Bill Clinton and Bill Cosby

[Mister Mets]

It struck me today watching the Sunday morning shows discussing Cosby that Bill Clinton is vulnerable to a similar kind of reexamination of his legacy.

The various allegations against Clinton in the 1980s aren't discussed much now becasue it's considered old news. But it doesn't take much for something to occur that brings the spotlight back to things that ocurred decades ago that liberal activists would not be happy about. With Cosby, the main impetus was comedian Hannibal Burress calling out his hypocrisy.

Am I wrong to think this is something that could affect Hillary Clinton over the next year?

[bedstuy]

1.  Hillary Clinton isn't culpable for her husband cheating on her. 

2.  Adultery is legal.  Rape is a horrible criminal act.  There's no way to say they're in any way morally equivalent. 

That said, people are going to make these dumb arguments because we're going to hear every anti-Hillary argument from Vince Foster to Whitewater to Benghazi.  And as a Hillary supporter, all I have to say is that if Republicans had good anti-Hillary arguments they wouldn't need to attack her for being cheated on. 

[Mister Mets]

1.  Hillary Clinton isn't culpable for her husband cheating on her. 

2.  Adultery is legal.  Rape is a horrible criminal act.  There's no way to say they're in any way morally equivalent. 

That said, people are going to make these dumb arguments because we're going to hear every anti-Hillary argument from Vince Foster to Whitewater to Benghazi.  And as a Hillary supporter, all I have to say is that if Republicans had good anti-Hillary arguments they wouldn't need to attack her for being cheated on. 

I think part of Hillary's popularity is her association with the most popular living US President. So if something hurts him, it hurts her. And it can lead to uncomfortable questions for her.

The main problem isn't adultery. Concerns about power dynamics are more mainstream. There are different sexual harrassment policies. One question would be if Bill Clinton has ever done anything that could be construed as sexual assault by the most liberal definition of the term? Could it have happened more than once to more than one woman?

[Vega]

What Bill did tends to get Hillary sympathy.

[IceSpear]

Luckily Bill Clinton isn't running for president.

[politicus]

Adultery is legal.  Rape is a horrible criminal act.  There's no way to say they're in any way morally equivalent.  

There have been a string of accusations about sexual assault or abuse from Clinton dating back to his student days (one "incident" in Oxford, one in Yale) and onwards. So there are clear similarities between the Cosby and Clinton sexual abuse narratives.

http://www.mofopolitics.com/2013/09/27/bill-clinton-a-long-history-of-alleged-rape-and-sexual-assault/

[Person Man]

I hope this falls on deaf ears the same way Clinton was accused of killing and stealing during his first campaign. It really seems that this swiftboating could be too negative. 

[KCDem]

What Bill did tends to get Hillary sympathy.

^This. But, please proceed Republicans.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

Bill Cosby, to his very flimsy credit, is not a war criminal.

[Mr. Morden]

Paul has already started this tack, going back to the beginning of this year:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/feb/9/rand-pauls-launches-pre-emptive-2016-strike-on-bil/

You must be logged in to read this quote.

*bump*

Paul continues in this vein.  He now attacks Grimes for appearing with Bill Clinton at a fundraiser:

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/02/rand-paul-bill-clinton-alison-lundergan-grimes-kentucky-103975.html?hp=r1

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[#CriminalizeSobriety]

Bill Cosby, to his very flimsy credit, is not a war criminal.

It makes perfect sense to nationalize energy. There's nothing wrong with a 100% capital gains tax and a $65 minimum wage. A plurality of Americans now say they prefer Socialism over Capitalism, so to dispute that is far-fetched. It's not the wrong way of doing things, just a different way of doing things.

[NewYorkExpress]

The thing is, while most of Bill Clinton's affairs were consensual, there was one incident while he was Arkansas Attorney General with Juanita Broaddrick that really can only be construed as rape.

This incident really should have disqualified Hillary from being a US Senator, Presidential Candidate (2008 and 2016) and Secretary of State, because she knew about this and assisted in a cover-up to save her husbands career (and in any case, being married to a rapist should be a disqualification anyways).

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/broaddrick022599.htm

[Stockdale for Veep]

Just Win Baby?

[Beet]

The thing is, while most of Bill Clinton's affairs were consensual, there was one incident while he was Arkansas Attorney General with Juanita Broaddrick that really can only be construed as rape.

This incident really should have disqualified Hillary from being a US Senator, Presidential Candidate (2008 and 2016) and Secretary of State, because she knew about this and assisted in a cover-up to save her husbands career (and in any case, being married to a rapist should be a disqualification anyways).

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/broaddrick022599.htm

Then why are you endorsing her?

I don't know what to think about the Juanita Broaddrick case except that if this was a credible story, why wasn't it fully pursued through the 1990s? In the Cosby case, it seems like new accusers have come to light, which is what is creating the reassessment; although some (if not all) of these accusers have been named in previous lawsuits. With Bill, as far as I know there are no unnamed accusers out there he had previously settled with.

I am not at all comfortable with what it is known that Bill did. It is precisely this type of issue why it ought to be a reasonable expectation that politicians who want to become presidents, governors, members of Congress and stars of their party, ought to do what ordinary men and women all over the country do every day which is to remain faithful to any spouses the have and not to use their power for sexual favors over subordinates. What if Hill Dog was in the GE, leading or competitive, and suddenly explosive new evidence came up of Bill's sexual harassment?

As we see, it not only has the potential to damage politicians (who cares? As one of the biggest Clinton supporters on here Ill say I don't give a sh* about them personally) but more importantly the millions of people who have their hopes and needs tied up in them, whether it's the sick person who needs health insurance subsidies from the ACA, the boy who doesn't want to see his patents deported,nor the young woman who needs an abortion, or just supporters such as myself and others-- are all hurt by this behavior.

I hope Bill is clean but I agree this is a potential vulnerability for Hill dog.

[Mr. Morden]

I don't know what to think about the Juanita Broaddrick case except that if this was a credible story, why wasn't it fully pursued through the 1990s?

I don't know what there was to pursue at that point, in the case of an allegation about something that happened ~two decades earlier.  There isn't really any evidence to uncover at that point, as it amounts to he said / she said.  And there were no criminal charges to push the story forward.  Broaddrick just did the two interviews and then disappeared from the public spotlight, not looking to push the matter any farther.

Also, keep in mind the context of the time, coming during the impeachment hubbub, where the partisan battlelines were set, and everyone had sorted into camps about whether Clinton should be removed from office, while also being fully aware that he would *not* be removed from office because there weren't the votes to do it.  People were arguing about Monica, but to push the narrative further, to suggest that the sitting president of the United States was a rapist, was too ugly a thought for both the media and the electorate to contemplate.

That doesn't mean it was or wasn't true, just that the fact that it never caught fire with the MSM doesn't automatically discredit it.

[NewYorkExpress]

The thing is, while most of Bill Clinton's affairs were consensual, there was one incident while he was Arkansas Attorney General with Juanita Broaddrick that really can only be construed as rape.

This incident really should have disqualified Hillary from being a US Senator, Presidential Candidate (2008 and 2016) and Secretary of State, because she knew about this and assisted in a cover-up to save her husbands career (and in any case, being married to a rapist should be a disqualification anyways).

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/broaddrick022599.htm

Then why are you endorsing her?

I don't know what to think about the Juanita Broaddrick case except that if this was a credible story, why wasn't it fully pursued through the 1990s? In the Cosby case, it seems like new accusers have come to light, which is what is creating the reassessment; although some (if not all) of these accusers have been named in previous lawsuits. With Bill, as far as I know there are no unnamed accusers out there he had previously settled with.

I am not at all comfortable with what it is known that Bill did. It is precisely this type of issue why it ought to be a reasonable expectation that politicians who want to become presidents, governors, members of Congress and stars of their party, ought to do what ordinary men and women all over the country do every day which is to remain faithful to any spouses the have and not to use their power for sexual favors over subordinates. What if Hill Dog was in the GE, leading or competitive, and suddenly explosive new evidence came up of Bill's sexual harassment?

As we see, it not only has the potential to damage politicians (who cares? As one of the biggest Clinton supporters on here Ill say I don't give a sh* about them personally) but more importantly the millions of people who have their hopes and needs tied up in them, whether it's the sick person who needs health insurance subsidies from the ACA, the boy who doesn't want to see his patents deported,nor the young woman who needs an abortion, or just supporters such as myself and others-- are all hurt by this behavior.

I hope Bill is clean but I agree this is a potential vulnerability for Hill dog.

If anyone competent dares to challenge her (not Webb), I'll probably change it.

[BM]

As an unabashed Hillary supporter...I don't think Bill's reputation would have survived his scandals today, with social media activists and people taking sexual abuse allegations more seriously in general (not really talking about the Monica scandal). I am concerned about these skeletons and possibly more coming out. A lot of people consider the Clintons to be a package duo regardless of whose name is on the ballot.

[dmmidmi]

1.  Hillary Clinton isn't culpable for her husband cheating on her. 

2.  Adultery is legal.  Rape is a horrible criminal act.  There's no way to say they're in any way morally equivalent. 

That said, people are going to make these dumb arguments because we're going to hear every anti-Hillary argument from Vince Foster to Whitewater to Benghazi.  And as a Hillary supporter, all I have to say is that if Republicans had good anti-Hillary arguments they wouldn't need to attack her for being cheated on. 

I think part of Hillary's popularity is her association with the most popular living US President. So if something hurts him, it hurts her. And it can lead to uncomfortable questions for her.

The main problem isn't adultery. Concerns about power dynamics are more mainstream. There are different sexual harrassment policies. One question would be if Bill Clinton has ever done anything that could be construed as sexual assault by the most liberal definition of the term? Could it have happened more than once to more than one woman?

Laura Bush killed somebody. There were plenty of concerns about George W. Bush going into the 2000 election. Was that one of them?

[Bull Moose Base]

I wouldn't put it past the GOP to cut an attack ad against Hillary featuring Bill Cosby.

[King]

Bill Clinton is not a rapist, he's just an incredibly sexy old man.

[NewYorkExpress]

Bill Clinton is not a rapist, he's just an incredibly sexy old man.

Okay then, Mr. Clinton, whatever you say.

[Brittain33]

Juanita Broaddrick's main issue was that she had sworn an affidavit that Clinton had not assaulted her before she gave her interviews. I am not passing judgment on what really happened, but I don't know how you explain that.

[NewYorkExpress]

Juanita Broaddrick's main issue was that she had sworn an affidavit that Clinton had not assaulted her before she gave her interviews. I am not passing judgment on what really happened, but I don't know how you explain that.

Easy. Bill/Hillary paid her off.

[IceSpear]

Juanita Broaddrick's main issue was that she had sworn an affidavit that Clinton had not assaulted her before she gave her interviews. I am not passing judgment on what really happened, but I don't know how you explain that.

Easy. Bill/Hillary paid her off.

You can use that same logic about pretty much any accusation. "No proof of _____? _____ paid them off!!!!"

By the way, you might want to update your endorsements signature. Critz lost like 6 months ago.

[Beet]

Juanita Broaddrick's main issue was that she had sworn an affidavit that Clinton had not assaulted her before she gave her interviews. I am not passing judgment on what really happened, but I don't know how you explain that.

Easy. Bill/Hillary paid her off.

What's the evidence of that?

To be sure, if this becomes a major issue, I would categorize it within the realm of "selective prosecution." I know you can say times have changed, social media and yada-yada-yada, which is technically true. But at the end of the day the bottom line would be that a rape accusation that has never seriously harmed the career of the man accused of rape could end up being a blockage for his wife, who is trying to become the first woman president, and the hopes of millions of women behind her. The supreme irony, although by no means out of character for the way American politics treats women.