Nytimes: 'What About Bill?' Sexual Miscoduct Debate Revives Questions

[Sumner 1868]

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/15/us/politics/bill-clinton-sexual-misconduct-debate.html

[quote]
WASHINGTON — Another woman went on national television this week to press her case of sexual assault by a powerful figure. But the accused was not Roy S. Moore or Harvey Weinstein or Donald J. Trump. It was Bill Clinton.

“I feel like people are starting to believe and realize that I was truly sexually assaulted by Bill Clinton,” Juanita Broaddrick said on Fox News nearly two decades after first going public with her story. “All victims matter. It doesn’t matter if you’re a Democrat or a Republican. Who cares if you’re straight or you’re gay, or if you believe in God or not. We all have a right to be believed.”

The cultural conversation about women, power and sexual misconduct that has consumed the United States in recent weeks has now raised a question that is eagerly promoted by those on the political right just as it discomfits those on the political left: What about Bill? While Fox News and other conservative outlets revive years-old charges against Mr. Clinton to accuse Mr. Moore’s critics of hypocrisy, some liberals say it may be time to rethink their defense of the 42nd president.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

When someone accuses an establishment Democrat, it's just "bimbo eruptions".

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

When someone accuses an establishment Democrat, it's just "bimbo eruptions".

Damn, Bill's running for office again? In today's climate, and with his history, I figured that would be a pretty tough sell. What's he running for? Or is he going for some party position?

[Cactus Jack]

When someone accuses an establishment Democrat, it's just "bimbo eruptions".

F**k off.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

When someone accuses an establishment Democrat, it's just "bimbo eruptions".

F**k off.

Great rebuttal of the article.

[Beet]

What about him? The guy's misconduct was indefensible. I've criticized him in the face of vicious defenses from fellow Democrats over the years. Just like I criticized Anthony Weiner in the face of the overwhelming support he used to get on this site. In both cases, I was vindicated. The irony is, most Democrats loathe Bill Clinton's presidency but long defended his sex scandals. The lesson is, listen to Beet.

I've noticed a lot of the soft sexists and BILL CLINTON DID NOTHING WRONG types have gotten awful quiet or just left the Democrats. Nominating Hillary had the salutary effect I'd hoped it had on the Democratic party, you see less misogyny in it these days. Unfortunately, without the people who left, we're no longer a national majority.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

Why can't a non-propaganda outlet report on this?

I'm dumb and misread this.

[Hindsight was 2020]

Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't Juanita fail a lie detector test, flipped flopped under oath, and have Ken Starr publicly say he didn't believe her?

[Sirius_]

Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't Juanita fail a lie detector test, flipped flopped under oath, and have Ken Starr publicly say he didn't believe her?

To be fair, the polygraph is a load of bulls**t, but flipping under oath is a problem.

[MasterJedi]

And if Bill Clinton ran again I'm sure he would get eviscerated and not even win a primary, good thing he's not!

[7,052,770]

Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't Juanita fail a lie detector test, flipped flopped under oath, and have Ken Starr publicly say he didn't believe her?

Bingo. On top of all the other evidence, the fact that Ken Starr of all people looked into this and let it go speaks volumes.

No question Bill had some deplorable behavior, but it was entirely of a personal nature that's only his and Hillary's business these days.

[Yank2133]

Bringing up Bill Clinton is just self-serving BS by white male liberals. It is all about shielding themselves from charges of hypocrisy by conservative hacks and to try to gain credibility on the issue of sexual harassment/assault with women subscribers.

It is so transparent that it isn't even funny.

[Santander]

Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't Juanita fail a lie detector test, flipped flopped under oath, and have Ken Starr publicly say he didn't believe her?

Bingo. On top of all the other evidence, the fact that Ken Starr of all people looked into this and let it go speaks volumes.

No question Bill had some deplorable behavior, but it was entirely of a personal nature that's only his and Hillary's business these days.

Hm... why did Ken Starr resign from Baylor again?

[Statilius the Epicurean]

Why are Democrats only now in the wake of #MeToo coming out and saying "in hindsight Bill should have resigned as President"? Why wasn't Gillibrand and other internet Clinton-supporters saying this during the election campaign last year? Do these people really believe that a consensual sexual relationship at the workplace is equivalent to sexual harassment or rape?
I can think of three possible answers:

1) Simply opportunism on the part of leftists and others who have always disliked the Clintons, now  that they are unpopular and out of power.
2) Part of the craven "Republicans are attacking us, we can't fight back and have to take their blows on merit" defeatist psychology of Democrats, well-documented in other places.
3) Democrats sincerely believe relationships of the sort between Clinton and Lewinksy are an impeachable offence for holders of public office.

I find it amusing that if one had said last year what many Democrats are saying now about Bill Clinton, one would have been immediately dismissed as a deplorable Trump-supporting concern troll. There's a mix of both hypocrisy and puritanism about this latest volte-face that is incredibly off-putting.

[Beet]

I think that's unfair. I've always said that what Bill Clinton did with Lewinsky was wrong. The reason I hadn't called for his resignation over it is that I was having a tough time convincing other people that it was even a serious matter. I tried to tell folks that it would be dredged up again and again, but even people like Chairman Sanchez was saying it was a bad attack.

I never defended him over this during the election last year. I defended him on some other stuff, but not this. Mostly I think it's a tragedy that people who had nothing to do with his behavior were hurt by it. Bill never really paid much for what he did, but Monica, Hillary, and other women around him paid in spades. That's the worst thing about it.

[politics_king]

Why are Democrats only now in the wake of #MeToo coming out and saying "in hindsight Bill should have resigned as President"? Why wasn't Gillibrand and other internet Clinton-supporters saying this during the election campaign last year? Do these people really believe that a consensual sexual relationship at the workplace is equivalent to sexual harassment or rape?
I can think of three possible answers:

1) Simply opportunism on the part of leftists and others who have always disliked the Clintons, now  that they are unpopular and out of power.
2) Part of the craven "Republicans are attacking us, we can't fight back and have to take their blows on merit" defeatist psychology of Democrats, well-documented in other places.
3) Democrats sincerely believe relationships of the sort between Clinton and Lewinksy are an impeachable offence for holders of public office.

I find it amusing that if one had said last year what many Democrats are saying now about Bill Clinton, one would have been immediately dismissed as a deplorable Trump-supporting concern troll. There's a mix of both hypocrisy and puritanism about this latest volte-face that is incredibly off-putting.

Money.

[Beet]

Why are Democrats only now in the wake of #MeToo coming out and saying "in hindsight Bill should have resigned as President"? Why wasn't Gillibrand and other internet Clinton-supporters saying this during the election campaign last year? Do these people really believe that a consensual sexual relationship at the workplace is equivalent to sexual harassment or rape?
I can think of three possible answers:

1) Simply opportunism on the part of leftists and others who have always disliked the Clintons, now  that they are unpopular and out of power.
2) Part of the craven "Republicans are attacking us, we can't fight back and have to take their blows on merit" defeatist psychology of Democrats, well-documented in other places.
3) Democrats sincerely believe relationships of the sort between Clinton and Lewinksy are an impeachable offence for holders of public office.

I find it amusing that if one had said last year what many Democrats are saying now about Bill Clinton, one would have been immediately dismissed as a deplorable Trump-supporting concern troll. There's a mix of both hypocrisy and puritanism about this latest volte-face that is incredibly off-putting.

Money.

Not a single Democrat said it last year, although I don't know how many were asked. The Clinton fundraising network is still very much active, so anyone wanting to raise money from them would best be silent, which includes everyone besides Gillibrand (so far).

[politics_king]

Why are Democrats only now in the wake of #MeToo coming out and saying "in hindsight Bill should have resigned as President"? Why wasn't Gillibrand and other internet Clinton-supporters saying this during the election campaign last year? Do these people really believe that a consensual sexual relationship at the workplace is equivalent to sexual harassment or rape?
I can think of three possible answers:

1) Simply opportunism on the part of leftists and others who have always disliked the Clintons, now  that they are unpopular and out of power.
2) Part of the craven "Republicans are attacking us, we can't fight back and have to take their blows on merit" defeatist psychology of Democrats, well-documented in other places.
3) Democrats sincerely believe relationships of the sort between Clinton and Lewinksy are an impeachable offence for holders of public office.

I find it amusing that if one had said last year what many Democrats are saying now about Bill Clinton, one would have been immediately dismissed as a deplorable Trump-supporting concern troll. There's a mix of both hypocrisy and puritanism about this latest volte-face that is incredibly off-putting.

Money.

Not a single Democrat said it last year, although I don't know how many were asked. The Clinton fundraising network is still very much active, so anyone wanting to raise money from them would best be silent, which includes everyone besides Gillibrand (so far).

So true.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Hillary bought and paid for the DNC. It should be pretty obvious that few wanted to be on their sh**t list. Even many of those who endorsed Bernie like Ellison avoided criticizing the Clintons too much.

[Rookie Yinzer]

By the time Trump’s tapes and accusers came out it was time for the general election. Were Democrats supposed to come out and bash the husband of their nominee?

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

I'm not a fan of Bill. We may seriously question, from the professional point of view, the appropriate of the President having an affair with an intern, but two adults having a consensual affair (and there's no evidence to the contrary) is nowhere comparable to Roy Moore or even Al Franken situation.

If we start putting the two in the same bag, we are only diminishing the seriousness of actual sexual harassment/assault.

[Statilius the Epicurean]

By the time Trump’s tapes and accusers came out it was time for the general election. Were Democrats supposed to come out and bash the husband of their nominee?

Um, yes? If one believes an individual is guilty of sexual harassment, then yes, "bashing" that person would be preferable to bashing the women one believes to have been sexually harassed. As some Democrats did in 2016.

If one doesn't believe Bill was guilty of sexual impropriety in office, then fair enough. But don't do a heel-face turn a year after the election in an attempt to make your party look holier-than-thou.

[Statilius the Epicurean]

I'm not a fan of Bill. We may seriously question, from the professional point of view, the appropriate of the President having an affair with an intern, but two adults having a consensual affair (and there's no evidence to the contrary) is nowhere comparable to Roy Moore or even Al Franken situation.

If we start putting the two in the same bag, we are only diminishing the seriousness of actual sexual harassment/assault.

Thank you.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

We already have one thread on Bill Clinton's misdeeds.
https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=277486.0

[Rookie Yinzer]

By the time Trump’s tapes and accusers came out it was time for the general election. Were Democrats supposed to come out and bash the husband of their nominee?

Um, yes? If one believes an individual is guilty of sexual harassment, then yes, "bashing" that person would be preferable to bashing the women one believes to have been sexually harassed. As some Democrats did in 2016.

If one doesn't believe Bill was guilty of sexual impropriety in office, then fair enough. But don't do a heel-face turn a year after the election in an attempt to make your party look holier-than-thou.

What purpose would that serve when you are trying to win an election? I don’t think many make it a habit to make negative headlines about the family of a candidate. Hillary was the candidate not him. That would have opened up a whole other can of worms of women being held responsible for the actions of their husbands.