Not nobody, "Staffers on Hillary Clinton’s losing campaign struggled to come up with a coherent explanation for why the former first lady and secretary of state wanted to become president.
Some top aides, in turn, floated the idea of using “because it’s her turn” as a campaign rallying cry, "
The theory I’ve seen is that a lot of people were appalled at seeing a person like Donald Trump going through life unscathed by any of the things he had done (even bragging about he didn’t have to worry about consequences) and rising in success.
Most people can’t do anything about Trump. But they thought about the people like Trump in their own lives. And they decided that these Little Donalds should have to answer for the things they did. The attitude was “I can’t stand up to the President of the United States but I can stand up to that sleazy guy who fired me because I wouldn’t have sex with him.”
What about Clarence Thomas? What about John Kennedy? What about FDR? What about that lecher Warren G. Harding, screwing his mistress in the Oval Office broom closet?
Okay, the last three examples were having consensual sex, but let’s stop hearing “It all started with Clinton and those other damn hippies in the ‘60s!”
I too get the feeling that the rise of Trump motivated various segments of the population to get on the “Enough! This stops here and that includes people on ‘our’ side” train. And I am not naive enough to think that there wasn’t a holding back on Bill Clinton while Hillary was a contender for power.
Weinstein opened the floodgates because he was finally the one BSD that nobody rallied around. The one about whom people said “y’know what? I’m tired of making excuses, not worth dying on this hill. F*** him. Let him fall.”
Now we have to let ALL fall… or do we? How fast can we reach a consensus of what is a mortal vs venial sin in this matter, that is faction-neutral?
I doubt we can. People on both sides will try to ‘write the rules’ in a way that excuses behavior by those on their side and condemns the behavior of those on the other side. You can see it happening live in other ongoing threads about this very issue.
I think Taylor Swift getting sued over accusing a DJ of groping her during a photo op and winning $1 would qualify.
You don’t have to go that far. It’s happening live right in this thread.
So the era of winking at sexual predators like Bill Clinton, Ted Kennedy, Chris Dodd, and Harvey Weinstein is over. But apparently the era of winking at sexual predators like Donald Trump is still on. Because apparently his sexual harassment is part of the solution not part of the problem.
I agree that for the most part the Trump election was a step back since Trump didn’t suffer any significant backlash. IMHO it was Cosby that made the first crack in the dike, and Weinstein that caused its complete collapse. It will be interesting to see how it all plays out in the end. Hopefully it will be the end of an era.
There’s no reason to defend Clinton now. At least some of the accusations are credible and not contradictory. But even politically speaking, ditching him politically can only help the Democratic party. It’s time to move on, and we can and should move on to be a groper/assaulter/harasser-free party, as much as possible. We have a chance to be the morally superior party to the Republicans, and to actually show it – we can boot our gropers/harassers/assaulters, while the Republicans continue to rally around Trump and at least some of them still support Moore.
Society is moving in this direction anyway. Which party will actually grab onto this and be the truly anti-sexual-mistreatment party?
But Hollywood has never had a reputation for being particularly feminist or anti-sexist. Sexual harassment and sexual objectification of women have always been business as usual in Hollywood, even among otherwise liberal types who are very big on saving the environment or freeing Tibet or ending the war or whatever.
None of those cites support the idea that idea that anybody supported Clinton because it was “her turn.” The fact that her campaign considered and discarded it as a slogan would indicate that even the Clinton Campaign recognized that as a slogan, it wouldn’t have any traction with voters.
You’re acting as if conservative politics acts rationally. For the Republican Party, moral superiority lies in never admitting they were wrong.
The Democrats should do the right thing. But only because it’s the right thing. They won’t gain any political advantage out of it. The Democrats will admit they have a problem and try to fix it. The Republicans will deny they have the same problem, do nothing about the problem, and then claim to be better than the Democrats because of it. And they’ll get away with it because lies always sound better than the truth.
Not only that, but when the Dems dump their questionable figures, but the Reps’ questionables survive, their Base will feel vindicated that indeed righteousness was on their side, *because *they survived.
There is zero doubt with Lewinsky. She has been explicit and unwavering that her relationship with President Clinton was consensual.
I didn’t know about this and had to look it up. If I understand correctly, the incident happened 4 years ago, and Taylor Swift reported it immediately and the guy was fired. He sues her 2 years later. So this all has nothing to do with Trump or Weinstein.
Damn. You know I’m in my late thirties and I’ve never heard this story. This has completely changed my view of Bill Clinton. I never had a huge problem with the consensual flings he was involved in, but I never knew he was legitimately accused of rape.
I didn’t hear about it until this year (mostly used to deflect accusations toward Trump.) I don’t think it got much press at the time. But this was what, 1996? I was 13. I remember the Lewinsky scandal being all over the news, but nothing about rape.
According to this, the Dems ARE doing the right thing.
And I can safely predict the the Repubs will continue to do the WRONG thing.
I would argue there is a difference between denying and putting out an affadavit. Given that she repeatedly claims that she was not paid, I do not understand why she wrote the affadavit.
That said, the story as I now know it (which was not the story I heard at the time) suggests he really did rape her. The affidavit casts doubt, but the evidence is overwhelming. If I were on a jury with this evidence, I would find that he did rape her.
I do give people a pass for voting for B. Clinton, though, because I believe that they did not know the whole story, and were reasonably under the impression it had become a witch hunt due to everything else.
I also admit that this is also the first time I’ve heard that H. Clinton was actually involved in any coverup. The criticism was always just that she didn’t disavow him and stood by him, understandably believing her husband’s side. Bringing it up in 2016 seemed like more witch hunting, given all the baseless accusations against the woman.
Still, I guess there is plausible deniability for H. Clinton. She could believe her husband but also be thankful that the woman didn’t make a big deal of it. Since she was going against someone far worse, I would probably accept that.
I also give the woman a pass for finding what Trump said appealing due to her personal history. That is a rare, rare thing for me to do. The only other people I give a pass to are those who just didn’t know and bought the lies.