Bill Clinton in retrospect

[Cary]

People knew who and what Bill Clinton was. I recall saying that he had a job to do and his personal pecadillos were irrelevant. Bill Clinton was a great President. History sees it that way.

Was defending Bill Clinton an act of partisanship? I oppose #fakepresident and Roy Moore for a lot more than their personal sexual transgressions. History will not look favorably on either of them.

Unfortunate I can't draw this distinction any better. I am working on it.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

1. Bill Clintons acts with Monica Lewinsky were consensual.

The three women who allege he acted in a non consensual manner with them all have documentable credibility issues, and the fact that they have gone on the record to proudly support Donald Trump after the Access Hollywood tape came out speaks volumes as to what type of people they really are, which is partisan hacks without an ounce of integrity or believability.

[Cary]

3. Perhaps

It's still being used as a cudgel.

People aren't perfect, including myself. Nor are people consistent, including myself.

[pnwmom]

62. Why do people act as if Bill Clinton was the first President to behave that way?

He was merely the President in office when the media decided to destroy the bubble of personal privacy that they had allowed all previous Presidents.

[Cary]

67. I don't think anyone thinks Bill Clinton was the first

I think we are growing.

Growing can be painful.

I told my suitemate that I strongly favor better treatment of women who stepped forward because I am raising two daughters. She got angry with me and said I should favor tbat because it's right. Geez, the two aren't mutually exclusive. I think she is a little out of line and looking a little too hard to find fault in a male who essentially agrees with her. She is more radical than I am, to the point where I find her to be a bit obnoxious. Nevertheless I welcome the conflict because that's how we learn and grow.

[Freddie]

2. Clinton was a horn dog BUT

Consensual encounters with ADULTS.

[RobinA]

15. Yep, If We're Going

to start busting horndogs from positions of authority the ranks are going to be mighty thin.

I would support Clinton or anybody of any party being pilloried for an adult consensual relationship. It's between his wife and his girlfriend. I'm also not impressed by this poor little powerless intern nonsense when it comes to Lewinsky. She knew full well what she was doing when she flicked her thong!

[happy feet]

51. I agree!!!

[vi5]

4. My take at the time and now....

I didn't care about a personal, consensual affair between two adults, but that was also threading a needle a bit too much. The issues of power involved and the disparity in power between the President of the United States and an intern made me more than a bit uncomfortable.

I think the best thing he could have done would have been to step down and have Al Gore take his place and continue on with the same work and the same goals. Then Gore would have been running as an incumbent in 2000. May not have made a difference but it could have and we'll never know.

I think Clinton was a good (not great) president who in the long run left a legacy with a lot of negatives in it as well as positives. And while nothing he did was even in the same ballpark as Trump or Moore or any of it, I do believe that a lot of people, myself included, justified and were o.k. with a lot of things we shouldn't have been.

[Renew Deal]

5. The Clinton question is tough.

Today’s climate is different than that of the 90’s. In the 90’s, Clinton was under constant attack. He was also known to be be less than loyal.

In today’s climate one could look at it like a significantly older superior using his power to get involved with a junior staffer. My experience from that time tells me he was correct to stay. My gut feeling now tells me that maybe he should have left. It was wholly unprofessional and would get pretty much anyone fired in the current climate if it went public.

[Cary]

6. It goes beyond Clinton, obviously

It's partisanship versus these moral issues.

[HopeAgain]

7. Lewinsky was an intern

Seduced by the most powerful man in the world and her boss. Hardly your normal "consenting adults" situation.

Politicians often have clay feet and people with the ego to run for national office even more so. I am a loyal Democrat, but I have never quite forgiven Clinton for what his " little picadillos" did to the liberal cause.

[Cary]

8. We cannot undo the past

My query is not so much about Bill Clinton per se. It is more about how we deal with Democrats here and now and how the Clinton story gives current Republican hacks cover for their partisanship.

If it gives them cover.

[HopeAgain]

9. Look what happened at the debate...

It gave Trump cover. I understand why Gillibrand said what she did about BC.

[Cary]

10. I'm not sure that worked beyond deplorables

The old BBC series "The Power of Nightmares" made the point that the only real feature that all "conservative" factions, including radical Islamists, is hatred of "liberal." I say that's a trait shared by all fascists. I don't think we ever make any significant dent in that irrational loathing other than the impending demographics. It's fear generated and hard wired into authoritarian brains.

What Bannon did was mobilize these mopes and created a perfect storm. I don't see that being duplicated any time soon.

[HopeAgain]

13. They thrive on whataboutism

And Bill Clinton is a big what about when we talk Trump and harassment. Gives cover to the Republicans with a more moderate base to ignore Gillibrand's calls.

I agree it is in the past, and we can overcome it just as the Democrats became the champions of civil rights despite the Southern Democrats history.

[Thor_MN]

39. Lot of that going around...

[karynnj]

21. I disagree

I think it allowed people who leaned Republicans to equate Bill and Trump to say either way they have someone immoral in the White House. This ignores HRC was the candidate.

[Cary]

28. The election was stolen with voter suppression

There was a study showing that 44,000 votes were suppressed in Milwaukee. #fakepresident won Wisconsin by 15,000.

The Comey b.s. took it's toll. Jill Stein diverted some. Some Sanders supporters perpetuated irrational loathing of Hillary Clinton. "Clinton Cash" which was total b.s. helped with the Republican "both sides do it" disinformation.

It was a perfect storm and it will not be duplicated. In fact it will probably end the Republican Party because the 32% who still love #fakepresident are a liability. Without them, though, Repbublicans are screwed.

All we have to do now is weather this storm but my query was meant to be forward thinking. Can we reconcile our own shortcomings, going forward? The irony here is that while "the elves" lost big, we as Democrats are espousing their "morality." I use scare quotes because look at Gingrich, Denny Hastert, and Henry Hyde. I don't think their "morality" had anything to do with it.

And their underpinning was, of course, "Christianity." I should say the religious right version of "Cbristianity." Our underpinning is women standing up against harassment and assault.

Justice is never easy. I wish those of us aligned against evil would be nicer and more patient with each other so that we could work through this important issue. It seems we may have come down on Al Franken too harshly. Bill Clinton, I honestly don't know.

[karynnj]

37. Any close election can be said to have been caused by a large number of things that impacted it

I do think that Clinton's actions that came out in detail in 1998, have likely hurt the Democrats - at least in 2000 and 2016. In 2000, you saw it in one of GWB's themes - bringing "honor and decency" back to the White House - even though Gore was pretty clean and Bush had been the drunk son of GHWB until he was 40. That was a closer election than 2016 - in fact, had there been a complete recount in Florida, Gore would have won.

Ignoring Nader and cheating in Florida, had Bill Clinton behaved himself in the White House, Bush could not have run on Clinton fatigue which that theme represented. Bill Clinton would have been a bigger part and a stronger part of Gore's reelection campaign. That could have shifted the small number of votes needed in NH -- and Gore would have won without NH. (Yes, I have heard people blame Gore for not sending Clinton more places, but that is hindsight and we can not know if it would have been a net positive.)

In 2016, i agree that Comey, and other things were big factors, but I do think that Trump manipulated things to make Clinton's "women" a part of the discussion just to allow some Republicans - otherwise leaning to him - to have the excuse.

[Cary]

42. I can't buy that tbeory

I don't think Gore lost because of Clinton. Clinton was a popular President.

I see the radical left and Ralph Nader all over that one, as they undermined us in 2016. It's quite simple: sowing discord and discontent among Democrats is a bad idea, unless you're a Republican.

I'm not interested in relitigating Bill Clinton or giving the radical left another excuse to bash Democrats. My query is about this particular issue and moving forward.

[karynnj]

44. In 2016, a smaller percent of people who voted for Bernie in the primary voted for Trump, than

Hillary primary voters voted for Mccain. This is impressive because pulled in many who were not usual Democratic voters. You might be more convincing in arguing not to saw discontent, if it were not immediately after you attack the left, which seems to echo your blame of Bernie Sanders supporters in the earlier post.

For most of the last several decades, there have been good reasons not to criticize Clinton on this. During the 1990s, it was because he was OUR President and he also was getting unfair attacks, then it was that he was the only Democrat with a megaphone in 2001 and most of 2002. After Kerry's loss in 2004, it was clear that Hillary Clinton was very likely to be the next nominee - so it was unhelpful. Even after Obama won, we needed that half of the party to win .. and then Clinton was again the likely successor. The reason that it is news that some Democrats have included Bill Clinton as they react to metoo is because, for the most part, this is the first time that a significant number of liberal pundits and politicians have.

I will have to disagree with you on the impact of this and I suspect that you are stating what has been the majority Democratic opinion. My regret is that Trump, Bush, and Bill Clinton are likely to be the only Presidents of my generation -- when I would have been far prouder of having either John Kerry or Al Gore as President.

[Cary]

45. I don't pretend that I will ever convince "the left"

Note the subtle shift from the subject to something about me, personally?

I told you my honest truth. Take it or leave it. The radical left is a liability tbat we Democrats have to overcome, as we have done many times. So it goes. That's my opinion. What you do or don't do with it is up to you.

VOTE DEMOCRATIC!

[karynnj]

47. What I said is my honest "truth" as well - in quotes, because in fact - both of us are referring to

OPINIONS. Not to mention, I did not shift anything - I commented negatively on the blame you placed on the "left". Not to mention, BOTH of us are Democrats. In my case, since long before I could vote and I cast my first vote for George McGovern!

Not to mention, what does "What you do or don't do with it is up to you." even mean. Sounds like YOU are making lots of assumptions about me - and you don't know me at all.

[Cary]

48. Tired tactic number two:

Pretend not to understand.

[karynnj]

49. Pretty arrogant to equate DISAGREE with NOT UNDERSTAND nt

[Cary]

50. And right back to attacking me, personally.

[LanternWaste]

55. I'd pretend an observation is an attack as well...

I'd pretend an observation is an attack as well...

[Cary]

56. How difficult is it to stick to the issue without deflecting?

And to what end does one deflect? Do you really think an anonymous internet poster can affect one who is as well self-actualized as I am?

Ixnay the games and address issue. It's not that difficult and anything less is pointless.

[OnDoutside]

11. Yes, the law clearly states that you cannot have sex with an adult who is an intern.

Are you sure that's how Lewinsky remembers it ?

[treestar]

12. That is not true

She intended to seduce him before she even met him. Women are not always victims.

[HopeAgain]

14. So Bill Clinton was a victim?

I stand corrected.

Listen, I don't want to be accused of trashing a Democrat, but I don't buy mere justifications for bad behavior. Let's make clear such behavior is no longer tolerated.

[RobinA]

17. No, He Was Not

a victim. Why does there have to be a victim? They both knew what they were doing and it was bad behavior on bother their parts. he was married.

[treestar]

24. +1

[Cary]

18. There is no doubt that Clinton was a victim

You have to give "the elves" like Ann Coulter credit for that.

[treestar]

23. No, neither of them were.

Though he could be a victim. Are you insinuating that no man ever can be? Bill Clinton was a victim of false allegations too.

[RobinA]

16. "Seduced By"?

Nope, not buying the disempowerment of Ms. Lewinsky, and as a woman I take exception to it. It burns my britches to hear how the big powerful man took advantage of the powerless intern in this case. 22 year old women have agency when making sexual decisions. Women can't have it both ways. Either they are capable decision makers or they are not. There was no quid pro quo here and no force.

[treestar]

25. Especially the way she planned it ahead of meeting him

Not approving of either of them; both knew he was married, but geez, if she wants to do it, nothing stops a woman from being "the seducer." We are not living in the age of Don Juan. How feminist is it really to insist that any woman in a sexual relationship must be a victim of his seduction? Not very.

[Cary]

29. True

Which is part of the conundrum.

[Zambero]

26. Monica pursued Bill, and not vice-versa

Unless thong-snapping doesn't qualify as an invitation to misadventure.

[dsc]

30. No she wasn't an intern

she was a full employee when the affair began. Also she had already dated an older man and was the full on instigator of the affair (according to her account and his)

[Tommy_Carcetti]

34. She was a consenting adult, no matter what way you slice it.

They both got "benefits" out of the situation, for a better lack of the word.

She relished in the fact that she was getting attention from someone who was handsome, extremely charismatic and also the most powerful man in the world. You can't say that's not a turn-on for a lot of people out there.

He relished in the fact that he was getting attention from a younger (but still adult) woman as a diversion from a stressful and frequently lonely job. Again, that's a turn-on for a lot of people.

What they did was quite stupid, and considering the fact that President Clinton was a married man with a family, flat out wrong on a personal basis. It did no favors to either of their reputations for them to do what they did. They were fools in lust.

But can we cut it with the notion that because Monica Lewinsky was an intern that it somehow removed the fact that it was a completely consensual relationship? She was attracted to him, he was attracted to her, and they (foolishly) acted on their urges. Enough said.

[dansolo]

41. She was not seduced by Clinton - it was the other way around

What he did was inappropriate and ill-advised, but don't re-write history. She initiated the relationship. He went along with it, which was definitely the wrong thing to do, but she was undeniably the pursuer.

[pnwmom]

63. She was a college graduate and an adult. She bragged to her friend about her success

with Clinton, and her friend betrayed her by recording their conversations. She felt the friend hurt her, not Clinton.

If MONICA, as a middle aged adult, still doesn't feel Bill hurt her, who are WE to say he did?

[Drunken Irishman]

19. Clinton enjoyed a perfect swarm for his scandal...

1) The economy was surging, which helped mask the concerns of his sexual affairs.
2) He was still a likable dude.

Those two things made him less vulnerable to attacks. Had the economy been bad, though? I doubt Americans take the 'eh, he's doing a good job, so, who cares?' approach they eventually did.

Does it make it right? No. But it allowed Clinton the cover that not all politicians receive. I maintain Clinton would've been forced to resign if his second term wasn't as successful as it was. But it was and we were willing to overlook a lot of his moral inconsistencies because of it.

With that said, even though I feel Clinton abused his power with Lewinsky, it was still a consensual affair. Nothing indicates Trump's accusations were consensual - he's a predator. Same with Moore.

[Cary]

43. I recall Henry Hyde whining in the well of the Senate

He who did the same thing when he was Bill's age.

I recall the sanctimoniousness of it all. It was sickening. The Republicans were in desperation mode and were pandering to their religious right base, and its overt and hypocritical animosity towards sex.

We had Jim Baker and that guy who cried all the time back then too.

[Demsrule86]

20. I honestly think that much of this is a person's private life...and I don't see forcing people to

resign for an affaire...I think the Franken thing is wrong too.

[alarimer]

22. He was a general embarrassment because of his behavior.

Some of the things he supported also were, in retrospect, terrible (welfare reform, the Telecommunications Act which concentrated media ownership, etc). We need to nominate people without those personal peccadilloes. They do exist.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

35. Says the person with the JFK quote in the footer. nt

[Cary]

46. Ha!

[sheshe2]

58. Good catch.

[Paladin]

27. Those of you trashing Bill Clinton at this point have way too much time on your hands.

Tossing Al Franken to the wolves ought to be sufficient Democratic self-cleansing. How about we concentrate on the sins of trump and his sick band of fascists for the foreseeable future?

[Cary]

32. Because we need to answer to this

"Conservatives" have a valid point, for a change. How valid? I don't know. But we shouldn't run away from it.

The answer may be to embrace the inconsistencies. I don't know about you but I favor accepting facts and the truth even if it's negative. And too we can always say that two wrongs don't make a right. Whatever Bill Clinton was or was not, it doesn't justify what Republicans have morphed into now.

[FreeState]

64. No they dont

Monica’s Luinski perused Clinton - not the other way around. In addition to that an affair is not sexual assault.

[Cary]

66. That's not what I am referring ro

There are more accusations. Our current ethos, as I see it, is to believe women.

I have not, myself, embraced the abandonment of the right to face ones accusers but I am sympathetic to the deterrent effect that women face when confronting abusers or attackers. We, collectively, are inconsistent. It's not a simple issue. We might rightfully rationalize the distinction, we might not and it's ok if.we don't. But above all let's be honest about it. You know "conservatives" will never be honest about anything.

We do need to think about this seriously.

[yallerdawg]

31. In retrospect...

Al Gore and Hillary Clinton were held accountable for Bill Clinton's "indiscretions.".

Let's see. Wouldn't that mean we are ALL paying for Bill Clinton's behaviors?

Karma is a harsh mistress.

[Cary]

33. Interesting observation

But I'm not sure Bill Clinton affected those elections.

[karynnj]

38. Yes, it would

You could argue that many of us were to blame, for selecting Bill Clinton in the primaries when his womanizing and his perchance to lying if he thought that would allow him to avoid consequences for things he did -- as he did on the Gennefer Flowers and the draft story. In aggregate, we knew what we were getting - a brilliant, charming guy ... with these flaws. We could have chosen Jerry Brown or several other people running against him.

[Willie Pep]

36. Clinton was a philanderer and a dog there is no doubt about that.

But I don't think the Lewinsky matter was nearly as bad as the allegations against Trump and Moore. For one Lewinsky was an adult and the whole affair was consensual. The only issue is the power imbalance but even here I am not sure what to think. It is one thing if a superior pressures a subordinate for sexual favors but what about a completely consensual relationship? I know a few people who dated and even married their bosses. Should those relationships be seen as illegitimate?

[Renew Deal]

40. You're completely right

The Clinton situation doesn't compare. It is more comparable to a corporate scandal than a crime which is what Trump and Moore are accused of. Different universe.

[TheFrenchRazor]

59. it is possible to support someone as a politician, but not support their personal behavior.

a lot of people here seem to think that people have to be either all bad or all good; either franken (clinton) is an angel or he's a devil. there's no in-between.

[Willie Pep]

61. Many good politicians had moral shortcomings.

FDR cheated on his wife as did JFK. Martin Luther King also reportedly cheated on his wife. That doesn't mean that we cannot respect those men for the good things they did in politics. By contrast I have never heard anything bad about George W. Bush or Dick Cheney when it comes to sex but their policies were beyond atrocious.

While it is good that people are taking sexual harassment more seriously I find the latest obsession with sexual behavior to be strange. Democrats used to point out that Clinton lied about an affair but Bush lied about a WAR for crying out loud. That the media is spending more time rehashing the Lewinsky scandal and whether Bill Clinton should have resigned instead of discussing the Bush Administration lying us into a war that killed hundreds of thousands of people and destabilized an entire region shows how screwed up our priorities are as a country.

[BigRig]

52. Who cares what 3 consenting adults do in their private life?

:}

[dembotoz]

53. never forgave the clintons for welfare reform

lots of folks got hurt and yes i held my nose and voted for her

[LanternWaste]

54. As there is no need to defend consensual, legal sex the defense cannot then, be partisan.

If you are unable to distinguish between sexually assaulting minors and legal, consensual sex between two adults, that's on you. As there is no need to defend consensual, legal sex the defense cannot then, be partisan.

If anyone else is unable to distinguish the relevant, legal and moral differences between sex and raping minors, that too is on them. No one else.

If someone's bias forces them to equate the two, that logical fallacy also, is on them.

"History will not look favorably on either of them..."
Don't prophecize history. You have zero objective evidence to support that allegation.

[Cary]

57. There you go again

Explain why you think I need to justify anything to you.

If you don't like what I have to say, don't look at it.

[moriah]

65. The main issue, in today's climate, is that he definitely could have been considered...

... to have power over her career advancement. It's not a morality thing when not abused and consensual, but does present the ethical dilemmas of conflicts of interest.

And even though a person who was called before Ken Starr told me personally the staff really did try to "keep them separated", if she was really that persistent in her crush, that should have raised 10k red flags.

I am not dissing Monica. She was who and what she was, at her age and state of emotional development, and with the life she'd lived prior to entering Washington. And being at that state of emotional development, was a totally inappropriate partner for a President to choose for an affair in that era.

And it's insulting to any man to say they don't have the self-control to reject an advance just because they might have an appendage that decides on its own to make its presence known on occasion. Just as it's insulting to women to say they truly can't not verbally or physically abuse people because of the effects of a cycle. If either are true for an individual, they need medical help in one form or another, not be used as a reason for the rest of the population to let biology rule us.

----

We draw gradiations regarding power differential in relationships precisely because they are ripe for abuse even if the person who is less powerful doesn't protest, or even pursues, the person in powerm. We'll start with the obvious. A preteen who seeks an adult out for sexual attention should immediately be taken to have a police-and-parent witnessed interview with a sexual abuse counselor, not taken up on the offer. A teenager should be told they'll make some other young person very happy, and they're flattered, and maybe joke about having them make the offer again once they can go out for drinks if it's too much of an age difference for a joke about an 18th birthday to be appropriate. And that's pretty much universally understood. You get the chomo label if you break this tabu and land in jail.

But then we get to power in other areas. Should college professors lose their jobs for screwing students, as high school teachers who screw students are criminally charged even if otherwise it'd be legal because not every state has 18 as the age of consent? As prison guards are for screwing inmates? Technically, since I went to college at 16 and that's legal here, and college isn't a "school or school district" to count under the teacher/student portion, had a professor decided to take advantage it wouldn't have been a criminal offense. Or, at least, their lawyer could have tried to argue it and made or broke case law.

Should bosses who don't report the developing relationship with a subordinate and make arrangements to not be in their direct chain of command if HR demands it be fired, if it gets to sex? Should HR be required to keep confessions of consensual adultery confidential? Could they be subpoenaed in a divorce? Should the superior have the responsibility to report, sinve they're in the power position?

To me, yes, the above answers *should* be yes, except to HR records being able to be used in a divorce. It would be counterproductive, and actually some kind of "HR/employee privilege" might need to be codified if we actually want the majority of office liaisons properly reported to HR.

And I think the phrasing of all show that they are applying the burden of responsibility with the party who has the most power -- regardless of the gender of either party.

[Blue_Tires]

60. It was just the hypocrisy...

Granted it was a different time, but the marital infidelities of so many congresscritters was pretty much an open secret, so seeing them on their high horses was beyond the pale