Well, we should probably talk about Bill Clinton

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

I'm surprised no one shared this yesterday (or, if they did, I missed it). Matt Yglesias posted a lengthy essay at Vox titled simply "Bill Clinton should have resigned."

He's taken a lot of heat from all over the spectrum for various parts of his argument. Some don't like that he explores the political realities, as he points out that the Democrats would not have had any reason to be scared of an Al Gore administration. Others accuse him of playing the blame game, when he takes the GOP to task for making it about perjury, when it should have been about sexual harassment. Others still find it suspiciously convenient that people like Yglesias are reaching these conclusions after the Clintons have apparently walked off into the sunset. But ultimately, it's a well-written and personal piece about how the reckoning we are currently experiencing regarding the poor behavior of powerful men toward women could have happened much sooner, if we had grasped the opportunity available:

Most of all, as a citizen I’ve come to see that the scandal was never about infidelity or perjury — or at least, it shouldn’t have been. It was about power in the workplace and its use. The policy case that Democrats needed Clinton in office was weak, and the message that driving him from office would have sent would have been profound and welcome. That this view was not commonplace at the time shows that we did not, as a society, give the most important part of the story the weight it deserved.​

Yglesias also mentions that the current climate is leading to a reexamination of Bill Clinton that includes darker episodes. But not everyone is ready to jump in with Michelle Goldberg and say they now believe Juanita Broaddrick. As crazed and I discussed a few times, even today, many people find Paula Jones' story fishy.

But Yglesias' argument is that, in hindsight, there was reason to condemn Clinton even without the various accusations against him. With Lewinsky, there was no accusation. All parties agreed on the essential facts, and to this day, she contends the relationship was consensual. So even if you aren't ready to believe the women who leveled misconduct accusations against him, you can still look at the Lewinsky affair and say that Clinton absolutely, unequivocally, did something wrong. But because we missed the real story - a powerful man using his position to gain sexual favors from a subordinate - we pushed back for decades the important conversation we are now having.

 

[sglowrider]

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

I'm surprised no one shared this yesterday (or, if they did, I missed it). Matt Yglesias posted a lengthy essay at Vox titled simply "Bill Clinton should have resigned."

He's taken a lot of heat from all over the spectrum for various parts of his argument. Some don't like that he explores the political realities, as he points out that the Democrats would not have had any reason to be scared of an Al Gore administration. Others accuse him of playing the blame game, when he takes the GOP to task for making it about perjury, when it should have been about sexual harassment. Others still find it suspiciously convenient that people like Yglesias are reaching these conclusions after the Clintons have apparently walked off into the sunset. But ultimately, it's a well-written and personal piece about how the reckoning we are currently experiencing regarding the poor behavior of powerful men toward women could have happened much sooner, if we had grasped the opportunity available:

Most of all, as a citizen I’ve come to see that the scandal was never about infidelity or perjury — or at least, it shouldn’t have been. It was about power in the workplace and its use. The policy case that Democrats needed Clinton in office was weak, and the message that driving him from office would have sent would have been profound and welcome. That this view was not commonplace at the time shows that we did not, as a society, give the most important part of the story the weight it deserved.​

Yglesias also mentions that the current climate is leading to a reexamination of Bill Clinton that includes darker episodes. But not everyone is ready to jump in with Michelle Goldberg and say they now believe Juanita Broaddrick. As crazed and I discussed a few times, even today, many people find Paula Jones' story fishy.

But Yglesias' argument is that, in hindsight, there was reason to condemn Clinton even without the various accusations against him. With Lewinsky, there was no accusation. All parties agreed on the essential facts, and to this day, she contends the relationship was consensual. So even if you aren't ready to believe the women who leveled misconduct accusations against him, you can still look at the Lewinsky affair and say that Clinton absolutely, unequivocally, did something wrong. But because we missed the real story - a powerful man using his position to gain sexual favors from a subordinate - we pushed back for decades the important conversation we are now having.

That’s nice. I basically said what he said with the same reasoning at the time. Now it doesn’t matter.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

That’s nice. I basically said what he said with the same reasoning at the time. Now it doesn’t matter.

So...why is he just getting around to saying it now -- almost 20 years after the fact? And why didn't the Matt Yglesieses of ~1998 say anything like this then?

Seems pretty obvious. The shoe's on the other foot. It was about politics then and now. That, er, trumps everything.

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

So...why is he just getting around to saying it now -- almost 20 years after the fact? And why didn't the Matt Yglesieses of ~1998 say anything like this then?

Seems pretty obvious. The shoe's on the other foot. It was about politics then and now. That, er, trumps everything.

Likely true.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

So...why is he just getting around to saying it now -- almost 20 years after the fact? And why didn't the Matt Yglesieses of ~1998 say anything like this then?

Seems pretty obvious. The shoe's on the other foot. It was about politics then and now. That, er, trumps everything.

Considering he addressed that very issue in his piece, I'm wondering if you didn't bother to read it, or you simply don't care to engage with what he actually said, instead simply pushing this same line you've been pushing every time this comes up.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

Considering he addressed that very issue in his piece, I'm wondering if you didn't bother to read it, or you simply don't care to engage with what he actually said, instead simply pushing this same line you've been pushing every time this comes up.

No I didn't read it. And I'm not going to either. I don't care if he addressed the timing of his epiphany. Only a complete fool would accept any reasoning for his 20 year period of contemplation other than the obvious one.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

No I didn't read it. And I'm not going to either.

Congratulations on your candor. But everything you say on the topic of this essay is completely worthless.

 

[UncleMark]

No I didn't read it. And I'm not going to either. I don't care if he addressed the timing of his epiphany. Only a complete fool would accept any reasoning for his 20 year period of contemplation other than the obvious one.

Earl Landgrebe approves this message.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

Congratulations on your candor. But everything you say on the topic of this essay is completely worthless.

So is everything Yglesies says 20 years on now that the Clintons are the political rear view mirror. So I guess we're even.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

I can do this too.

In hindsight, I think Reagan should've resigned over Iran-Contra.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

I can do this too.

In hindsight, I think Reagan should've resigned over Iran-Contra.

You're digging yourself to really new lows on this one.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

You're digging yourself to really new lows on this one.

You're the one buying the bullshit, not me.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

That’s nice. I basically said what he said with the same reasoning at the time. Now it doesn’t matter.

I think when it comes to facing up to this issue, everything matters. If we're really going to address the level of abuse and misconduct women have dealt with, we're going to need to be open and honest about all of it, even the parts that make us uncomfortable. The real point of Yglesias' essay - which I'm sure you already understand - is not simply that Clinton should have been forced from office with the benefit of hindsight. It's that we all, as an entire society, completely dropped the ball on the issue, and ignored the very problem that is now blowing up all around us.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

You're the one buying the bullshit, not me.

It's not bullshit, but you wouldn't know that, because you don't want to bother reading what he actually has to say. As such, your entire presence in this thread is the actual bullshit around here.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

I think when it comes to facing up to this issue, everything matters. If we're really going to address the level of abuse and misconduct women have dealt with, we're going to need to be open and honest about all of it, even the parts that make us uncomfortable. The real point of Yglesias' essay - which I'm sure you already understand - is not simply that Clinton should have been forced from office with the benefit of hindsight. It's that we all, as an entire society, completely dropped the ball on the issue, and ignored the very problem that is now blowing up all around us.

But that's just it. Not everybody dropped the ball. Not everybody ignored it. Not in Clinton's case or otherwise.

But the people who did drop the ball in Clinton's case chose political expediency over everything else. That hasn't changed and it doesn't seem likely to change.

The people who did so in Hollywood did it for other reasons -- and I don't necessarily think that protecting their own careers from backlash fully explains it.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

But that's just it. Not everybody dropped the ball. Not everybody ignored it. Not in Clinton's case or otherwise.

But the people who did drop the ball in Clinton's case chose political expediency over everything else. That hasn't changed and it doesn't seem likely to change.

The people who did so in Hollywood did it for other reasons -- and I don't necessarily think that protecting their own careers from backlash fully explains it.

No, everyone dropped the ball. But you don't understand what the ball is, because you'd rather attack a liberal phantom than actually read the piece we are discussing.

 

[sglowrider]

No, everyone dropped the ball. But you don't understand what the ball is, because you'd rather attack a liberal phantom than actually read the piece we are discussing.

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

I think when it comes to facing up to this issue, everything matters. If we're really going to address the level of abuse and misconduct women have dealt with, we're going to need to be open and honest about all of it, even the parts that make us uncomfortable. The real point of Yglesias' essay - which I'm sure you already understand - is not simply that Clinton should have been forced from office with the benefit of hindsight. It's that we all, as an entire society, completely dropped the ball on the issue, and ignored the very problem that is now blowing up all around us.

Concur, but Yglesias could have cut and pasted a few paragraphs of his essay from what I posted during the scandal. I’m enjoying that.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Concur, but Yglesias could have cut and pasted a few paragraphs of his essay from what I posted during the scandal. I’m enjoying that.

Well, you had some pretty rare insight back then. Most people did exactly what Yglesias says: conservatives made it about perjury, liberals made it about a private family matter. I'm sure you weren't the only one talking sexual harassment, but there's a reason none of the four Articles introduced in the House said anything about the topic. Overall, we definitely dropped the ball in this regard, and I think that's the most powerful part of Yglesias' essay.

 

[twenty02]

Can't help but wonder if Trump doesn't end up in some similar pickle before it's all said and done.

The recent weeks are likely to end up fully circling back to him, with a lawsuit filed and everything. Or is he Slick Willy 2.0 on these things?

http://people.com/politics/donald-trump-sexual-assault-accusers-want-justice/

 

[Marvin the Martian]

Well, you had some pretty rare insight back then. Most people did exactly what Yglesias says: conservatives made it about perjury, liberals made it about a private family matter. I'm sure you weren't the only one talking sexual harassment, but there's a reason none of the four Articles introduced in the House said anything about the topic. Overall, we definitely dropped the ball in this regard, and I think that's the most powerful part of Yglesias' essay.

There is the important part, "none of the four Articles introduced in the House said anything about the topic". The topic was sexual harassment. Society itself was not ready to deal with the issue, society itself was too male dominated both in politics and in misogynistic thought.

It is like gay marriage, recall how far left Clinton was for "don't ask don't tell" yet fully supportive of Defense of Marriage Act? By 2016, society had shot way past his attitudes, yet society was no where close to doing that in 1996.

Society finally has decided mysoginistic behavior is wrong.

I recall not long ago, a fee years, discussing tv shows with someone and mentioning my love of MASH. They asked how I could love such a mysoginistic show. Their point was lost on me then, now it is extremely clear. That show flat out could not be made today, but it could have been 2 years ago. Heck, maybe even 2 months ago.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

There is the important part, "none of the four Articles introduced in the House said anything about the topic". The topic was sexual harassment. Society itself was not ready to deal with the issue, society itself was too male dominated both in politics and in misogynistic thought.

It is like gay marriage, recall how far left Clinton was for "don't ask don't tell" yet fully supportive of Defense of Marriage Act? By 2016, society had shot way past his attitudes, yet society was no where close to doing that in 1996.

Society finally has decided mysoginistic behavior is wrong.

I recall not long ago, a fee years, discussing tv shows with someone and mentioning my love of MASH. They asked how I could love such a mysoginistic show. Their point was lost on me then, now it is extremely clear. That show flat out could not be made today, but it could have been 2 years ago. Heck, maybe even 2 months ago.

Bingo. We were given an opportunity then, and we simply weren't ready for it. The way Yglesias ends his piece illustrates why this is not just an academic argument:

As the current accountability moment grows, we ought to recognize and admit that we had a chance to do this almost 20 years ago — potentially sparing countless young women a wide range of unpleasant and discriminatory experiences, or at a minimum reducing their frequency and severity. And we blew it.​

Every woman who was harassed between 1998 and today is potentially a woman who might not have suffered in that way had we taken that opportunity. By recasting the Clinton scandal as something other than what it was, we failed an entire generation of American women.

PS - Everything after the first three seasons of MASH sucked, anyway.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Well, you had some pretty rare insight back then. Most people did exactly what Yglesias says: conservatives made it about perjury, liberals made it about a private family matter. I'm sure you weren't the only one talking sexual harassment, but there's a reason none of the four Articles introduced in the House said anything about the topic. Overall, we definitely dropped the ball in this regard, and I think that's the most powerful part of Yglesias' essay.

I made it about what it was, a powerful male and a young impressionable female. Consent really didn’t matter. Nobody dropped the ball notwithstanding there were interests in politicizing the issue. This scenario was a frequent topic at seminars on the subject and was being litigated in a number of different ways.

We also can’t overlook Hillary’s conduct in at least enabling this if not actually participating in the smears of WJC’s victims. When I brought that up during the 2016 campaign I , of course, was roundly criticized and dismissed on this forum.

As far as I am concerned Yglesias can take a flying leap. Everybody knows the Clintons are old news. This is just another flavor of that. The Clintons are a safe target.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

s the current accountability moment grows,

For many of us, the accountability movement was always there. The growing and new thing is that the accountability movement is growing in the swamp.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

PS - Everything after the first three seasons of MASH sucked, anyway

I somewhat agree but those first 3 seasons are the most mysoginistic. As the show became more Alda-centric, it started shifting away from that.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

I somewhat agree but those first 3 seasons are the most mysoginistic. As the show became more Alda-centric, it started shifting away from that.

To be honest, I also must admit that I have a habit of giving art a pretty wide latitude when it comes to historical context. Merchant of Venice was pretty anti-Semitic, after all. On the other hand, I recognize there is a downside. We generally celebrate All in the Family for deconstructing the prejudices that combine to form the main character, but there's little doubt in my mind that at least part of its popularity came from men seeing Archie Bunker and thinking, "Hey, he's just like me!"

You want to see some cringe-worthy sexism, you should watch 1980s Tonight Show reruns. Carson did jokes that no one would even begin to think to get away with today. Every time I see an episode, at least once I wonder, "How was that okay, even then?"

 

[Marvin the Martian]

To be honest, I also must admit that I have a habit of giving art a pretty wide latitude when it comes to historical context. Merchant of Venice was pretty anti-Semitic, after all. On the other hand, I recognize there is a downside. We generally celebrate All in the Family for deconstructing the prejudices that combine to form the main character, but there's little doubt in my mind that at least part of its popularity came from men seeing Archie Bunker and thinking, "Hey, he's just like me!"

You want to see some cringe-worthy sexism, you should watch 1980s Tonight Show reruns. Carson did jokes that no one would even begin to think to get away with today. Every time I see an episode, at least once I wonder, "How was that okay, even then?"

I agree about giving art a wide latitude. That is why I do not plan on not watching MASH. Instead I will realize what it is. But if MASH were about to come to tv, it would not make it today. And I am also thinking that would be true of Captain Kirk (please don't find anything wrong with Captain Crunch though).

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

I agree about giving art a wide latitude. That is why I do not plan on not watching MASH. Instead I will realize what it is. But if MASH were about to come to tv, it would not make it today. And I am also thinking that would be true of Captain Kirk (please don't find anything wrong with Captain Crunch though).

Agreed on Kirk. I like to watch those late night Star Trek marathons on BBC sometimes, and I've seen a few episodes the past couple of months that made me cringe pretty badly. Which is funny, because the show was generally considered progressive for its time.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

Agreed on Kirk. I like to watch those late night Star Trek marathons on BBC sometimes, and I've seen a few episodes the past couple of months that made me cringe pretty badly. Which is funny, because the show was generally considered progressive for its time.

Progressive has changed, at the time dealing with sex in any way was progressive. Bob and Emily Hartley were the first tv couple to share a bed (according to Newhart).

When Cleese was in town last month, he ended his talk with several of your standard ethnic jokes. He was speaking out against the PC culture by suggesting the jokes were really making fun of people holding the stereotype. I agree which is why i give art latitude, but the line is fine.

Franken's pose would not bother me much if she were awake, the asleep portion makes it totally wrong, art or not.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Progressive has changed, at the time dealing with sex in any way was progressive. Bob and Emily Hartley were the first tv couple to share a bed (according to Newhart).

When Cleese was in town last month, he ended his talk with several of your standard ethnic jokes. He was speaking out against the PC culture by suggesting the jokes were really making fun of people holding the stereotype. I agree which is why i give art latitude, but the line is fine.

Franken's pose would not bother me much if she were awake, the asleep portion makes it totally wrong, art or not.

A few months ago, we discussed why Bill Maher's use of the n-word was wrong, while Louis CK's use was fine. It had to do with the fact that, unlike Maher, Louis was using the word in a bit that ultimately attacked latent racism against blacks. It is a fine line, but it can be walked by people who have the skill to do so.

You're spot on with Franken's photo. That's the worst part of that. He appropriated her without her consent. That's the violation.

(And the kissing thing; that's a separate violation.)

 

[Rockfish1]

Bingo. We were given an opportunity then, and we simply weren't ready for it. The way Yglesias ends his piece illustrates why this is not just an academic argument:

As the current accountability moment grows, we ought to recognize and admit that we had a chance to do this almost 20 years ago — potentially sparing countless young women a wide range of unpleasant and discriminatory experiences, or at a minimum reducing their frequency and severity. And we blew it.​

Every woman who was harassed between 1998 and today is potentially a woman who might not have suffered in that way had we taken that opportunity. By recasting the Clinton scandal as something other than what it was, we failed an entire generation of American women.

PS - Everything after the first three seasons of MASH sucked, anyway.

For context, Bill Clinton's job approval rating peaked at 73 percent in the week he was impeached. Public attitudes at the time were affected not only by Clinton's conduct, but also by that of his persecutors. Maybe if out-of-control Republicans hadn't impeached a popular president for lying about a blowjob the conversation might have been different.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

There is the important part, "none of the four Articles introduced in the House said anything about the topic". The topic was sexual harassment. Society itself was not ready to deal with the issue, society itself was too male dominated both in politics and in misogynistic thought.

It is like gay marriage, recall how far left Clinton was for "don't ask don't tell" yet fully supportive of Defense of Marriage Act? By 2016, society had shot way past his attitudes, yet society was no where close to doing that in 1996.

Society finally has decided mysoginistic behavior is wrong.

I recall not long ago, a fee years, discussing tv shows with someone and mentioning my love of MASH. They asked how I could love such a mysoginistic show. Their point was lost on me then, now it is extremely clear. That show flat out could not be made today, but it could have been 2 years ago. Heck, maybe even 2 months ago.

Sexual harassment probably wasn't an impeachable offense. The relationship with Lewinsky was, after all, consensual. So why would they draft articles of impeachment over such a thing?

Of course Clinton deserved to be impeached (and removed) over his lying under oath. But he wasn't because it was all about the underlying politics.

And had the parties been reversed, it would've been the same result. I don't know why this is -- or was -- such a difficult thing to understand and admit.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

For context, Bill Clinton's job approval rating peaked at 73 percent in the week he was impeached. Public attitudes at the time were affected not only by Clinton's conduct, but also by that of his persecutors. Maybe if out-of-control Republicans hadn't impeached a popular president for lying about a blowjob the conversation might have been different.

LOL. So the GOP is responsible for Clinton getting a pass and the public not taking sexual harassment seriously? I don't think so. The rules for liberals and Democrats are different; always have been. The "times" didn't allow Ted Kennedy to remain a rich and powerful senator, his politics did. The times didn't allow Robert Byrd to escape his KKK racism, his politics did. The times isn't the cause of FDR being held in high regard by historians, his politics is.

 

[Rockfish1]

LOL. So the GOP is responsible for Clinton getting a pass and the public not taking sexual harassment seriously? I don't think so. The rules for liberals and Democrats are different; always have been. The "times" didn't allow Ted Kennedy to remain a rich and powerful senator, his politics did. The times didn't allow Robert Byrd to escape his KKK racism, his politics did. The times isn't the cause of FDR being held in high regard by historians, his politics is.

The Clinton rules required Bill Clinton to be impeached for lying about a blowjob, and his job approval rating reflected what people thought about that. Why don't you take your incessant bullshit somewhere else?

 

[CO. Hoosier]

The Clinton rules required Bill Clinton to be impeached for lying about a blowjob, and his job approval rating reflected what people thought about that. Why don't you take your incessant bullshit somewhere else?

The bullshit is your argument that the GOP impeachment is responsible for "making the conversation different" about sexual harassment in general and Clinton in particular. You post a lot of dumb things and this is right up there. And to anyone who actually changed their attitudes about harassment because of the impeachment, shame on them. Apparently that includes you.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

I made it about what it was, a powerful male and a young impressionable female. Consent really didn’t matter. Nobody dropped the ball notwithstanding there were interests in politicizing the issue. This scenario was a frequent topic at seminars on the subject and was being litigated in a number of different ways.

We also can’t overlook Hillary’s conduct in at least enabling this if not actually participating in the smears of WJC’s victims. When I brought that up during the 2016 campaign I , of course, was roundly criticized and dismissed on this forum.

As far as I am concerned Yglesias can take a flying leap. Everybody knows the Clintons are old news. This is just another flavor of that. The Clintons are a safe target.

It bears repeating that it was only about a year ago that Andrea Mitchell, on national television, falsely described Juanita Broaddrick's sexual assault claim against Bill Clinton as having been "discredited."

NBC later edited that word out for the rebroadcast without comment and Mitchell herself, to my knowledge, never addressed it (let alone retracted it).

I wonder, do you think she'd say that today? And, if not, what's changed in the past year? Two things: Donald Trump is president and the Clintons are gone and not coming back.

 

[Rockfish1]

The bullshit is your argument that the GOP impeachment is responsible for "making the conversation different" about sexual harassment in general and Clinton in particular. You post a lot of dumb things and this is right up there. And to anyone who actually changed their attitudes about harassment because of the impeachment, shame on them. Apparently that includes you.

I guess 73 percent of us were liberal Democrats back then.

 

[HillzHoozier]

Donald Trump is president

Trump can't be taken to task for sexual harrassment as long as the liberals are still defending WJC. So prudence demands articles be written and conversations be had to shed light on how wrong society as a whole was back then for letting it happen.

Soon, Trump's accusers will again be standing before nests of microphones and their stories will be broadcast far and wide. It will be said that they must be believed, because women wouldn't lie about this. By then, Franken will have been censured and forgiven, Moore and Clinton will be toast, and the real effort will begin to attach enough accusations and innuendo to Trump to remove him from office.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

Sexual harassment probably wasn't an impeachable offense. The relationship with Lewinsky was, after all, consensual. So why would they draft articles of impeachment over such a thing?

Of course Clinton deserved to be impeached (and removed) over his lying under oath. But he wasn't because it was all about the underlying politics.

And had the parties been reversed, it would've been the same result. I don't know why this is -- or was -- such a difficult thing to understand and admit.

We don't know if sexual harassment was an impeachable offense because no one tried. There are no lists of what is or is not an impeachable offense, congress makes that decision. I am not sure they would have voted that way, probably not, but the question we should determine is should it be?