I think that is correct, in fact you have seen Democrats who have said essentially that, like Senator Gillibrand who said that in retrospect, Bill Clinton should have resigned. The fact that the Democrats pushed out Al Franken over his actions show that the party has evolved on the issue.
Another point is that many - 7 out of 10 - of the democrats doing the questioning were essential nobodies and not in the Senate during Clinton’s impeachment. It seems unfair to ask someone why didn’t they take a stand 20 years ago when they weren’t in a position to be heard.
I don’t think Franken is good analogy. One of the accusations was based on photographic evidence from a time right before he announced his senate run. I think Kavanaugh would have been “pushed out” by the GOP had there been a similar photo, even if it was from 1982 when he was in high school.
You have far more faith in the GOP than I do. I think it’s pretty clear that Kavanaugh lied about his drinking at a minimum while under oath. There is actual video of Trump bragging about sexually assaulting women and his base still voted for him. When Franken’s news dropped, there was push back that he not be forced out, but the majority of the Democratic base wasn’t having it.
Another thing that has been on my mind with Bill is that many people who are left-leaning today weren’t eligible to vote for him. Sure, there are lots of people older than 45ish who are Dems, but there are also a lot under 45ish. Can hypocrisy be laid at the feet of people who weren’t 18 by 1992, 1996?
I can see why someone might make parallels between the two, but a lot of the arguments aren’t a measured “It’s hard to take your view seriously when your guy did ____” and instead are all caps screaming anti-Clinton screeds.
I think the hyper-partisan attacks on Bill backfired. Normally I’d be full of hate for someone like him, but there was so much bullshit that it made even credible scandals seem like half baked Newt fever dreams.
Assuming you mean Broadchurch, I do think this is the most relevant.
She even admits she wasn’t forced to do withdraw the accusation. It wasn’t an issue of pressure or anything. She withdrew it, and so I suspect a lot of people thought the rape part was no longer at issue.
I was a kid at the time, so I don’t know how representative I am. But I remember the debate being nearly entirely about infidelity. It was about Monica Lewinsky and Linda Trip. Paula Jones I remember, but I also remember it being treated as similar to Lewinsky.
If people at the time thought the rape accusations were off the table, of course their responses would be different, even without appealing to it being 20 years ago and understanding having improved–though I agree with Bricker that this also is true.
I mean, now I’d be very wary with the incidents with Lewinsky and Flowers even though those were consensual, due to the power dynamics. So things have definitely changed with me.
The difference is the consequences. Franken had a safe seat so he could be defenestrated with no consequences whereas not supporting Trump would have handed the Presidency to Hillary. If losing Franken meant losing the seat, he would still be there.
This is what I have read in regards to Lewinsky’s views on the matter :
https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/05/politics/bill-clinton-monica-lewinsky/index.html
Not as safe as you claim, Franken’s 2008 election was the closest in the history of the state.
My view of Bill Clinton has changed. I was angry at what he did and said so at the time, but I didn’t call for him to resign. I think now he deserves much more backlash. Although, his recent foray into the public consciousness with the book he wrote with whatshisname didn’t go very well. He did get push back. I’m okay with people confronting him and even shunning him. I think he needs to make more of an amends.
Here’s the thing though - It WAS twenty years ago and things were very different. Also, I think much of the defense of Bill had to do with right-wing antics. The Starr investigation looked like a witch hunt and from the viewpoint of twenty years later, sure looks like that’s what it was.
I don’t remember all the details regarding Clinton’s accusers, but given the right-wing crazed vendetta at that time (and on going), if it any of it could have been substantiated, they would have brought charges.
Let’s not forget they IMPEACHED him (for lying about a blow job under oath) so he did not go unscathed. What consequences should befall Kavanaugh for lying under oath? He’s a JUDGE ffs. He lied under oath.
I think much of this is Republicans worrying that Democrats will be just as asshole-ruthless as they have been.
#whitewatervincefosterblowjobemailsbenghazipizzagate
I voted on my 18th birthday in 1996. Politically speaking, I was pretty centrist. I most resembled Colin Powell politically (according to some dumb survey we did in government class).
I didn’t like Bill Clinton. He just kind of creeped me out. I did not vote for him. I wrote in Ralph Nader. :eek:
At 22, in 2000, I had firm proof that Bill Clinton was a total creep. I did not vote for him again, despite being solidly liberal. I wrote in Ralph Nader again. :smack:
Since that time I have voted in every local, state and national election. Pretty solidly democrat, aside from a few local republicans that I knew personally and respected (local school board, BOS, etc…).
So I can honestly say, when I get the, “but but but, whattabout Bill?” bullshit, that I never voted for him.
Gillibrand was a Clinton protege right? When did she say that? Saying it after November 2016 means sweet fuck all to be honest, since that was the end of the Clintons as a major political force.
You are correct that Gillibrand was a H. Clinton protégé (and occupies H’s former seat in the senate). You are wrong about the rest of your post and I’m confused why you thought using the phrase “sweet fuck all” was appropriate or necessary.
The Clintons are still major fund raisers in the Democratic party and Gillibrand abandoning them (regardless off her motives, which we cannot know) shows a cultural shift within the Democratic Party towards one its more popular figures. Gillibrand’s comments from someone who clearly has ambitions beyond her current role as a senator show that thinking has shifted enough on Bill Clinton’s presidency that Democrats with ambition can feel safe in criticizing Bill Clinton.
That is what sweet fuck all that means if you can fucking understand it.