I think Clinton got by because 1) the Republicans made a political issue of it, which caused Democrats to rally to his side, and 2) because he remained president which forced people to deal with him on other weighty matters, which tended to overshadow the accusations more and more as the public lost interest.
Public opinion is very fickle and inconsistent. If you can survive the initial furor and remain relevant, these types of accusations get sort of sunsetted as the story about you changes tone and people move on to the next outrage.
It’s a lot like how Obama put the Jeremiah Wright issue to bed by giving a well received speech about race relations, or - going back a lot further - how Ronald Reagan put to bed concerns about his age by making a clever quip about it in his second debate with Mondale. Or Al Sharpton, who has survived enough despicable behaviour to sink five ordinary politicians with no apologies, but grows in stature and public acceptance by the year.
I don’t know about any specific people in this particular thread. But there’s no doubt that the level of condemnation of Clinton’s indiscretions is far lower at this time than that of Cosby. There’s no logical justification for the inconsistencies - that’s just the way people are.
That said, if at some point all the new revelations subside and the stories dry up and Cosby can keep his career going on at some level in the interim, I wouldn’t be surprised to him too outlast the allegations and for these stories to become a footnote in his career story. And then he’ll be the example of inconsistency when the next guy is outed for similar crimes.
You can’t say “no logical justification” when the accusations are quite different in both their severity and quantity. That could certainly be a logical justification, though I’m sure some people either don’t know about the accusations against Clinton or dismiss them because they like him (or agree with him politically).
He spoke at my undergrad commencement several years ago and honestly I’m a little stunned that there wasn’t more protesting about it at such a notoriously liberal school (University of Michigan.) I don’t remember any backlash about that at all. It’s exactly the sort of thing Michigan students would protest. That’s part of the reason I’m surprised to only learn about these allegations now.
I don’t know if that holds. In particular, Jaunita Broadrick alleged that Clinton straight-up raped her - that’s pretty severe. And while come people have quibbled with her story (see Wikipedia link), she seems credible to me. Of note:
It’s hard to know the full extent of either man’s transgressions, especially after some of Clinton’s accusers were trashed in the media and since some of Cosby’s accusers are either alleging relatively benign harrassment and/or because their stories are shaky too. The thing is that many people avoid consideration of the frequency and severity of Cosby’s transgressions by virtue of a zero-tolerance attitude, which if applied to Clinton would disqualify him too.
(That’s all I got. Except that, as a person who was once falsely accused of something a lot more heinous than the Cos is being accused of - and having to deal with the knee-jerk assumptions that because I am a male member of the species, said bullshit allegations were 100% pure gospel truth - I’m not, at all, going to condemn the man based on the flimsy shit that’s been in the news and on social media of late. And, yeah, the OP comes across as nothing more than a gibbering zealot with an axe to grind and a not-too-firm grip on reality.)
Perhaps I’m misreading it, but the portion you quoted seems to indicate that she attended a Clinton fundraiser three weeks after he raped her. :dubious:
Yes seriously. Have you not been reading the thread? The idea that it would be strange for victims of rape to continue associating with their rapist has been addressed several times. Also, to be honest, this is just something you should know by being a functional human being. Of course victims often continue to associate with their rapists. There’s generally a lot more going on in a person’s life than just the fact of the rape itself.
If right now, five women, that knew where you lived and what you had been doing, were to come forward and say that you did what Cosby did over a period of six months between Jan and June 1995, how many of them could you convincingly refute?
All? Two? Three?
What would happen in reality - as soon as you start to “defend yourself” - unless you have a solid alibi for ALL of the cases, you will be judged guilty on the ones you simply don’t have enough information to refute.
How is that better for you than remaining silent on all the cases?
Oh, for fuck’s sake. We aren’t in junior high writing 150-word essays. He agreed with even sven and quoted her post in full because he believes people should read it. Just how long should his response have been?
In response to one of the stupid questions repeatedly brought up in this thread as if it were a gotcha, there is no hard and fast number of accusations that make a person reach a decision, but there is a lot of smoke surrounding Cosby and I will exercise my right as a human being to match the patterns and believe the individual accusations I’ve heard. But the correct number can be one, and Cosby crossed that threshold many accusations ago.
I often regret that my poor memory makes it difficult for me to remember who is whom on this board and how I feel about them (there are exceptions: sven positive and clothy negative, but it’s taken years to sink in). In this thread I’m impressed with Spice Weasel and Frylock. They are thoughtful and articulate and I will make an effort to remember that. I didn’t even skim their posts! Well, not after I realized they were really saying something.
It seems weird to me to have such a position. Do you think that’s what you would do if you were accused yourself of some heinous crime?
For instance, isn’t the first advice given on this board to people who are involved in any sort of judicial process to shut the fuck up and don’t discuss it, even here? Isn’t it generally said that some random guy trying to defend himself is more likely than not to make himself appear guilty instead?
Also what **Bengangmo **said : how could you possibly refute accusations regarding events that are decades old? I doubt I could refute the accusation of having raped someone two weeks ago, let alone 20 years ago. And if you were to only say “I didn’t do it”, that’s certainly not going to count as a convincing alternative for the public opinion.
For instance, what kind of hypothetical public statement by this guy would convince you? If the answer is “none” or “something he’s incredibly unlikely to be able to provide even if innocent”, then there’s absolutely no point for him in making any statement. So, what would be a sufficient defense for you?
Thanks! I have the same intentions concerning Spice Weasel (who I think is female if I’m understanding correctly). I need to make sure to stop and read her posts when I see them.
I think that generally tends to apply more to date rape type situations rather than stranger rape situations where there’s no ongoing relationship.
But that said, I don’t think showing up at a fundraiser counts as “associating with her rapist”. My experience with political fundraisers and people who attend them is that they’re generally less about the candidates themselves than about the intermediate people.
Meaning, suppose the governor of Arkansas is holding a fundraiser, most of the people who show up and/or contribute have no connection to him or any realistic prospect of having any connection, and that’s not what they’re looking for. But they know A who knows the governor, or perhaps they know A who knows B who knows the governor, and they’re going to win brownie points with A (who might himself be trying to win brownie points with B, and so on).
As a general rule, once you’re at the fundraiser you’ll go shake hands with the politician and perhaps get a picture, if you’re so inclined. But the mere fact of attendence at such a fundraiser is no indication at all of any support for or desire to maintain any sort of connection to the politican.
We aren’t discussing a generic “you”. We are discussing Bill Cosby. Generic “you” in six billion examples hasn’t ruffied and raped over a dozen women over the past 40 years. And in fact, generic “you” doesn’t need to defend itself. It is innnocent. Bill Cosby with great probability did commit these acts. He has threatened to sue for libel, and has the resources and motivation to do it. So where is the suit? There won’t be one because it would prove the acts occurred in most instances.
Certainly it is possible that one, or maybe two, accusers could get together and concoct a story. That isn’t what we are facing here. It is well over a dozen. Who aren’t connected.
The reason Bill Cosby cannot successfully defend himself is because he left way too much evidence and the credibility of Cliff Huxtable is gone. We are left with sexual predator Bill Cosby.
The generic “you” is a bogus argument because you have substituted an innocent person, the “you” of which makes us deeply biased in our own favor, for someone who actually has over a dozen accusers. There is only one person who has a dozen accusers, and the reason that is overwhelming is because it is real, not hypothetical. These are named accusers with details. When you ask “you” to defend himself, come up with the names, don’t appeal to their known innocence and self-interest, appeal to the facts. The fact is Bill Cosby has over a dozen accusers and now a fixer coming forward with their names, ready to defend a libel suit.
Perhaps in the sense of the “[liberal/conservative] on one thing, [liberal/conservative] on everything, and there is ONE TRUE WAY of being one” expectation that the idelogical hardliners tend to throw at us.
In Cosby’s case the discomfort of the racial-issues activists over his “responsibility” platform didn’t trouble me as much as did the overenthusiastic embrace from the right-wingers rallying to feel exonerated by a “respected black voice”.