The Clintons are Dead to the Democrats

Submitted by Steven D on Sat, 11/18/2017 - 12:43pm

When you've lost Kirsten Gillibrand, Hillary's hand-picked choice to replace her in the Senate, your run controlling the Democratic Party is over.

New York Democratic Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand believes that former President Bill Clinton should have resigned in light of the Lewinsky affair.

Speaking to The New York Times Thursday, Gillibrand, who holds Hillary Clinton's former seat, said of whether the former president should have stepped down, "Yes, I think that is the appropriate response." [...]

Gillibrand's remarks are particularly noteworthy considering she was a big supporter of Hillary Clinton's recent presidential campaign. She frequently spoke in support of the Clintons and traveled to campaign events to advocate for the former first lady.

"Things have changed today, and I think under those circumstances there should be a very different reaction," she said. "And I think in light of this conversation, we should have a very different conversation about President Trump, and a very different conversation about allegations against him."

What things have changed? Is what Bill Clinton did, and what Hillary did to support him, smearing the reputations of any of his victims who dared to speak out, considered any worse today than it was back then? Not really. It was wrong and immoral back then, just as the behavior of Weinstein, Roy Moore, All Franken, ad nauseam, that has been recently revealed is considered bad today.

What's changed is Hillary 2016 happened. She lost the election to Trump despite outspending him 2:1. Then she went on a petulant and, one could argue, deranged months-long tirade, topped off by her "What Happened" book tour, blaming everyone from Bernie Sanders, lower class white workers, James Comey, African Americans, Millennials and, of course, THE RUSSIANS for her loss.

In short she made the Democratic Brand toxic. The rest of the Dem neoliberal establishment want her and Bill excised from the party. Donna Brazile and her revelations that the DNC rigged the election was only the first shot. Joe Biden, with his own delusions of grandeur, produced his own book attacking Hillary and Bill, and their efforts to sabotage his potential 2016 candidacy.

In the current climate since Harvey Weinstein was taken down by brave women who outed him as a serial rapist, more and more Democrats have been using the ever mounting revelations of sexual harassment and assault by politicians in both parties as cover for attacking Bill Clinton, the same man they praised to the skies only last year at the DNC convention that nominated Hillary. They don't love Bernie or his supporters any more, but they no longer are afraid of the Clintons and the power they once wielded, power that could make or break a Democrat's career.

And all of her apologists and attack dogs can't put The Clinton's shattered pay-to-play power structure back together again. Hillary will always have a cult that will never quit her, but at this point its beginning to resemble the self-destructive devotion seen in Jim Jones' followers:

Hillary Clinton’s base is dwindling down to her most loyal followers. Modern-day Clinton zealots are a strange breed. There aren’t any unique policies that unite them, nor are there any future campaigns on the horizon. What ties them together is a general feeling that the events of November 8, 2016 were cosmically, historically unjust, and that the world can never be forgiven for allowing them to happen. Moving on is unthinkable. [...]

Clinton appears to have promised White House positions to quite a few young strivers in 2016 — enough that they make up a significant portion of her extant fanbase. Hillary in particular values loyalty over competence, a preference which brought her the royal court of dimwitted sycophants who tanked her final campaign. When the expected payoff of a high-profile job in the White House or the Clinton Foundation never materialized, they were left flailing. Adam Parkhomenko, the 31-year-old executive director of Hillary’s 2016 SuperPAC, has worked under the Clintons nearly half his life. ... Parkhomenko’s 14 years of absurd loyalty to his boss amounted to nothing in the end, but he remains as loyal as ever. What else does he know how to do? On September 8, he lashed out at critics of What Happened and accused Bernie Sanders of being a Russian agent, citing no evidence. “You seem to ignore the Russia support online for Bernie during the primaries. The guy is hiding something. Not sure I want to know what,” he tweeted at someone who was critical of his political efforts last week. On Monday, he pretty much hit rock bottom when he tweeted a video of his car radio playing “Fight Song,” Clinton’s saccharine campaign anthem, captioned “when you get in the car at 2:30 am to get [ice cream] since you don't have a plan to lose the Trump 10 [pounds] & the radio is like hey reminder HRC book tomorrow.”

I suppose Hillary could still rise from her political grave, zombie-like, in 2020, if only to be an agent of chaos. And no doubt Hill and Bill will do their damnednest to get their feckless, privileged daughter, Chelsea, elected to Congress or the Senate by keeping her name in the news thanks to all their old contacts in the media. But I for one hope the stake has finally been driven through the heart of the tyrannical Clinton political dynasty.

Tags:

#BillClinton #ClintonLegacy #Hillary #Gillibrand #Democrats

Vote

Comments

Submitted by Meteor Man on Sat, 11/18/2017 - 1:08pm

Better Late Than Never

Driving a silver stake through the heart of the Clinton/DLC 1% Machine is the Dems only hope for political relevance. They have a clear choice of continuing to represent Wall Street Racketeers or working Americans. They can't do both.

The dichotomy is irreconcilable:

Big donors threaten to bolt from Democrats — and that’s a good thing

“The party cannot remain an institution largely dominated by the wealthy and inside-the-Beltway consultants,” wrote Sen. Bernie Sanders in a column for Politico Magazine, in which he argued that the party must open its doors and “welcome into its ranks millions of working people and young people who desperately want to be involved in determining the future of our nation.”

Everyone at c99% already understands the endemic corruption of our political system:

Clearly this problem is much larger than the Democratic Party. The entire American political system is rotten, and it has become extremely difficult to run a successful political campaign in the 21st century without big financial backing. Consequently, political corruption is about as common in Washington as sexual misconduct is in Hollywood.

https://www.salon.com/2017/11/18/big-donors-threaten-to-bolt-from-democr...

Next year's midterms will decide if The Democratic Party has the capacity to cast aside the rot of the Corrupt Clinton Corpse and return to their FDR roots.

Time will tell.

—

"They'll say we're disturbing the peace, but there is no peace. What really bothers them is that we are disturbing the war." Howard Zinn

Submitted by Steven D on Sat, 11/18/2017 - 1:16pm

I'm afraid they are addicted to "Big Money"

@Meteor Man This is just a power struggle within the neoliberal faction of the Dems. Until that faction dies out or loses power you won't see them change anything but maybe, maybe their rhetoric. They will continue to do the bidding of whoever pays them. Best thing to happen would be for their big donors to stop giving which might give those committed to a Dem Invade approach a chance.

But I imagine they will still keep getting enough money to keep them marginally viable. The oligarchy needs us to believe in the the illusion the US is a democracy after all.

—

"You can't just leave those who created the problem in charge of the solution."---Tyree Scott

Submitted by Alligator Ed on Sun, 11/19/2017 - 1:20am

Maybe the big donors realize that supporting a dead party

@Steven D despite illusions of greatness the DNCers still have, will not give them "bang for the buck". At this rate grabby hands Franken joins the classy company of Harvey Weinstein, Bubba, Roy Moore and his Orangeness.

Submitted by Amanda Matthews on Sat, 11/18/2017 - 1:25pm

I hope you’re right. I am astounded at how

@Meteor Man
many people still support her.

As for the kid, here’s the best article I’ve read:

PLEASE, GOD, STOP CHELSEA CLINTON FROM WHATEVER SHE IS DOING

Amid investigations into Russian election interference, perhaps we ought to consider whether the Kremlin, to hurt Democrats, helped put Chelsea Clinton on the cover of Variety. Or maybe superstition explains it. Like tribesmen laying out a sacrifice to placate King Kong, news outlets continue to make offerings to the Clinton gods. In The New York Times alone, Chelsea has starred in multiple features over the past few months: for her tweeting (it’s become “feisty”), for her upcoming book (to be titled She Persisted), and her reading habits (she says she has an “embarrassingly large” collection of books on her Kindle). With Chelsea’s 2015 book, It’s Your World, now out in paperback, the puff pieces in other outlets—Elle, People, etc.—are too numerous to count.

One wishes to calm these publications: You can stop this now. Haven’t you heard that the great Kong is no more? Nevertheless, they’ve persisted. At great cost: increased Chelsea exposure is tied closely to political despair and, in especially intense cases, the bulk purchasing of MAGA hats. So let’s review: How did Chelsea become such a threat?

Perhaps the best way to start is by revisiting some of Chelsea’s major post-2008 forays into the public eye. Starting in 2012, she began to allow glossy magazines to profile her, and she picked up speed in the years that followed. The results were all friendly in aim, and yet the picture that kept emerging from the growing pile of Chelsea quotations was that of a person accustomed to courtiers nodding their heads raptly. Here are Chelsea’s thoughts on returning to red meat in her diet: “I’m a big believer in listening to my body’s cravings.” On her time in the “fiercely meritocratic” workplace of Wall Street: “I was curious if I could care about [money] on some fundamental level, and I couldn’t.” On her precocity: “They told me that my father had learned to read when he was three. So, of course, I thought I had to too. The first thing I learned to read was the newspaper.” Take that, Click, Clack, Moo.

Take the introduction to It’s Your World (Get Informed! Get Inspired! Get Going!). It’s harmless, you think. “My mom wouldn’t let me have sugary cereal growing up (more on that later),” writes Chelsea, “so I improvised, adding far more honey than likely would have been in any honeyed cereals.” That’s the oatmeal—and then comes the toenail:

I wrote a letter to President Reagan when I was five to voice my opposition to his visit to the Bitburg cemetery in Germany, because Nazis were buried there. I didn’t think an American president should honor a group of soldiers that included Nazis. President Reagan still went, but at least I had tried in my own small way

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/04/please-god-stop-chelsea-clinton-...

—

I'm tired of this back-slapping "Isn't humanity neat?" bullshit. We're a virus with shoes, okay? That's all we are. - Bill Hicks

Politics is the entertainment branch of industry. - Frank Zappa

Submitted by Meteor Man on Sat, 11/18/2017 - 1:56pm

The Election Of My Nightmares

@Amanda Matthews
Chelsea Clinton v. Jenna Bush or Chelsea v. Megan Mc Cain. The thought makes my skin crawl.

#1 many people still support her. As for the kid, here’s the best article I’ve read: PLEASE, GOD, STOP CHELSEA CLINTON FROM WHATEVER SHE IS DOING Amid investigations into Russian election interference, perhaps we ought to consider whether the Kremlin, to hurt Democrats, helped put Chelsea Clinton on the cover of Variety. Or maybe superstition explains it. Like tribesmen laying out a sacrifice to placate King Kong, news outlets continue to make offerings to the Clinton gods. In The New York Times alone, Chelsea has starred in multiple features over the past few months: for her tweeting (it’s become “feisty”), for her upcoming book (to be titled She Persisted), and her reading habits (she says she has an “embarrassingly large” collection of books on her Kindle). With Chelsea’s 2015 book, It’s Your World, now out in paperback, the puff pieces in other outlets—Elle, People, etc.—are too numerous to count. One wishes to calm these publications: You can stop this now. Haven’t you heard that the great Kong is no more? Nevertheless, they’ve persisted. At great cost: increased Chelsea exposure is tied closely to political despair and, in especially intense cases, the bulk purchasing of MAGA hats. So let’s review: How did Chelsea become such a threat? Perhaps the best way to start is by revisiting some of Chelsea’s major post-2008 forays into the public eye. Starting in 2012, she began to allow glossy magazines to profile her, and she picked up speed in the years that followed. The results were all friendly in aim, and yet the picture that kept emerging from the growing pile of Chelsea quotations was that of a person accustomed to courtiers nodding their heads raptly. Here are Chelsea’s thoughts on returning to red meat in her diet: “I’m a big believer in listening to my body’s cravings.” On her time in the “fiercely meritocratic” workplace of Wall Street: “I was curious if I could care about [money] on some fundamental level, and I couldn’t.” On her precocity: “They told me that my father had learned to read when he was three. So, of course, I thought I had to too. The first thing I learned to read was the newspaper.” Take that, Click, Clack, Moo. Take the introduction to It’s Your World (Get Informed! Get Inspired! Get Going!). It’s harmless, you think. “My mom wouldn’t let me have sugary cereal growing up (more on that later),” writes Chelsea, “so I improvised, adding far more honey than likely would have been in any honeyed cereals.” That’s the oatmeal—and then comes the toenail: I wrote a letter to President Reagan when I was five to voice my opposition to his visit to the Bitburg cemetery in Germany, because Nazis were buried there. I didn’t think an American president should honor a group of soldiers that included Nazis. President Reagan still went, but at least I had tried in my own small way https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/04/please-god-stop-chelsea-clinton-...

—

"They'll say we're disturbing the peace, but there is no peace. What really bothers them is that we are disturbing the war." Howard Zinn

Submitted by Azazello on Sat, 11/18/2017 - 2:07pm

How 'bout Chelsea v. Ivanka ?

@Meteor Man

—

We wanted decent healthcare, a living wage and free college.
The Democrats gave us Biden and war instead.

Submitted by Meteor Man on Sat, 11/18/2017 - 2:34pm

The Neverending Nightmare

@Azazello
of horrible possibilities.

—

"They'll say we're disturbing the peace, but there is no peace. What really bothers them is that we are disturbing the war." Howard Zinn

Submitted by MichaelSF on Sat, 11/18/2017 - 8:41pm

even worse

@Azazello @Azazello
Chelsea/Ivanka or Ivanka/Chelsea as one ticket?

A true bipartisan dream slate.

Submitted by mimi on Sat, 11/18/2017 - 6:43pm

wow, how brave of little Chelsea Clinton girl to write

@Amanda Matthews @Amanda Matthews
Reagan a letter complaining of the Nazis who were buried in Bitburg thinking a US President shouldn't visit a place where a group of soldiers were buried that included Nazis. At age five she was really all wise about Nazis and honor and stuff. Some hyperactive parents used their little girl to make a fuzz about Reagan's visit to Bitburg.

Oh boy, if I had been just as intelligent as she was at age five I would have advised German politicians to never visit the White House with Presidents who can't handle cigars properly.

Chelsea, I am impressed. You did the right thing. Good to know. Thanks.

#1 many people still support her. As for the kid, here’s the best article I’ve read: PLEASE, GOD, STOP CHELSEA CLINTON FROM WHATEVER SHE IS DOING Amid investigations into Russian election interference, perhaps we ought to consider whether the Kremlin, to hurt Democrats, helped put Chelsea Clinton on the cover of Variety. Or maybe superstition explains it. Like tribesmen laying out a sacrifice to placate King Kong, news outlets continue to make offerings to the Clinton gods. In The New York Times alone, Chelsea has starred in multiple features over the past few months: for her tweeting (it’s become “feisty”), for her upcoming book (to be titled She Persisted), and her reading habits (she says she has an “embarrassingly large” collection of books on her Kindle). With Chelsea’s 2015 book, It’s Your World, now out in paperback, the puff pieces in other outlets—Elle, People, etc.—are too numerous to count. One wishes to calm these publications: You can stop this now. Haven’t you heard that the great Kong is no more? Nevertheless, they’ve persisted. At great cost: increased Chelsea exposure is tied closely to political despair and, in especially intense cases, the bulk purchasing of MAGA hats. So let’s review: How did Chelsea become such a threat? Perhaps the best way to start is by revisiting some of Chelsea’s major post-2008 forays into the public eye. Starting in 2012, she began to allow glossy magazines to profile her, and she picked up speed in the years that followed. The results were all friendly in aim, and yet the picture that kept emerging from the growing pile of Chelsea quotations was that of a person accustomed to courtiers nodding their heads raptly. Here are Chelsea’s thoughts on returning to red meat in her diet: “I’m a big believer in listening to my body’s cravings.” On her time in the “fiercely meritocratic” workplace of Wall Street: “I was curious if I could care about [money] on some fundamental level, and I couldn’t.” On her precocity: “They told me that my father had learned to read when he was three. So, of course, I thought I had to too. The first thing I learned to read was the newspaper.” Take that, Click, Clack, Moo. Take the introduction to It’s Your World (Get Informed! Get Inspired! Get Going!). It’s harmless, you think. “My mom wouldn’t let me have sugary cereal growing up (more on that later),” writes Chelsea, “so I improvised, adding far more honey than likely would have been in any honeyed cereals.” That’s the oatmeal—and then comes the toenail: I wrote a letter to President Reagan when I was five to voice my opposition to his visit to the Bitburg cemetery in Germany, because Nazis were buried there. I didn’t think an American president should honor a group of soldiers that included Nazis. President Reagan still went, but at least I had tried in my own small way https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/04/please-god-stop-chelsea-clinton-...

—

https://www.euronews.com/live

Submitted by Cant Stop the M... on Sat, 11/18/2017 - 1:21pm

So we're all in agreement now that having a sexual affair is

not only an impeachable offense, but one over which a President should resign?

Maybe I should move to France.

—

"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha

"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver

Submitted by Amanda Matthews on Sat, 11/18/2017 - 1:35pm

No. I think we agree act like a decent, ethical

@Cant Stop the Macedonian Signal @Cant Stop the Macedonian Signal
human being and you won’t have this problem.

Dkmich said it best:

keep you mouth shut, your hands to yourself, and your zipper up.

And Clinton didn’t get impeached for the sex.

EDIT: typo

—

I'm tired of this back-slapping "Isn't humanity neat?" bullshit. We're a virus with shoes, okay? That's all we are. - Bill Hicks

Politics is the entertainment branch of industry. - Frank Zappa

Submitted by Cant Stop the M... on Sat, 11/18/2017 - 3:57pm

@Amanda Matthews No, he didn't get

@Amanda Matthews @Amanda Matthews @Amanda Matthews No, he didn't get impeached for the sex, and I didn't say he did.

People are saying that he should have gotten impeached for the sex, and we got it wrong back then. I'm saying no, we didn't get it wrong back then.

It will be a cold day in hell before I side with a bunch of Susannah-and-the-Elders-style Puritan Republicans, people who were simultaneously condemning the act and clearly getting off on it, and say that they were right. A mutual enemy, even if it is Bill Clinton, doesn't make them right.

Speaking of untrustworthy narrators, we're now agreeing with Kirsten Gillibrand and Matt Yglesias, spokespeople for the disgustoid establishment, and why? Because they said something bad about the Clintons and we can't stand the Clintons? Fair enough. But of all the things Bill Clinton has done, his relationship with Monica is about a two-star evil, in a life which has included ten-star evils. And I really abhor conflating a consensual relationship, even one which was irresponsible and absolutely ill-advised--as I've said this one was-- with shit like what Harvey Weinstein pulled.

Every bad thing you can do in a relationship is not abuse. Every bad sexual relationship isn't rape, even if the person in question is abusing his power. Rape is rape; a shitty sexual choice that is consensual is another thing.
There is a difference between a powerful person getting into an improper relationship and rape. One is an inadvisable relationship that is highly likely to do damage to the more vulnerable person, as well as potentially causing a great deal of havoc, which a responsible person with power should eschew. The other is forcing a person into sex against their will. Erasing that difference means that 1)we don't listen to Monica when she said it was consensual, 2)we believe that a rape victim would keep, and treasure, semen-stained clothes from their abuser, and 3)we actually are saying that sex is the problem.

Sex isn't the problem. In the case of Monica and Bill, being an irresponsible selfish reckless shithead is the problem. In the case of Weinstein, rape is the problem. These are two different things and they are not interchangeable or equivalent evils.

As far as Bill the shithead goes, he probably has had dozens of relationships with women--and maybe young girls, I don't know the details of the Lolita express tours--that would stand less scrutiny than the one he had with Monica Lewinsky; the problem with his relationship with Monica is that, though she had reached age of consent, she was too young to have her head on straight in such a dangerous situation (being the President's mistress in D.C. is no joke, and no job for anybody with any naivete left).

—

"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha

"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver

Submitted by MsGrin on Sat, 11/18/2017 - 10:54pm

The alledged biting, it didn't get him impeached

@Cant Stop the Macedonian Signal but it's kinda too disgusting to think about. More than one woman claimed he did it to her, and claimed it was terrifying, and as I recall, he drew blood at least once. If what they said was correct, this would be non-consentual behavior which could be construed as sexual assault. At least one woman claimed he raped her, as I recall.

#2.1 #2.1 #2.1 No, he didn't get impeached for the sex, and I didn't say he did. People are saying that he should have gotten impeached for the sex, and we got it wrong back then. I'm saying no, we didn't get it wrong back then. It will be a cold day in hell before I side with a bunch of Susannah-and-the-Elders-style Puritan Republicans, people who were simultaneously condemning the act and clearly getting off on it, and say that they were right. A mutual enemy, even if it is Bill Clinton, doesn't make them right. Speaking of untrustworthy narrators, we're now agreeing with Kirsten Gillibrand and Matt Yglesias, spokespeople for the disgustoid establishment, and why? Because they said something bad about the Clintons and we can't stand the Clintons? Fair enough. But of all the things Bill Clinton has done, his relationship with Monica is about a two-star evil, in a life which has included ten-star evils. And I really abhor conflating a consensual relationship, even one which was irresponsible and absolutely ill-advised--as I've said this one was-- with shit like what Harvey Weinstein pulled. Every bad thing you can do in a relationship is not abuse. Every bad sexual relationship isn't rape, even if the person in question is abusing his power. Rape is rape; a shitty sexual choice that is consensual is another thing. There is a difference between a powerful person getting into an improper relationship and rape. One is an inadvisable relationship that is highly likely to do damage to the more vulnerable person, as well as potentially causing a great deal of havoc, which a responsible person with power should eschew. The other is forcing a person into sex against their will. Erasing that difference means that 1)we don't listen to Monica when she said it was consensual, 2)we believe that a rape victim would keep, and treasure, semen-stained clothes from their abuser, and 3)we actually are saying that sex is the problem. Sex isn't the problem. In the case of Monica and Bill, being an irresponsible selfish reckless shithead is the problem. In the case of Weinstein, rape is the problem. These are two different things and they are not interchangeable or equivalent evils. As far as Bill the shithead goes, he probably has had dozens of relationships with women--and maybe young girls, I don't know the details of the Lolita express tours--that would stand less scrutiny than the one he had with Monica Lewinsky; the problem with his relationship with Monica is that, though she had reached age of consent, she was too young to have her head on straight in such a dangerous situation (being the President's mistress in D.C. is no joke, and no job for anybody with any naivete left).

—

'What we are left with is an agency mandated to ensure transparency and disclosure that is actually working to keep the public in the dark' - Ann M. Ravel, former FEC member

Submitted by on the cusp on Sat, 11/18/2017 - 2:18pm

No. We are not in agreement.

@Cant Stop the Macedonian Signal He lied under oath.
It just happened that it was about a very sordid affair.
I didn't care then or now about who he fucked.
He knew what to expect if he got caught. He also knew what it would do to Ms. Lewinsky. He knew the world would be watching and that history would judge him for it, and he did it anyway.
The current spate of sexual improprieties being reported today is sort of, kind of, moving in the direction of making men aware that actions have consequences, so think it through before you drop your drawers.
With luck, we will find some equivalent language to describe horny, sexually aggressive men with the same derogation as calling women "loose" or "whores" or "skanks".

—

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." ---- William Casey, CIA Director, 1981

Submitted by Cant Stop the M... on Sat, 11/18/2017 - 4:25pm

I agree 100% with all of this:

@on the cusp He lied under oath.

And he deserved to be impeached for that unbelievably stupid act.

It just happened that it was about a very sordid affair.
But not, for some reason, the most sordid of his affairs. Why they insisted on belabouring the Monica story is beyond me.

I didn't care then or now about who he fucked.

That sentence, at this point, makes me want to stand up and cheer. Especially since my guess is that you would care if/when he raped someone. Because raping is different from fucking.

He knew what to expect if he got caught. He also knew what it would do to Ms. Lewinsky. He knew the world would be watching and that history would judge him for it, and he did it anyway.

Because he's a reckless, irresponsible, selfish shithead, like I said above. He deserves moral condemnation for that act, but not impeachment or any other legal proceeding. Unless somebody intends to write laws condemning people for entering into bad sexual relationships, which I hope very much doesn't happen.

This, however, I don't agree with:

The current spate of sexual improprieties being reported today is sort of, kind of, moving in the direction of making men aware that actions have consequences, so think it through before you drop your drawers.

That would be fine if they didn't lump Bill and Monica in with Weinstein and Moore and Dustin Hoffman and Kevin Spacey, etc. The problem I have with this is that it lumps consensual sexual improprieties in with rape. As a rape survivor myself, I find that extraordinarily unacceptable, and, in fact, a gesture which erases the woman and her consent--or lack thereof--pretty much entirely. That is a YUUUGE hot button for me, for reasons that I think are apparent.

—

"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha

"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver

Submitted by Ellen North on Sun, 11/19/2017 - 12:01am

@Cant Stop the Macedonian Signal

@Cant Stop the Macedonian Signal @Cant Stop the Macedonian Signal @Cant Stop the Macedonian Signal

... Why they insisted on belabouring the Monica story is beyond me. ...

It put the spotlight on Bill just in time to stop the effective theft of the Social Security program to further enrich financial interests literally at the last moment - and he did not get (edit: bunged out of office), many indeed feeling sympathetic or at least forgiving about a consensual affair, rather than a rape.

And I've long wondered if that was the actual purpose behind it all.

Edit: I'd rather accurately typed Bill as Bull; should have let it stand, really.

—

Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.

A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.

Submitted by MsGrin on Sat, 11/18/2017 - 10:59pm

I believe technically he was impeached but not convicted

@Ellen North I think the hearings themselves constitute impeachment but he was not removed from office b/c he was not convicted.

Am I mangling my recollection?

—

'What we are left with is an agency mandated to ensure transparency and disclosure that is actually working to keep the public in the dark' - Ann M. Ravel, former FEC member

Submitted by Ellen North on Sun, 11/19/2017 - 12:00am

@MsGrin

@MsGrin

Thanks! Quite right, at least as far as One Who Knows Nothing can tell. I'll edit, no doubt wrongly, lol.

—

Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.

A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.

Submitted by lizzyh7 on Sun, 11/19/2017 - 1:57pm

I was just re-reading Hitchens

@MsGrin this weekend, "No One Left to Lie To" and it was the House that impeached but the Senate acquitted him.

And yes, there was some biting and the rape of Juanita Broaddrick, and when she finally did tell her story she was pretty damned credible it was rape. That was in 1978. The only reason we ever even heard from Juanita was the subpoena she received in the Paula Jones trial, and in which she first denied it under oath but when the Clintons decided to smear her ruthlessly she admitted it and told her story. There were others and the point Hitchens makes in that book is that none of these women knew each other and most of them have never reported it and will not - they don't want their lives ruined by it. Who can blame them.

—

Only a fool lets someone else tell him who his enemy is. Assata Shakur

Submitted by on the cusp on Sat, 11/18/2017 - 5:31pm

I need to clarify it then.

@Cant Stop the Macedonian Signal I am an attempted rape survivor, and it threw my whole life into chaos, so I can only imagine what that did to you. How you deal with it and remain so balanced, studied, thoughtful, is beyond my pay grade. That you have put that cruel crime into some compartment in your brain that allows you to thrive as you so clearly do is amazing.
So, I want language toward men who commit sexually aggressive acts to define them negatively. There are just no words for them. Promiscuity is a slam on women. We are whores. Guys who have way too much testosterone flooding their brain are just being men, doncha know?
I want equality in shaming, equality in law.
Rapists are not where my comments were directed. It was towards assaultive men, or men who have legal sex in circumstances that we, as a society, should be able to label better than we have thus far.
Hope that clarified it some, and I am so sorry if I caused you to be upset.

—

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." ---- William Casey, CIA Director, 1981

Submitted by Nastarana on Sat, 11/18/2017 - 6:22pm

Well.

@on the cusp Tetosterone addled goofballs and witless slobs is what I call them. Felony offenders if they commit rape, and maybe we should be simply calling it sexual assault, underlining the fact that this is a crime. Here's a thought, anyone convicted of sexual assault which causes a pregnancy AND his family loose all parental and grandparental rights.

And, why, this enquiring mind would like to know were white women, but almost never white men being called privileged and entitled over at DK and similar sites?

—

Mary Bennett

Submitted by lizzyh7 on Sun, 11/19/2017 - 2:04pm

I'm sorry for both of you.

@on the cusp I never even came close to actual rape. One time maybe a close call but even that one I don't think would have ended in rape. And all these in the military, I can't say I've ever been truly harassed as a civilian. If I was, it didn't leave a scar. I'm sorry for the scars ladies.

—

Only a fool lets someone else tell him who his enemy is. Assata Shakur

Submitted by on the cusp on Sun, 11/19/2017 - 7:54pm

I was lucky, and the chaos was financial, not emotional.

@lizzyh7 Engineering work, "the Houston oil patch", back in the 70's and 80's was treacherous for women. There were no federal or state protections for harassment, but the money was incredible.
Anyway, I was not physically injured beyond a bruise, my supervisor rapist wanna be bastard had to get medical attention, and I was black balled, and switched careers.
I was able to get that $100,000 student loan to get to law school, instead of working and saving to pay for it, which was my intent. I would have paid my own way without a loan but for that guy. It took me 10 years to pay it off.
I should have kicked him a 3rd time.

—

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." ---- William Casey, CIA Director, 1981

Submitted by Cant Stop the M... on Mon, 11/20/2017 - 1:29pm

@on the cusp On the cusp, you

@on the cusp On the cusp, you have not caused me to be upset. There are no problems between you and me.

I am upset, and feel more than a bit slimed, at Gillibrand and Yglesias, and this most recent use of purported feminism to actually reformulate the idea of rape. Somebody said on here recently that everything Hillary touched turned to shit. It's also true, it seems, that Hillary's proteges and hangers-on have that same effect.

I hope it doesn't spread too far, but I'm afraid it will.

As for condemning men for the irresponsible combination of sex and other kinds of power, I'm there. I just need consent to be a serious dividing line between rape and sexual harassment, on the one hand, and other kinds of sexual wrongdoing on the other. Because consent focuses on what it's like to be the recipient of those actions. Focusing on whether or not the guy kept his dick in his pants rather than what it did to the person targeted is a subtle way of refocusing all attention on the man--and also of changing the essence of the wrongdoing from "You hurt somebody" to "You had a sexual desire, and that's dirty."

—

"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha

"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver

Submitted by Anja Geitz on Sat, 11/18/2017 - 2:20pm

Maybe it's more like TPTB

@Cant Stop the Macedonian Signal

want us to all agree that sexual misconduct is an impeachable offense for this President, and if Democrats have to come out and say it was an impeachable offense when Bill Clinton was President to set that up, well, wtf, right?

more and more Democrats have been using the ever mounting revelations of sexual harassment and assault by politicians in both parties as cover for attacking Bill Clinton,

—

There is always Music amongst the trees in the Garden, but our hearts must be very quiet to hear it. ~ Minnie Aumonier

Submitted by on the cusp on Sat, 11/18/2017 - 2:32pm

Interesting point.

@Anja Geitz That would certainly explain why it was Gillibrand to be the particular insider to say it.

—

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." ---- William Casey, CIA Director, 1981

Submitted by Big Al on Sat, 11/18/2017 - 2:43pm

Set it up, kind of like this.

@Anja Geitz https://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2017/11/07/after-harvey-weinstein-is-...

Submitted by Anja Geitz on Sat, 11/18/2017 - 3:05pm

Exactly

@Big Al

It’s about how press reports can be used to build a sense of CONTINUITY, which is vital for the ultimate card that is then played.

Media psyops have nothing to do with intrinsic guilt or innocence. They have to do with a final goal—and how to get there. How to achieve credibility with the public.

Working with actual guilt is easier than working with innocence, but the objective is SELLING GUILT.

—

There is always Music amongst the trees in the Garden, but our hearts must be very quiet to hear it. ~ Minnie Aumonier

Submitted by Steven D on Sat, 11/18/2017 - 3:49pm

If that is their endgame

@Anja Geitz they must really want Pence in the Oval Office.

—

"You can't just leave those who created the problem in charge of the solution."---Tyree Scott

Submitted by Deja on Sat, 11/18/2017 - 4:10pm

Maybe they have stock in chastity belts & Mega Churches n/t

@Steven D

Submitted by Cant Stop the M... on Sat, 11/18/2017 - 4:29pm

@Anja Geitz I think also they need

@Anja Geitz I think also they need to dump Bill and his baggage before whoever is targeting Democratic rapists gets around to him. In that sense, this would function as an innoculation: the Lewinsky scandal was consensual and not rape, so if we get out in front of the story and condemn him for that, maybe he won't get tarred with the stories of any actual sexual crimes he may have committed.

You'll notice Matt was doing his damnedest to separate Hillary from Bill, make her appear good while he appears bad.

—

"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha

"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver

Submitted by Nastarana on Sat, 11/18/2017 - 6:24pm

They urgently need to focus attention

@Cant Stop the Macedonian Signal away from Lolita Island which seems to have been a blackmail operation.

—

Mary Bennett

Submitted by Deja on Sat, 11/18/2017 - 8:01pm

Where's Wikileaks when you need them?

@Nastarana
I always wait, on baited breath, to see a Clinton or surrogate in the offshore money leaks, only to be disappointed. If Wikileaks could get a hold of the Lolita Express and Island guests' names, I might drop dead from shock - but only if every single person were sent to Guantanamo forever.

Submitted by Bring Back Civics on Mon, 11/20/2017 - 1:23am

Little Black Book

@Deja Here you go: http://gawker.com/here-is-pedophile-billionaire-jeffrey-epsteins-little-...

The flight logs are interesting, too.

Submitted by snoopydawg on Sat, 11/18/2017 - 10:18pm

The Lolita express is a done deal

@Nastarana

Epstein's lawyers made a deal that he would plead guilty for not naming the other members of his sex club. This includes men and women. Hillary was reported to have flown on his jet to his island and went to his parties at his apartment.

He was sentenced for only 18 months (for statutory rape), but only served 13 months and he got to leave the prison every day so he could go to work. Sweet deal, huh?

This article explains his plea deal and it mentions that his lawyers 'pressured' the prosecutors and made them drop all of the federal charges! This seems to show how the PTB protects others who are in high places from being punished. This is why Obama let the bank CEOs get away with crashing the global economy. They made billions and only had to pay a couple millions in fines.

New documents reveal Palm Beach billionaire sex offender Jeffrey Epstein's 'sweetheart deal' with prosecutors

My opinion on the new focus on Clinton is that his affair with Monica is not what he should be known for regarding sexual escapades, it's Juanita Broadwick's assertion that he raped her. She went to his hotel room where she said that he physically assaulted her and raped her. She was seen with cuts and bruises by her friends the next day and weeks.

But what isn't being talked about is the republicans dismantling the regulations that are supposed to protect us, their tax cuts and everything else they are doing! This sexual stuff is taking all the oxygen out of the room.

—

There were problems with running a campaign of Joy while committing a genocide? Who could have guessed?

Was Humpty Dumpty pushed?

Submitted by Wink on Sun, 11/19/2017 - 2:35pm

I believe we can add

@snoopydawg
el Rushbo to that guest list from whispers heard during the Epstein thing.

—

the little things you can do are more valuable than the giant things you can't! - @thanatokephaloides. On Twitter @wink1radio. (-2.1) All about building progressive media.

Submitted by Anja Geitz on Sun, 11/19/2017 - 2:22am

I think you might be right

@Cant Stop the Macedonian Signal

I think also they need to dump Bill and his baggage before whoever is targeting Democratic rapists gets around to him. In that sense, this would function as an inoculation

It's a wonder any of them get a good nights sleep.

—

There is always Music amongst the trees in the Garden, but our hearts must be very quiet to hear it. ~ Minnie Aumonier

Submitted by lizzyh7 on Sun, 11/19/2017 - 2:00pm

Excellent points all

@Cant Stop the Macedonian Signal

—

Only a fool lets someone else tell him who his enemy is. Assata Shakur

Submitted by Ellen North on Sat, 11/18/2017 - 5:30pm

@Anja Geitz

@Anja Geitz

That's what I'm thinking, especially when 'it was a different time' when Bill did it, and 'we should be having a different conversation about it' where Trump is concerned.

And I'm rather pissed at winding up having to sorta defend Trump over this, when I do think he has despicable attitudes.

—

Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.

A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.

Submitted by TB mare on Sat, 11/18/2017 - 3:20pm

No. We are in agreement that a history of raping at least one

@Cant Stop the Macedonian Signal is not tolerable. Lewinsky was not the only victim of his predations. A Credible case of forcible penetration exists. You probably know this.

Submitted by Cant Stop the M... on Sat, 11/18/2017 - 4:14pm

@TB mare As I said, the Lewinsky

@TB mare As I said, the Lewinsky affair was a two-star evil in a life that contained ten-star evils. If they had evidence of rape, why the hell did they waste our time going on about an improper relationship that was consensual with somebody who was of age? Did they really want to bring the bastard down, or not?

I would be 100% delighted if somebody could bring down, for instance, the entire Lolita express group. Or if somebody could have gotten rid of Bill because he had raped someone.

What I'm not willing to do is rewrite history and say that the Lewinsky affair is rape. Nor that it was a good reason to impeach someone.

—

"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha

"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver

Submitted by gjohnsit on Sat, 11/18/2017 - 5:01pm

Lewinsky was NOT a victim

@TB mare

Lewinsky was not the only victim of his predations.

Miss "presidential knee-pads" got exactly what she wanted.

That Lewinsky is now a "victim" just shows how the current environment is going off the rails.

As for Bill, he deserved to be impeached, but not for anything he was ever prosecuted for.

Submitted by Wink on Sun, 11/19/2017 - 3:13pm

Nonsense. Monica knew

@TB mare
exactly what she was getting into, and admitted so.

—

the little things you can do are more valuable than the giant things you can't! - @thanatokephaloides. On Twitter @wink1radio. (-2.1) All about building progressive media.

Submitted by Cant Stop the M... on Mon, 11/20/2017 - 11:46am

@Wink She didn't admit it.

@Wink She didn't admit it. She stated it.

I for one, don't think there's any guilt involved in wanting to give a man a blow job.

Admittedly, I'm a bit situational about adultery--it seems and seemed then, pretty clear to me that there was no danger of Hillary and Bill's relationship being damaged or ended by an affair, or any number of affairs. Clearly, they had an understanding. They couldn't say that, because you can't say that out loud in America, so it got spun as "Stand By Your Man" instead, because that's acceptable, and negotiating a sexual deal that suits both adults is not, apparently.

It always seemed to me if Hillary was mad at Bill for anything, it was for being stupid enough with his affairs that they blew up in his--and her--face.

—

"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha

"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver

Submitted by Big Al on Sat, 11/18/2017 - 4:00pm

Actually I think it's just another reason to

@Cant Stop the Macedonian Signal abolish the presidency.

Submitted by Cant Stop the M... on Sat, 11/18/2017 - 4:31pm

@Big Al I don't have a

@Big Al I don't have a particular desire to abolish the Presidency--not any more than I want to abolish Congress, the courts, the media, the consultocracy, K street, and the whole rest of the sordid mess.

But your point is well taken, nonetheless.

—

"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha

"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver

Submitted by Ellen North on Sat, 11/18/2017 - 5:01pm

@Cant Stop the Macedonian Signal

@Cant Stop the Macedonian Signal

Looking at the quote without the newspaper's conclusions just above it:

...Speaking to The New York Times Thursday, Gillibrand, who holds Hillary Clinton's former seat, said of whether the former president should have stepped down, "Yes, I think that is the appropriate response." [...]

Gillibrand's remarks are particularly noteworthy considering she was a big supporter of Hillary Clinton's recent presidential campaign. She frequently spoke in support of the Clintons and traveled to campaign events to advocate for the former first lady.

"Things have changed today, and I think under those circumstances there should be a very different reaction," she said. "And I think in light of this conversation, we should have a very different conversation about President Trump, and a very different conversation about allegations against him." ...

I suspect that the first instance quoted in the OP was more to get a shot in at Trump for his locker-room pussy-grabbing comments without the usual hypocrisy than any shot at Bill - however, I've heard nothing about Trump having any affairs or of doing anything of any such sort to any interns, aides or whoever since assuming the Presidency ,and while I have no doubt that he'd lie to Congress, this doesn't seem to have come up yet as an issue.

So I actually personally didn't take that answer to a reporter's question as a positive sign. Just a relatively safe answer - letting Bill off the hook on the grounds that 'things were different at that time' and that 'reactions should be different now' - in view of the fact that Bill won't be running for any public office, although we do know that Hill'd like to see him back in charge of the economy under her Presidency. And I'd like to see the Clintons out of the news before I believe that they are indeed dead to the Demolition Party. Actually, I'd like to see them out of the news in any event... they give me the creeps.

And the Clintons, the DNC and their corporate/billionaire paymasters were the ones who cheated the world out of President Bernie and gave us President Trump.

Who's still a somewhat lesser evil than the Mad Bomber would have been, if only because of having introduced a little grit into the war machinery and thereby slowing things down a little, even if not enough, and because the corporate media likes to draw attention to his lunacy, (as well as carrying the propaganda) rather than covering over all of his misdeeds in the manner they would have for the Clintons. The latter of whom, I may add, also resurrected Bush-2 as a great guy and all.

—

Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.

A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.

Submitted by Cant Stop the M... on Sat, 11/18/2017 - 1:26pm

I have a lot more to say about this, but it would detract from

the point of your essay, which is an important one: Democrats are no longer afraid of the Clintons, which means the elites, most of them anyway, have dumped Hillary. Now all she's got is what she can get through blackmail (I'm sure she has plenty of dirty secrets stored up from her time as a power broker for the wealthy).

Unfortunately, most people will probably take the Democrats deposing Hillary as a reason to snuggle up to them, as if the problem with them could be fixed by getting rid of her.

—

"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha

"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver

Submitted by ggersh on Sat, 11/18/2017 - 2:51pm

BINGO!!!!!!

@Cant Stop the Macedonian Signal

Unfortunately, most people will probably take the Democrats deposing Hillary as a reason to snuggle up to them, as if the problem with them could be fixed by getting rid of her.

—

I never knew that the term "Never Again" only pertained to
those born Jewish

"Antisemite used to be someone who didn't like Jews
now it's someone who Jews don't like"

Heard from Margaret Kimberley

Submitted by Ellen North on Sat, 11/18/2017 - 5:08pm

@ggersh

@ggersh

Thanks for saving me a post regarding that important point CSMS made. I have enough trouble keeping up with all of those without stopping to post my appreciation all of the time, lol.

—

Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.

A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.

Submitted by Bollox Ref on Sat, 11/18/2017 - 1:37pm

People like the douche that is Peter Daou

are fascinating, in a perverse sort of way. Why would anyone spend so much time and energy championing a knackered old clunker like Hillary Clinton?

Issues aplenty I would say.

—

Gëzuar!!
from a reasonably stable genius.

Submitted by karl pearson on Sat, 11/18/2017 - 1:50pm

Gillibrand's remarks

There was no way Bill Clinton would have resigned due to the Lewinsky affair since this would have hurt his and Hillary's plans for her future presidency. Had Clinton resigned, IMO Al Gore would have become president in 2000. Regardless of Gore's neoliberal policies, he would have been a better president than Bush II. (Without Bush II, there wouldn't have been a Trump.) I'm wondering if Dem politicians like Gillibrand are contemplating "What if" scenarios since the Democratic party establishment is badly injured by the Clintons and looking for a hole to hide in. When the Dems accept they have to give Progressives a true voice, they will have successes again.

Submitted by nosleep4u on Sat, 11/18/2017 - 4:03pm

@karl pearson(Without Bush II, there

@karl pearson

(Without Bush II, there wouldn't have been a Trump.)

I'm going to disagree with that.

Driving Republicans to the right, to set up a boogeyman to run against, is a core strategy of the entire Dem establishment. They need it as cover for their own rush to the right.

Left unchecked, that dynamic must give rise to a Trump. The exact year and haircut may have been different, but there's no escaping that fate.

Submitted by Cant Stop the M... on Sat, 11/18/2017 - 4:31pm

@nosleep4u Absolutely right.

@nosleep4u Absolutely right.

—

"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha

"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver

Submitted by doh1304 on Sat, 11/18/2017 - 2:54pm

Gillibrand sees that her ship is a colander and has

gone swimming, don't put that much stock in it.
However, I am seriously bothered by the moral equivalence of the cases listed. Weinstein is a serial rapist, Franken is a comedian who forgot how to be funny. Monica was either a 23 year old woman who felt misplaced love or was looking for career advancement - for Bill, see rather those other women who he intimidated. (at least one said that she was escorted to him by uniformed state police officers) And by the way, if he actually ever was on the "Lolita Express" and knew what it was (how could he not?) he should spend the rest of his life in prison.
C'mon, serial rape, pedophilia, and consensual sex with an adult not his wife are equal?

—

On to Biden since 1973

Submitted by Steven D on Sat, 11/18/2017 - 3:39pm

Bill Clinton's transgressions were not limited to

@doh1304 @doh1304 @doh1304 Lewinsky. Would that they were. The Paula Jones' lawsuit in which she alleged sexual assault ended in a negotiated settlement in which she was paid $850,000. There were numerous other claims (Juanita Broaddrick, who accused Bill of rape, for one), but at the time the women were viciously smeared in the media. Sad to say, I was all too willing to accept that they were untruthful as part of a "Vast, right-wing conspiracy," and while the GOP didn't hesitate to take advantage of Clinton's behavior, he was ultimately responsible for it, and Hillary was one of the principals behind the smear campaign against his accusers.

I don't by any means believe that a consensual affair is grounds for impeachment. But Clinton did far more than that over the years.

Franken sexually assaulted a women by forcing his tongue in the mouth of his co-star on a USO campaign. Then he had a picture of himself taken in which he appears to be touching an unconscious woman's breasts without her consent.

I am surprised you forgot to mention that I included Roy Moore the Alabama GOP Senatorial candidate in that list, a man accused of statutory rape. An innocent omission, or deliberate? When it comes to sexual harassment and sexual assault, the Dems and Repugs practice bipartisanship at its worst.

—

"You can't just leave those who created the problem in charge of the solution."---Tyree Scott

Submitted by Cant Stop the M... on Sat, 11/18/2017 - 4:43pm

@Steven D That's not the point.

@Steven D That's not the point. Of course Bill has some ten-star evils in his life as well as the two-star evil of the Lewinsky scandal.

The problem is that Gillibrand and Yglesias are not saying that; they are saying that we should have impeached him for Monica because now, in the age of the Weinstein scandal, we know how bad sexual impropriety is, and we understand that if we hadn't been moved by partisanship in the 90s, we would have condemned him like we're condemning Weinstein and all these other guys now.

The problem is that what Weinstein and Moore and Spacey and Dustin Hoffman did is not equivalent with what Bill did to Monica. They aren't talking about any rapes Bill may have committed, and they're certainly not talking about the Lolita Express. They're back on that Lewinsky saw, trying to mine credibility out of that old scandal, while dumping some baggage that's gotten too heavy to carry (Bill has gotten too heavy to carry). In doing so, they're conflating all sexual impropriety into one big amorphous lump, in which the consent of the woman becomes completely inconsequential. I actually feel pretty slimed by what they're doing. Not by you, because I trust you, and I don't believe for a second that you would disregard a woman's consent. But Gillibrand and Yglesias are no more helping the victims of rape and abuse with this crap than the Catfood Commission was helping the elderly.

—

"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha

"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver

Submitted by Steven D on Sat, 11/18/2017 - 5:45pm

I agree that they are saying

@Cant Stop the Macedonian Signal @Cant Stop the Macedonian Signal he should have resigned is not motivated by any concern for the victims of sexual harassment/assault. I was mostly responding to the concern that I was equating the affair with Lewinsky with the more egregious actions by other celebs/pols that have come to light.

That was not the point of the essay.

And yes, I do believe they are using this as a twofer - attack the Clintons and take a shot at Trump as well, but I believe getting rid of the Clintons' influence within the neolib wing of the party is the main reason for Gillibrand speaking up now. My speculation is that Obama and Biden are behind this, and perhaps some of the major donors pissed off that Hillary blew their money and got them on the outs with Trump, who she could not defeat.

—

"You can't just leave those who created the problem in charge of the solution."---Tyree Scott

Submitted by doh1304 on Sun, 11/19/2017 - 1:01am

You're right, I did forget Moore

@Steven D
I also neglected to mention Rush Limbaugh, who has also been accused of pedophilia. I also forgot Flowers, et all by name, and Hillary's reprehensible "defense".
As for Franken, so he crossed the line farther than I knew. But I still go with (I think) DMW's take - that Franken was in a sexually charged, but repressed situation. A USO tour is a recipe for sexual misbehavior. Still, Franken's behavior is just not on the level of Moore's or Weinstein's, and this lack of prioritization is counterproductive.

—

On to Biden since 1973

Submitted by lizzyh7 on Sun, 11/19/2017 - 2:19pm

Yes, a USO tour is sexually

@doh1304 charged, and while I might agree that Franken's behavior out of another soldier would most definitely be effected by the military's repression of sex and elevation of violence in it's place, Franken doesn't even get that excuse. Sorry, what he did was just selfish and adolescent with that stupid picture as well as his sickening behavior and it does illustrate an attitude of utter callousness and entitlement, but I for one will not equate his behavior as being nearly as sexually charged as a bunch of troops who've been out in the field for months at a stretch or whatever. He might like to think he's "one of them" and can act like an idiot and get away with it, but he's not "one of them" and he gets to go home to a warm bed and shower when he's done playing his little games. And by the way, none of this is said to lay a blanket excuse down for any soldier who harasses or rapes, but its not a cut and dried simple issue, especially for the military, and to give Franken that out is far too easy. IMHO.

—

Only a fool lets someone else tell him who his enemy is. Assata Shakur

Submitted by Cant Stop the M... on Sat, 11/18/2017 - 4:36pm

@doh1304 God, thank you for saying

@doh1304 God, thank you for saying that.

As a rape survivor myself, I've gotta say this line of thinking disturbs me a lot.

Rape is its own thing. It is defined by lack of consent. Anyone who's been in that situation knows that the experience of non consensual sex has nothing in common with the experience of inadvisable, morally dubious sex.

—

"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha

"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver

Submitted by Steven D on Sat, 11/18/2017 - 5:38pm

I have no argument with either of you

@Cant Stop the Macedonian Signal Rape is evil, consensual sex is what it is.

What I want to say is I was not comparing the Lewinsky affair with rape. Not the point of my essay and I feel this digression, important as it is to victims of sexual assault, is derailing the conversation about what Gillibrand said and why. That is what I wrote about, not comparing Lewinsky affair to rape.

So I will have nothing further to say about this other than I would prefer we remain on topic.

—

"You can't just leave those who created the problem in charge of the solution."---Tyree Scott

Submitted by snoopydawg on Sat, 11/18/2017 - 10:26pm

This isn't what Gillabrand is saying

@Steven D

she isn't saying that he should have been impeached, but that he should have stepped down from the presidency. This I agree with.

But the hypocrisy of the republicans was disgusting. Grinwich was having an affair with his now 3rd wife while his wife was being treated for cancer.
The republicans did start investigating Bill because of his affair with Monica, but he lied about it and the rest is history.

—

There were problems with running a campaign of Joy while committing a genocide? Who could have guessed?

Was Humpty Dumpty pushed?

Submitted by Centaurea on Sun, 11/19/2017 - 2:33am

Newt Gingrich

@snoopydawg @snoopydawg

Actually, it was his first wife, Jackie, whom he cheated on with Marianne Ginther while Jackie was undergoing treatment for cancer. He sued for divorce from Jackie, married Marianne, and then fooled around on Marianne with the much-younger Callista Bisek, whom he later married after divorcing Marianne. A fine fellow, isn't he?

(By the way, I just noticed your new siggy. Makes me want to turn vegetarian. )

Grinwich was having an affair with his now 3rd wife while his wife was being treated for cancer.

—

"Don't go back to sleep ... Don't go back to sleep ... Don't go back to sleep."
~Rumi

"If you want revolution, be it."
~Caitlin Johnstone

Submitted by doh1304 on Sun, 11/19/2017 - 1:11am

Peace. Steven.

@Steven D
You've contributed more to this community than I have, and I don't mind saying it. You just hit a nerve, and that was on me, not you.

—

On to Biden since 1973

Submitted by Steven D on Mon, 11/20/2017 - 6:12pm

Sent you a Private message

@doh1304

—

"You can't just leave those who created the problem in charge of the solution."---Tyree Scott

Submitted by Nastarana on Sat, 11/18/2017 - 6:31pm

I have always thought

@doh1304 Franken was overrated as a person, a comic and a Senator. I once had the unpleasant experience of watching him bully a witness at a senate Committee hearing. He is also a reliable pro-Monsanto, pro-GMO vote in the Senate.

—

Mary Bennett

Submitted by k9disc on Sat, 11/18/2017 - 8:01pm

A Reliable Corporate Centrist, Franken Is No Friend to the

Working man.

Huge disappointment to me from the 00’s.

@Nastarana

—

“Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.” ~ Sun Tzu

Submitted by MichaelSF on Sat, 11/18/2017 - 8:52pm

@Nastarana

@Nastarana

It looks to me that a fair bit of pro comedy is based on bullying or exulting in pain suffered by others. Actually, strike "pro" -- think of the typical "practical joke" starting at the grade school level. It is a "let's do something that scares/hurts that person and then laugh at how funny it looked" deal.

Submitted by doh1304 on Sun, 11/19/2017 - 1:32am

I seem to remember

@MichaelSF
that it started in the 80s. Suddenly comedy got really mean spirited. Before then there were characters that were treated cruelly (Major Burns, Archie Bunker, Baron Von Zipper, Gracie Allen, Margret Dumont) but their character was mocked because it was their job to be mocked, they were not dehumanized, and the comic made his point, he did not revel in destruction.

—

On to Biden since 1973

Submitted by Bollox Ref on Sat, 11/18/2017 - 8:57pm

I stood next to him once at a Minnesota caucus site

@Nastarana

He's a small man, literally and now metaphorically.

—

Gëzuar!!
from a reasonably stable genius.

Submitted by Deja on Sat, 11/18/2017 - 9:45pm

That's what my brother said about seeing Ted Cruz

@Bollox Ref
Said he saw him at the grocery store down the street from his (my bro's) apartment in Houston. Said it made him pity the guy. Said he was so small, and had a pitiful look on his face. [When I see Cruz, I can't unsee the first mole I ever saw. Mole Man.]

Submitted by SnappleBC on Sat, 11/18/2017 - 2:54pm

Rest assured. We'll have to deal with Chelsea

I see it as an utter certainty that the Clinton's try to establish Chelsea as their heir apparent. It'll be interesting to see how well that works.

—

A lot of wanderers in the U.S. political desert recognize that all the duopoly has to offer is a choice of mirages. Come, let us trudge towards empty expanse of sand #1, littered with the bleached bones of Deaniacs and Hope and Changers.
-- lotlizard

Submitted by pro left on Sat, 11/18/2017 - 3:32pm

Lets hope

@SnappleBC it doesn't work out at all, not only are we in a duopoly but we also have to deal with nepotism. Here in Illinois we now have JB Pritzker ( Pennys brother ) running against Chris Kennedy ( Roberts son ) in the Dem primary for governor of IL. Btw the Democratic party in IL. has chosen billionaire Pritzker as their man and are completely ignoring and or trying to shut Kennedy down.

Submitted by MichaelSF on Sat, 11/18/2017 - 8:53pm

@pro left

@pro left
For a country that didn't want a monarch as head of state, USAians sure like them some dynasty action.

Submitted by MrWebster on Sat, 11/18/2017 - 4:11pm

When Chelsea acts "political" she fails

@SnappleBC She does not have the temperament nor smarts to run for office. When she tried to attack Bernie over single payer, it was an utter failure. Unless Hillarybots flood an election, I don't see her winning any office.

Submitted by MrWebster on Sat, 11/18/2017 - 4:02pm

Yes and No.

In following the machinations of the DNC, Perez and company have managed to install Clinton loyalists up and down the party apparatus. In this way, she has power within the party bureaucracy.

But to the base? She has a following in the professional classes of the party, but not within other parts of the base given they would not come out for her in critical states. Cannot see her suddenly popular among Hispanics, African Americans, and unions. But Hillary probably thinks she can move the base with a snap of the fingers.

Giving Brazile some credit, maybe her book was about making money but also an attempt to marginalize the Clinton clique as they were incapable of winning elections. Maybe she is playing Cassandra to the democratic party.

The Clintons cannot rebuild and re-unify the party, but they can keep it down for a long time.

Submitted by zett on Sat, 11/18/2017 - 4:35pm

@MrWebster Are the Perez

@MrWebster Are the Perez installments specifically Clinton loyalists or are they Establishment loyalists? Upholding the status quo is the goal, after all. Maybe some somebodies somewhere have decided that cutting the Clintons loose is necessary to save their gravy train. I'm just wondering out loud here.

Submitted by Steven D on Sat, 11/18/2017 - 5:41pm

I believe they are Obama loyalists

@zett Brazile has more ties to Obama than Clinton. Perez as well. Obviously it gets a little incestuous with these neolibs.

—

"You can't just leave those who created the problem in charge of the solution."---Tyree Scott

Submitted by snoopydawg on Sat, 11/18/2017 - 10:33pm

Your link to the Biden's book review

@Steven D

backs this up. He writes about Obama pressuring him to make up his mind on whether he was running for president and after that he felt that Obama was in the Hillary camp.
He also stated that he thought she would lose to Bernie for a number of reasons such as the issues of the BLM.....
I didn't know that he wrote the crime bill for Clinton. Add this on to his drug war giveaways, his bankruptcy bill and his being in the pockets of the banks his whole career and he would just be the same candidate as Her and Barry!

—

There were problems with running a campaign of Joy while committing a genocide? Who could have guessed?

Was Humpty Dumpty pushed?

Submitted by Nastarana on Sat, 11/18/2017 - 10:19pm

Brazile has transferred loyalties,

@MrWebster @MrWebster and I can hardly blame her. Remember the "buffalo" remark. Say something like that where I live and you will get a well deserved fist in your face.

As for Chelsea, as what she is, a rich society mom, she actually seems somewhat less offensive than some of the breed. Mommie Dearest needs to let go and let her be.

—

Mary Bennett

Submitted by dfarrah on Sun, 11/19/2017 - 10:31am

They already kept it

@MrWebster @MrWebster down for a long time. As far as I'm concerned, both Obama and Clinton wrecked the dem party.

—

dfarrah

Submitted by orestes on Mon, 11/20/2017 - 1:44pm

@Steven D I would disagree.

@Steven D I would disagree. I don't think they @MrWebster I think Brazile has always been marginalized by the clintons and has been seeking to create a new neoliberal power structure through obama. Remember- she was one of the loudest voices about the "new Democratic coalition," which, of course, has never shown itself except in two obama elections. This book seems the most direct hit against the clinton bloc, an attempt to eviscerate it.

Submitted by WoodsDweller on Sat, 11/18/2017 - 4:13pm

If indeed this is the endgame for the Clintons

then the El Trumpo regime is a small price to pay.
But the Democratic establishment isn't changing their ways, they still want the big donor money and will screw the 99% to get it. They are just looking for a new generation of psychopaths to lead them.
I'm sure Bill/Hill would love to get Chelsea into a position where she has influence to peddle to get the gravy train rolling again. We'll have to see if they have enough influence left to make it happen. I have my doubts.

—

"The greatest shortcoming of the human race is our inability to understand the exponential function." -- Albert Bartlett
"A species that is hurtling toward extinction has no business promoting slow incremental change." -- Caitlin Johnstone

Submitted by Steven D on Sat, 11/18/2017 - 5:42pm

Yes

@WoodsDweller This is the neolibs trying to distance themselves from the Clintons. Many of them are not very happy with her since she started this "What Happened" crap.

—

"You can't just leave those who created the problem in charge of the solution."---Tyree Scott

Submitted by snoopydawg on Sat, 11/18/2017 - 10:37pm

Heh. I love this!

@Steven D

—

There were problems with running a campaign of Joy while committing a genocide? Who could have guessed?

Was Humpty Dumpty pushed?

Submitted by Deja on Sat, 11/18/2017 - 5:11pm

So ironic, or not

What ties them together is a general feeling that the events of November 8, 2016 were cosmically, historically unjust, and that the world can never be forgiven for allowing them to happen. Moving on is unthinkable. [...]

Remember how we BernieBros were treated and talked to at dkos during the primaries? The difference being, of course, is that we knew there was rigging going on; we just didn't know exactly what/how until the leaks, and they had to fabricate the Russian bs. Poor things, lol.

We got banned or TOs for mentioning rigging or cheating. They get wreck listed for it. Ours was real, and theirs is fabrication.

Submitted by strollingone on Sat, 11/18/2017 - 6:59pm

Wow! They're all lining up to beat on pore ol' Bill.

They sure were quiet before and they sure did like his coat tails when he was a high flier. Talk about hittin' a guy when he's down...just makes me think less of them. Every female he ever knew gets to be The Bride for a day.

Submitted by dfarrah on Sun, 11/19/2017 - 10:34am

Yes, I hope all of these

@strollingone @strollingone hypocrites like Gillibrand get booted from office.

—

dfarrah

Submitted by lizzyh7 on Sun, 11/19/2017 - 2:37pm

So they're going to hang Bill out to

try to get Rump. Dangerous game that could be for them, you'd think even they would see there is some risk of "blowback" there but no, anything to win it, no matter what the damage or potential risk. Just like our wars and the entire attitude of the PTB - if I can't have it all then I'm going to burn it down. Brilliant. s/

—

Only a fool lets someone else tell him who his enemy is. Assata Shakur

The Clintons are Dead to the Democrats

Comments

Pages