ken Starr wanted it to be more than that, and it wasn’t.
My impression, frankly, is that Mr. Clinton’s accusers (including too many here) are projecting their own lurid fantasies onto what actually happened between Mr. Clinton and Ms. Lewinsky.
There never has been any “there” there.
If someone wants to hold up the truthfulness or great character of Bill Clinton, I’ll call it out. That dude is a creep.
The minimization of his actions and attacks on his accusers by progressives is what is and what has always been disgusting.
What he did was have oral sex with a consenting adult woman. No more, no less. I’m not sure what you think anybody is minimizing. I am also not clear why you think it is anybody’s business except Bill and Hillary Clinton and Monica Lewinsky.
I get that you feel compelled to “call it out”. My view is that your compulsion is YOUR issue. All the people involved got over it a LONG time ago.
Do you really think that is all it is? The power dynamic of that relationship is hardly the same as two people meeting each other in a bar. I think it is wildly different. I’d feel the same way if a CEO had sex with a college intern at a private company. It’s inappropriate and a failure of leadership and the responsibilities of the office. It does goes beyond the two people involved, and in most companies (well, good ones with decent boards) the CEO would be fired.
Was it something for which he should have been impeached? I don’t think so. Was it something for which the man should absolutely lose respect (not to mention the other affair and assault allegations)? Absolutely.
You’re being ridiculous that you think I’m some sort of prudish compulsive. I only mentioned anything because Christopher defended Bill Clinton’s honesty, which I think is ridiculous.
(at least sexually) Yes, Clinton could have been the adult and rejected her advances, but they were HER advances. OTOH, both Clinton and Lewinsky WERE victims of an overzealous OIC aided and abetted by Linda “I’m just like you” (yeah, right!) Tripp.
You think the Lewinsky issue was just a relationship between consenting adults. I assume you think the same of Gennifer Flowers. That’s fine, although do you think someone thinking that Clinton is a dirtbag personally based on just those two relationships is unreasonable?
Do you believe Paula Jones? Or Juanita Broaddrick? If not, do you believe Anita Hill?
Defending that guy, over this stuff – I really don’t get it.
Yes, the right-wing wanted to do everything possible to take him down, and they want to do the same with his wife. That doesn’t mean that we as progressives have to defend him (or her) against every attack.
…Clinton’s behavior in this regard either. I don’t know what to think about some of the others. My gut says that Paula Jones got cozy with the VRWC in a way that undermined her credibility (and I think her suit should not have gone forward while he was still POTUS). By the time Broaddrick’s accusation came up the smart aleck in me thought sure, why not? He’s been accused of every other felony (treason, drug running, even murder) so might as well add rape to the mix just to complete the rap sheet. Anita Hill was too much she-said, he-said for me to have a strong opinion about the truth, but I ultimately concluded that if true a few rude comments weren’t enough to disqualify someone from the Court. If that were the standard I’m not sure any of us would make it since people are by definition not perfect. I actually don’t completely agree with your final paragraph. Unfortunately my experience with the Clintons and their enemies has taught me that we do in fact need to circle the wagons at the first sign of trouble, with the exception of legitimate disagreements on matters of policy.
Undermined her credibility or she was lying? There’s a difference.
Maybe it’s because I have worked with sexual and intimate partner assault survivors, but my gut is to trust women. I see that you don’t feel the same.
If you think that sexual harassment by a boss is just a “few rude comments” then I don’t really know what to say other than you might want to get some education on that.
Yes, and that’s what gives the Clintons a pass for too many transgressions from many Democrats. There are many lies from the right-wing but that doesn’t mean the Clintons (especially Bill) haven’t done some bad shit. We shouldn’t defend them like that and minimize the bad things they have done.
I know parts of Jones’s story had a hard time withstanding scrutiny. The Coke can comments are what stick out about Anita Hill and apparently even she was ambivalent as to whether her allegations rose to the legal definition of sexual harassment. MY gut says trust the woman enough to investigate the claims, but the accused still gets to be innocent until proven guilty.
You say you’ve worked with “sexual and intimate partner assault survivors” and “my gut is to trust women”.
Why, do you not trust Monica Lewinsky enough to take her at her word?
Sorry, but the more you say the more you persuade me that you are projecting your issues on this situation, rather than truly listening to the people involved.
Monica Lewinsky was coerced into testifying against a man she initiated oral sex with. Ms. Lewinsky was NOT a victim of any sort of abuse from Bill Clinton — it was, in fact, Ken Starr and the VRWC that did SO much harm to her.
Now you, in your sanctimonious commentary, pile on and worsen the situation.
I don’t know what “bad shit” you think Bill and Hillary have done. Monica Lewinsky is NOT among that, no matter how vigorously you falsely claim the contrary. What’s next from you, attacks about Whitewater? Claims that Hillary Clinton murdered Vince Foster?
You are stirring a cesspool filled with right-wing fecal matter, and it stinks to high heaven.
Did I say or imply that Clinton assaulted Lewinsky? I did not. But yeah, having sex with an intern while President of the country is “bad shit” but having committed assault and rape is much worse.
I guess you don’t believe those women and it was all lies and a politically motivated attack. And do you feel the same way about Anita Hill (because people on the right claim the same thing)?
We shouldn’t let our politics blind us on things like this. Just because he’s on our team doesn’t mean he didn’t do bad stuff, isn’t a bad guy, and shouldn’t be criticized for it.
The VRWC is real, but it didn’t invent everything.
You wrote (emphasis mine):
These were your words, offered in an attempt to criticize me. In the case of Monica Lewinsky, you clearly do NOT trust her, because she has NEVER accused Mr. Clinton of anything inappropriate. Multiple reports like this say that Ms. Lewinsky vowed to her friends before she left her Portland OR home for her internship that she was going to Washington “to get [her] presidential kneepads”. This NOT a women who was manipulated by person of power. Ms. Lewinsky was instead a woman who successfully sought an affair with Mr. Clinton.
I do believe Monica Lewinsky. In my view, Ms. Flowers, Ms. Jones and Ms. Broaddrick had more than ample opportunity to present their “evidence” — none produced anything substantive. All three women had close ties to various GOP operatives. In my view, whatever sexual relationships did or did not happen were, even at the time, totally overwhelmed by the flagrant political agenda of the women themselves and of the associates the women worked with in achieving their notoriety.
All of that was more than twenty years ago. None of those claims was proven, despite MILLIONS of dollars invested by the VRWC and millions more taxpayer dollars squandered by the GOP. None of that is relevant to today’s campaign.
I stand by my earlier characterization of your ill-conceived desire to stir this cesspool.
You still are reading into what I wrote something that I did not write or imply. The Lewinsky relationship was not about Clinton abusing her. I haven’t alleged that. I’ve said it was inappropriate. Apparently you disagree. Does only an assault lead to characterizing something as “inappropriate” to you?
It’s interesting that you believe reports of people calling Lewinsky a slut but not any of the reports or testimony from any other accusers and corroboration from friends.
Even rape? Nice, Tom. The political agenda and spin worked both ways. What Democratic operatives said about and did towards these women was despicable, regardless of how gross the right was.
It’s relevant to the extent people want to hold up Bill Clinton’s honesty and these relationships and accusations as nothing. The defense of that strikes me as similar to the defenses of Bill Cosby.
Again, the VRWC is real, but it didn’t invent everything.
…has already been made by a rightwing superpac TV ad I’ve seen lately, so good to know where you are getting your material from.:( BTW, last I knew Cosby was also still denying the allegations against him, so again, innocent until proven guilty.
Can I ask how old you are? Frankly you sound like you don’t remember the sordid 90s when it comes to political outrage. I recommend you read The Hunting of the President by Joe Conason and Gene Lyons for a thorough accounting of how and why Bill Clinton got treated the way he did. I never have quite figured out how a failed land deal and allegations of sexual harassment merged to create an impeachment case over a consensual relationship.
Never seen the ad and don’t read right-wing publications, so I didn’t see it there. Defending a guy against a number of similar accusations is happening in both, so there are similarities regardless of whether Breitbart picks up on it.
I’m 35, so I may have missed some of the things for which so many Democrats fiercely defend Bill Clinton. (and I’m no Democrat) I think that distance made it clearer to see that he was a gross person and also did more for Neoliberal policies than almost any President.
I was a regular reader of The Nation, though. Maybe it was too much Cockburn and Hitchens in the 90s that made me this way. 🙂
As a survivor of both the Nixon years and the Clinton years, I have always felt that the animus against the Democrats in general and Bill Clinton in particular was a direct reaction to the forced resignation of Richard Nixon.
A great many Republicans felt that Richard Nixon was unfairly hounded from office. One of the sad consequences of the Reagan era was a rewrite of remembered history through the rose-colored lenses of Alex Keaton-style Republicanism. The terribly destructive pardon by Gerald Ford ensured that none of the massive volume of evidence would be presented in court, thus enabling the deniers.
The GOP of the early nineties, led by hypocritical demagogues like Newt Gingrich and funded by right-wing extremists like Richard Mellon Scaife and Joseph Coors. The relentless and relentlessly hyper-partisan attacks against Bill Clinton always struck me as the actions of men who were sorely disappointed by failure of Richard Nixon and then Ronald Reagan to transform America into the right-wing fundamentalist Christian religious state these extremists sought.
I think we saw this same dynamic repeated, more forcefully, when another eight-year GOP administration left America in shambles. Rather than leave behind their utterly failed ideology (and the sexist, racist, and xenophobic prejudices that accompany it), they doubled down on it. We saw another eight years of relentless and relentlessly personal attacks on Barack Obama — this time with the explicit goal of destroying him.
It makes perfect sense to me, against this context, that the GOP nominee is Donald Trump. Mr. Trump is the ultimate expression of the undisciplined demagoguery, utterly disconnected from reality, that has been the GOP for the last eight years.
It also makes perfect sense that the Clinton accusers come crawling out of the woodwork, apparently attracted by the likelihood that Hillary Clinton will be elected President.
There is absolutely NO relationship to Bill Cosby. The two men share the same first name, and little else.
Regarding Ms. Lewinsky, I don’t even know what you mean by “appropriate”. What I know is that no national interests were harmed and the people involved have long since left it behind. I don’t think it’s my place to stand in judgement of decisions made more than twenty years ago by consenting adults.
“Even rape”? Get serious! Have you forgotten that people are innocent until proven guilty? The circumstances of the Ms. Broaddrick’s claim were and remain murky at best. She actively refused to file any complaints. She was in the midst of an affair herself, with another man who was also in the midst of an affair. None of the claims she’s made have even been brought to court, never mind tested.
I disagree most emphatically with your assertion that “what Democratic operatives said about and did towards these women was despicable”.
Bill Cosby is not running for President. Bill Clinton is not running for President. Bill Clinton already went through the legal mill, and NONE of these charges were sustained.
You are declaring Bill Clinton guilty, twenty years after the courts found otherwise. I find THAT despicable.
You are talking about Bill Clinton because Hillary Clinton, an accomplished candidate and likely President in her own right, happens to be married to him. I find THAT sexist.
President Clinton was held in civilcontempt of court by Judge Susan Webber Wright for giving misleading testimony in the Paula Jones case regarding Lewinsky,[2] and was also fined $90,000 by Wright.[3] His license to practice law was suspended in Arkansas for five years and later by the United States Supreme Court.[4]
Lewinsky confided in Linda Tripp about her relationship with Clinton. Tripp persuaded Lewinsky to save the gifts that Clinton had given her, and not to dry clean a semen-stained blue dress. Tripp reported their conversations to literary agent Lucianne Goldberg, who advised her to secretly record them,[19] which Tripp began doing in September 1997.
Clinton admitted in taped grand jury testimony on August 17, 1998, that he had had an “improper physical relationship” with Lewinsky. That evening he gave a nationally televised statement admitting his relationship with Lewinsky which was “not appropriate”.[28]
Fine. Great. Twenty years ago. Let’s not forget the relationship between Ms. Tripp and Ken Starr. Ms. Lewinsky has written extensively about her feelings of betrayal by Ms. Tripp, whom Ms. Lewinsky mistakenly thought was a friend. She was not. Monica Lewinsky was a twenty-something young woman who was sucked into and then ground up in the gears of the right-wing smear machine. Anybody who genuinely cares about protecting young people from abuses of power should focus their attacks on Ken Starr, his sponsors, and his cabal rather than Bill Clinton.
I have a pretty good idea of what Bill Clinton meant in his use of the word. I have the distinct impression that doubleman means something very different.
I think all of this is irrelevant to today’s campaign. I’m trying to think of a male candidate who is attacked because of marital infidelities of his spouse — especially when those infidelities are twenty years old.
These criticisms are fundamentally sexist even if they were true, which most of them are not.
I haven’t implied any abusive relationship even though you continue to claim I have. By “inappropriate” I mean something that absolutely should not have happened and that was a distinct failure of leadership and judgment. The same label applies to a CEO of a company having sex with an intern in the office or a principal having sex with a teacher’s aide.
I love the “innocent until proven guilty” charge. Hilarious. Sure, that flies in a criminal proceeding in court, but in the real world, we also make judgments based on the available evidence. So yeah, I think Bill Cosby is a serial rapist despite a criminal conviction. I think Clarence Thomas put pubes on that Coke can despite a criminal conviction. I think many politicians (especially many Republicans) are corrupt. For good measure, I also think OJ Simpson murdered Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman despite an acquittal in the criminal case (also, the recent ESPN multipart special on the case is worth viewing). I’ll be sure to mention the “innocent until proven guilty” belief you have when you attack any number of Republicans or shitty MA state house Dems. If there’s no criminal conviction, better not say you think they did something!
If you will only believe a woman who claims she was sexually assaulted if she files a complaint and that complaint results in a judgment, then you only believe a minuscule percentage of women who say they have been sexually assaulted. I can provide some reading as to why many women do not move forward with complaints if you like. The actions of the Bill Cosby accusers seem relevant there as well, but maybe they’re all lying and trying to make a buck now.
This is no doubt a diversion from a discussion of the current campaign, and it all started because of a defense of Bill’s truthfulness about his relationships. I didn’t know diversions in these threads were verboten.
I have a serious problem with this.
Even if all of the charges are false, you think the “nuts and sluts” attacks that went on were OK???
I too believe the preponderance of the evidence suggests OJ’s guilt, but I wasn’t on that jury. As for this: ” I’ll be sure to mention the “innocent until proven guilty” belief you have when you attack any number of Republicans or sh**ty MA state house Dems. If there’s no criminal conviction, better not say you think they did something!” I hope you WILL apply that standard to accusations of misconduct, but there’s no need to with regard to political complaints.
You’re not conducting a rational discussion. Your introduction of Bill Cosby, OJ, etc. is an irrelevant distraction.
The three women we’re talking about — Ms. Jones, Ms. Flowers, and MS. Broaddrick — all had ample opportunity to be heard in court, and were heard. The result was NOTHING.
You believe Mr. Clinton was guilty anyway. I don’t. You apparently place great credibility in at least the first two of the three, despite the mountains of evidence that they were paid to say what they said and do what they did. I think, as I wrote upthread, that whatever truth was there was completely overwhelmed by Ken Starr and his minions.
I reject your attempt to generalize my reaction from these three women to women in general. I don’t find these women credible. I agree that the case of Ms. Broaddrick is more disturbing than the others. Nevertheless, it was ALREADY 21 years old in 1999 when it was brought (according to the link you just posted).
What I think we DO know is that many millions of dollars were spent propping up and embellishing the stories of these women. We DO know that the people doing that were explicitly and intentionally striving to bring down Bill Clinton. We DO know that all that turned into nothingness afterward. We also know, frankly, that the life stories of Ms. Jones and Ms. Flowers after all this do not reinforce their credibility.
I think you join Mr. Starr in passionately wanted to find something truly awful to pin on Bill Clinton — you do so in spite of the utter absence of evidence and in spite of the DECADES that have passed since all of this was alleged to have happened.
And you continue this discussion as a way of attacking Hillary Clinton, who was at best a bit player in all this.
I stand by my rejection of your attacks, and I stand by characterization of those attacks as both groundless and also sexist.
I bring up the other examples of to show that “innocent until proven guilty” is bullshit. It’s a cop out.
Not true. Paula Jones’s case was settled. Ms. Flowers did not bring a case against Clinton because she alleged they had an ongoing affair. Clinton admitted to one sexual encounter with Flowers in a deposition in the Kathleen Willey case. Flowers later brought a defamation case against other people and lost. Broaddrick never brought a case (other than one related to gathering documents believed to have been assembled about her by the White House).
You’ve definitely internalized the nuts and sluts defense.
How many times have I mentioned Hillary? This is about Bill and how it’s still effing ridiculous how willing Democrats are to defend the guy.
Hillary Clinton is running. You’re talking about Bill Clinton. Apparently, in your world, she doesn’t count.
You’re right, it IS effing ridiculous.
Huh?
News flash: The 2016 Democratic nominee for President is HILLARY, not Bill Clinton.
When we ignore the accomplishments of a woman in a high-profile role, and instead focus on her spouse, we demean that woman. Some in our society do that to women. Almost nobody does that to men.
Your focus on the ancient history of Bill Clinton is sexist.
Seriously. Stop being stupid.
This discussion was about Bill and people defending him. That’s it.
YOUR discussion has been “about Bill and people defending him. That’s it” — starting with your own comment from last week. Christopher made an off-hand reference to Bill Clinton in a comment about HILLARY. You jumped on that, and have stayed on Bill Clinton since.
So we at least agree that the only thing YOU are discussing is Bill Clinton.
In fact, this POST is about Hillary Clinton.
… Most of what I ‘know’ about the Clintons is what people tell me they think they ‘know’ about the Clintons. Most of what people think they know about the Clintons derives from accusations made against them by people who are, by all accounts, scared incontinent by them yet unable to articulate exactly what it is that scares them so: and thus aggressively passive-aggressive made up shit becomes what we think we know about both Clintons
An accusation is not, at all, a good substitute for a narrative, though people have defaulted to that, and a narrative is ever only an inadequate substitute for the truth. So we’re two steps removed from the truth.
In the face of that, I have to go with what I see in actions. Bill Clinton publicly committed adultery and humiliated Hillary but she is still married to him. That’s an act of character: not only to re-commit to the marriage but to shoulder the burden of continued, and very public, ridicule for doing so. Even if you accept the pernicious (and likely spurious) notion that she remained with him solely upon political grounds, you’d have to respect the sheer grit she displayed in doing so.
After that, then-Senator Clinton first ran against then-Senator Obama, than worked for President Obama as Secretary of State and did a fine job of it. That’s a character move too…
Secretary Clinton then gave a bunch of speeches. BIll Clinton also. They get flak for speaking before certain groups. But, according to CNN, they have collectively given some 729 paid speeches between 2001 and 2016 (this does not include the many public speeches and appearances…). Together they’ve made a lot of speeches. From this I infer two things: A) people really want to hear what Bill and Hillary Clinton have to say; and 2) they’re both, likely, willing to speak at a wide range of events, from corporate outings to the opening of a can of beans.
I’m sure some may, and likely will, attempt to spin all of the above as done so out of nefarious motives, but that’s a specie of mind reading shaded by the accusations and not, necessarily the truth.
She knows very well that she chooses her words carefully and believes it is the responsibility of a President to do so.