WaPo columnist: Hey, Monica Lewinsky wasn’t exactly an innocent victim, you know

posted at 8:01 pm on January 27, 2014 by Allahpundit

Via RCP, here’s one more in the long list of reasons to dread Hillary’s inevitable nomination. It also makes it inevitable that America’s going to refight this old battle, replete with enlightened progressives — many of them women — grasping for ways on television to dismiss presidential intern-shtupping with variations of “she was good to go.” In fairness, Marcus gets points for degree of difficulty here, framing this defense of the Clenis as a knock on the GOP for allegedly viewing women through some sort of virgin/whore lens. In other words, Rand Paul’s critique, which was designed to parry the left’s endless “war on women” nonsense, is itself proof of the Republican war on women. It’s not the guy who exploited a tremendous power disparity with his subordinate for some sexual fun who’s the main offender. It’s Paul, for noticing and thinking Lewinsky was something of a victim in a situation like that.

I know it’s early, but can we set a ground rule for this topic going forward? Ground rule: If you’re defending Bill Clinton on this, please at least dispense with the wholly perfunctory “President Clinton did a bad thing, but…” caveat. Just own it. It was a private matter, Monica was over 18, he needed to bust a nut and knew she had a crush, and that’s it. At the very, very least, let’s have no smirky references to “thong-flashing” that would have set off a media panic on the left if a Republican columnist had said the same thing in semi-defense of a GOP president who’d behaved as Clinton did.

As for Rand bringing this up in the first place, I go back and forth between thinking it’s foolish to give Hillary a chance to remind the public of her victimization (victimhood being a core component of her campaign to come) and clever in making Democrats generally and Bill in particular think twice before throwing around “war on women” charges. More than anything, though, I can’t believe Democrats are going to foist this baggage on us again. We’re going to spend another two years, and maybe four years after that, and then maybe four years after that — 10 years! — neck deep in Clinton drama. Again. I don’t have the energy. I need to blog something less exhausting, like the Middle East.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

he needed to bust a nut

good grief

Dr. ZhivBlago on January 27, 2014 at 9:59 PM

Hillary is running for Bill’s third term. Bill’s creepy behavior toward women is fair game.

women may be the physically weaker sex, but they are the more powerful gender because they hold the booty card…they can give booty or withold it, and it is the men who are under their control, not the other way around

nonpartisan on January 27, 2014 at 9:05 PM

Ha, you’ve never met a real man, have you?

Punchenko on January 27, 2014 at 10:00 PM

What really matters about Bill and Monica is the fact that Bill committed perjury rather than disclose the affair. Bill Clinton signed a law stating that anyone sued for sexual impropriety in the workforce had to disclose all such sexual activity during discovery. I assume this was to establish a pattern of behavior. This law has ruined many lives but Bill Clinton decided that this law did not apply to him. The independent counsel declared that Bill lied at least 3 times in his testimony which is why he settled the lawsuit after fighting it for years at the expense of millions in legal fees. The judge held him in contempt and fined him $90,000 for lying and he surrendered his Arkansas and Supreme Court law licenses while paying additional fines.

Laurence on January 27, 2014 at 10:04 PM

Ha, you’ve never met a real man, have you?

Punchenko on January 27, 2014 at 10:00 PM

Real men – and, for that matter, real women – scare the living shit out of our little nonpartisan.

Solaratov on January 27, 2014 at 10:04 PM

Gawd I luv when skankey gals defend pencil dyck presidents

roflmmfao

donabernathy on January 27, 2014 at 10:05 PM

It sounds as if they’re claiming that Monica was asking for it. Why doesn’t that line ever work for anyone else? This isn’t really about women’s rights or racism or anything else. It’s driven by pure lust for power, not by good ideas, compassion or the good of mankind. Those are just propaganda. They don’t really believe in liberty, either. It’s just another selling point that they don’t really believe in. If they did, they wouldn’t be trying to control our lives and deprive us of all the choices but the evil ones. In the name of liberty, they’re willing to depopulate the nation.

flataffect on January 27, 2014 at 10:05 PM

good grief Dr. ZhivBlago on January 27, 2014 at 9:59 PM

Too crude? Mmkay.

He needed to release his inner chakra.

Better?

wolly4321 on January 27, 2014 at 10:06 PM

Let the traffic answering the non-troll begin.

Lanceman on January 27, 2014 at 8:57 PM

I love you like a brother but nonmanparts is indeed a troll. His hit and split pattern and stuff from the gun threads where he doesn’t have an answer when quizzed. Refused to answer what he does for a living since his illustrious Harvard career opportunities went south, and numerous other examples. I can tell a funny chain yanker and this piker sips cocoa with momma on pretty much every night. In fact, when she goes to bed he gets aroused at the spankin he received over the day.

arnold ziffel on January 27, 2014 at 10:11 PM

According to nonp, the only struggle women have is which guy to take to the sack.

JAGonzo on January 27, 2014 at 9:56 PM

Well, that is consistent with Obamacare advertisements.

malclave on January 27, 2014 at 10:15 PM

arnold ziffel on January 27, 2014 at 10:11 PM

Troll he may be, but what he says is effectively no different than the official Clinton response: Bimbo Eruptions.

Fenris on January 27, 2014 at 10:17 PM

Arnold ziffel on January 27, 2014 at 10:11 PM

Either that or it’s AP. I’m with Lance. The caricature was pushed too far. And it shows up at odd times. Like when a thread needs a bump.

I don’t believe for a second he is real.

But it’s fun, anyways.

wolly4321 on January 27, 2014 at 10:19 PM

Del Dolemonte on January 27, 2014 at 9:03 PM

don’t give me that PC crap

women may be the physically weaker sex, but they are the more powerful gender because they hold the booty card…they can give booty or withold it, and it is the men who are under their control, not the other way around

hillaryclinton on January 27, 2014 at 9:05 PM

Translated: “I can’t refute Del’s Facts, so I will weakly try to change the subject!”

Oh, and nowhere in my post did I claim women were weak. You Fluked that out of thin air.

FLUKE-

Del Dolemonte on January 27, 2014 at 10:23 PM

The booty card only works in the 20s and 30s. Men in their 40s just laugh at it.

John the Libertarian on January 27, 2014 at 10:27 PM

don’t give me that PC crap

hillaryclinton on January 27, 2014 at 9:05 PM

PS, NOW, which said Bill Clinton was Above the Law for a Felony crime, later (early 1999) condemned him and his Regime for employing what NOW called the “sluts and nuts” defense to excuse his serial misogyny. They respectfully asked Bill and Hill to stop doing so.

Their request was ignored.

Thanks for playing!

Del Dolemonte on January 27, 2014 at 10:36 PM

We lost the 1998 election and came close to losing the 2000 election over the social con stupidity about this issue. Please, please don’t lose the 2014 and 2016 over a dead, dead as a dead horse issue. The smartest thing we can do is never say the words “Monica Lewinsky” in any context whatsoever. In fact, we don’t seem to remember that archaic history.

thuja on January 27, 2014 at 10:42 PM

This is displayed in all states, soon, except not in FL and TX, who declined.

It’s an ad against snoring, called “staying together”, with an American soldier, married to a muzzie.

I’m most offended by what she wears and there is a big billboard in the vicinity of where the 9/11 ‘incident’ happened.

Good night America.

You harpies from the left, where do you stand on these women’s freedom?

Schadenfreude on January 27, 2014 at 10:44 PM

If y’all want to relitigate the Nineties you’ve already lost.

For some conservatives, Bill Clinton is their white whale. But remember what happened to Ahab when he finally caught Moby Dick.

myiq2xu on January 27, 2014 at 10:47 PM

women may be the physically weaker sex, but they are the more powerful gender because they hold the booty card…they can give booty or withold it, and it is the men who are under their control, not the other way around

nonpartisan on January 27, 2014 at 9:05 PM

Speak for yourself, pussywhipped.

Any woman who wants their man under her sexual thumb isn’t worth the booty call. And any man who lives with it deserves the inferiority complex they have.

itsspideyman on January 27, 2014 at 10:47 PM

Let’s say for the sake of argument that Lewinsky was Totally Asking For It. How to explain away Juanita Broaddrick? How to explain away RAPE while screaming about the nonexistent War on Womyn that Republicans are supposedly waging?

Maddie on January 27, 2014 at 10:56 PM

I always found it funny, tho not surprising, that for years feminists screamed that any sexual contact between a superior and a subordinate was wrong.

The term hostile workplace was used to buttress that position. Yet when Bubba was busted the term suddenly disappeared from the talking points.

soundingboard on January 27, 2014 at 11:00 PM

We lost the 1998 election and came close to losing the 2000 election over the social con stupidity about this issue. Please, please don’t lose the 2014 and 2016 over a dead, dead as a dead horse issue. The smartest thing we can do is never say the words “Monica Lewinsky” in any context whatsoever. In fact, we don’t seem to remember that archaic history.
thuja on January 27, 2014 at 10:42 PM

What 1998 election are you talking about? Why would Lewinsky have come up in the 2000 election? And for that matter, who is this “we” you are speaking about? YOU are not on OUR side.

Maddie on January 27, 2014 at 11:01 PM

We lost the 1998 election and came close to losing the 2000 election over the social con stupidity about this issue.

thuja on January 27, 2014 at 10:42 PM

F-

We (I assume you mean Republicans) did not lose the 1998 elections; no changes were made in the Senate, and they only lost 5 seats in the House, while retaining their majority there. And that election took place a month and a half before Clinton was impeached.

As for the 2000 election, the Democrats in fact lost that because of Clinton. Both Gore and his running mate, who the Democrats later sent to the Eastern Front, studiously avoided him and wouldn’t let him appear with them on the campaign trail. Gore in fact chose Lieberman to distance himself from Clinton. Pity he couldn’t win his own home state!

Del Dolemonte on January 27, 2014 at 11:07 PM

What 1998 election are you talking about?
Maddie on January 27, 2014 at 11:01 PM

The election occurred in 1998. What almost always happens in the midterm election of a second term president is that his party loses seats in Congress. This did not happen in 1998 mostly because of public anger about the GOP making the Lewinsky scandal an issue instead of talking about issues that would have been winning. Can make this any clear to you? The GOP lost in 1998 by making Clinton’s sex life the issue instead of anything with any relevance to the average voter.

thuja on January 27, 2014 at 11:13 PM

came close to losing the 2000 election over the social con stupidity about this issue.

thuja on January 27, 2014 at 10:42 PM

Oh, and I’m breathlessly waiting for your explanation as to how the “social con stupidity” about this issue forced Algore into giving his then-wife Tripper a 2 minute long Tongue Bath during the 2000 DNC Convention.

Talk about using a boss’s adultery with Lewinsky for political gain! And even funnier, Bubba was still his Boss when Al refused to let him endorse him.

Del Dolemonte on January 27, 2014 at 11:19 PM

The GOP lost in 1998 by making Clinton’s sex life the issue instead of anything with any relevance to the average voter.

thuja on January 27, 2014 at 11:13 PM

It had to do with the man’s abject lack of character, something you seem to laud on every thread you get the chance to contribute to…which says more about you than anyone you deign to condemn.

Murphy9 on January 27, 2014 at 11:24 PM

Can make this any clear to you? The GOP lost in 1998 by making Clinton’s sex life the issue instead of anything with any relevance to the average voter.
thuja on January 27, 2014 at 11:13 PM

I doubt very much you could make anything clear to anybody, with your butchering of the English language. And Del already spelled out your idiocy on the ’98 elections.

F-.

Maddie on January 27, 2014 at 11:26 PM

Monica Lewinsky wasn’t a victim of any sort.

in fact she was the predator…clinton was more the victim, if there were any victims (I don’t think there were).

lewinsky, like most women, knows very well the sexual power they wield over men who are helpless prisoners of their libido.

nonpartisan on January 27, 2014 at 8:56 PM

.
Okaaayyy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . very good.
.
All of us need to SAVE this one, for our next “Mark Sanford” scandal.

I can’t freakin’ believe nonpartisan said this, with such gratuitous wording, as a genuine defense of W.J.Clinton.
If this were a ‘sarcastic parody’ from one of us, it would make much more sense.

But, it’s NOT ! . . . . . . . . . . . . .

I’ll be a while recovering from this fit of laughter … : )

listens2glenn on January 27, 2014 at 11:44 PM

I guess the next thing you’re going to tell me is ‘Neither was Brian Terry, Ambassador Stevens, or the 3 other Americans dead because of Obama and Hillary’?!

easyt65 on January 27, 2014 at 11:53 PM

Can make this any clear to you? The GOP lost in 1998 by making Clinton’s sex life the issue instead of anything with any relevance to the average voter.

thuja on January 27, 2014 at 11:13 PM

.
No . . . . . the GOP lost in 1998 ’cause they DIDN’T FIGHT BACK against C.J.”Serpent Head”.

They simply ‘shut-up’, and hoped everything would be obvious to the American public, at large.

Ken Starr couldn’t (legally) say anything, and he didn’t, until he was legal to do so.

listens2glenn on January 27, 2014 at 11:57 PM

Via RCP, here’s one more in the long list of reasons to dread Hillary’s inevitable nomination. It also makes it inevitable that America’s going to refight this old battle, replete with enlightened progressives — many of them women — grasping for ways on television to dismiss presidential intern-shtupping with variations of “she was good to go.” In fairness, Marcus gets points for degree of difficulty here, framing this defense of the Clenis as a knock on the GOP for allegedly viewing women through some sort of virgin/whore lens.

Yeah, but it’s going to be so much fun watching them try to build outrage in a “War on Women” theme while running the candidate who turned a blind eye to her husband’s cheating like a good little Stepford wife.

There Goes the Neighborhood on January 28, 2014 at 12:35 AM

Monica Lewinsky wasn’t a victim of any sort

in fact she was the predator…clinton was more the victim, if there were any victims (I don’t think there were)

lewinsky, like most women, knows very well the sexual power they wield over men who are helpless prisoners of their libido

nonpartisan on January 27, 2014 at 8:56 PM

See what I mean? You can’t pay for this kind of entertainment.

There Goes the Neighborhood on January 28, 2014 at 12:46 AM

As for Rand bringing this up in the first place, I go back and forth between thinking it’s foolish to give Hillary a chance to remind the public of her victimization (victimhood being a core component of her campaign to come) and clever in making Democrats generally and Bill in particular think twice before throwing around “war on women” charges.

Don’t forget one of the Dems’ victim projects (which Obama may talk about in SOTU) is the sexual harrassment of women by superiors in the military.

The responses just write themselves…the commander-in-chief, a young female subordinate…..

Wethal on January 27, 2014 at 8:20 PM

53% of the victims of sexual assault in the military are men.

There Goes the Neighborhood on January 28, 2014 at 12:48 AM

WaPo columnist: Hey, Monica Lewinsky wasn’t exactly an innocent victim, you know

Sounds like Ruth Marcus is in dire need of an all day corporate diversity and sexual harassment class.

RJL on January 28, 2014 at 1:48 AM

Talk about ‘War on Women’…’Lewenski wasn’t a victim…she ASKED for this’. Sounds like something a career sexual harrasser would say…

And why do many women attack Conservative women yet defend pigs like Bill Clinton. As long as it is a Democrat doing the abusing it’s OK, is that it?

easyt65 on January 28, 2014 at 5:45 AM

53% of the victims of sexual assault in the military are men.

There Goes the Neighborhood on January 28, 2014 at 12:48 AM

Would you care to re-think that assertion?

mountainaires on January 28, 2014 at 5:47 AM

Talk about ‘War on Women’…’Lewenski wasn’t a victim…she ASKED for this’. Sounds like something a career sexual harrasser would say…

And why do many women attack Conservative women yet defend pigs like Bill Clinton. As long as it is a Democrat doing the abusing it’s OK, is that it?

easyt65 on January 28, 2014 at 5:45 AM

Truer words were never spoken.

mountainaires on January 28, 2014 at 5:50 AM

I think Ruth Marcus’ comments should be featured in an RNC ad about The Democrats War on Women.

mountainaires on January 28, 2014 at 5:51 AM

nonpartisan on January 27, 2014 at 8:56 PM

I’ll be a while recovering from this fit of laughter … : )

listens2glenn on January 27, 2014 at 11:44 PM

That’s all non-nonpartisan has.Things that make us laugh.

CWchangedhisNicagain on January 28, 2014 at 7:08 AM

so Bill Clinton who has a habit or rather a preditory style of finding women in his organization he can go to and say.
I am your boss’s boss so smoke my pipe and you can get a promotion

he tried that to paula jones, the one on record who said NO and reported him for being a sexual preditor, the woman ole snake face carvell said ” just drag a 100 dollar bill thur a trailer pard”

the situatiion where Bill clinton committed perjury to cover up his lewinsky affair when under oath of his unwanted sexual preditor on Paula Jones.

and then Ole Hillary said it was a right wing conspiracy.
when actuallly its Bill Clinton who is a serial sexual offender on women.
so its Dem Bill Clinton and the late Swimmer Teddy Kennedy both Dems who performed a war on women.

sniffles1999 on January 28, 2014 at 7:20 AM

Doesn’t Marcus know that sexual harassment isn’t about sex, it’s about power?

With our laws women are always considered to be horny in the workplace. It usually isn’t a problem until the woman breaks a nail or gets poked in the eye, then, its your problem.

and she saved the dress with the splooge!

a small consolation for the lack of eternal love.

Lonetown on January 28, 2014 at 7:33 AM

Wait a minute – the party that whines about workplace sexism is a man so much as comments on an attractive woman NOW wants to play the slut card on Monica? Talk about brass ones.

As for Hillary being a victim – there really can’t be anyone with functioning brain cells who believes she was not aware of his conduct and for what ever reason tolerated it.

katiejane on January 28, 2014 at 7:58 AM

‘War on Women’? How about THIS Democraatic Party Record:

William Jefferson ‘Slick Willey’ Clinton – Impeached by the House of Representatives over allegations of perjury and obstruction of justice, but acquitted by the Senate. Sex Scandals include: Paula Jonesgate – The Lewinsky Affair – Perjury and Jobs for Lewinskygate – Kathleen Willeygate – Jaunita Broaddrick Gate.

Edward Moore ‘Teddy’ Kennedy – Democrat – U. S. Senator from Massachusetts. Pleaded guilty to leaving the scene of an accident after leaving his date to die in a ditch…his car plunged off a bridge on Chappaquiddick Island…Mary Jo Kopechne drowned.

James McGreevey – Democrat – New Jersey Governor . Admitted to having a gay affair. Resigned after allegations of sexual harassment, rumors of being blackmailed on top of fundraising investigations and indictments.

Jesse Jackson – Democrat – Democratic candidate for President. Admitted to having an extramarital affair and fathering a illegitimate child.

Gary Condit – Democrat – US Democratic Congressman from California. Condit had an affair with an intern. Condit, covered up the affair and lied to police after she went missing. No charges were ever filed against Condit. Her remains were discovered in a Washington DC park.

Eliot Spitzer – Democrat – New York governor – resigned from office after being tied to a prostitution ring.

Melvin Jay Reynolds - Democrat U.S. Representative from Illinois from 1993 to 1995. Convicted on sexual misconduct and obstruction of justice charges and sentenced to five years in prison.

Hiram Monserrate – Queens City Councilman and state Senator-elect – who has claimed to be an advocate of victims of domestic violence – was arrested for breaking a glass over his girlfriend’s face.

Neil Goldschmidt – Democrat – Oregon governor. Admitted to having an illegal sexual relationship with a 14-year-old teenager while he was serving as Mayor of Portland.

Abraham J. Hirschfeld – Democrat – candidate in Democratic primary for U.S. Senator from New York in 1974 and 1976. Offered Paula Jones $1 million to drop her sexual harassment lawsuit against President Bill Clinton. Convicted in 2000 of trying to hire a hit man to kill his business partner.

Allan Turner Howe – Democrat – U.S. Representative from Utah from 1975 to 1977. Arrested for soliciting a policewoman posing as a prostitute.

Joseph Waggonner Jr. – Democrat – U.S. Representative from Louisiana from 1961 to 19 79. Arrested in Washington, D.C. for soliciting a policewoman posing as a prostitute

Jerry Springer – Democrat – Resigned from Cincinnati City Council in 1974 after admitting to paying a prostitute with a personal check, which was found in a police raid on a massage parlor.

easyt65 on January 28, 2014 at 8:38 AM

A feminist who defends Bill Clinton is basically Clayton Bigsby.

libfreeordie on January 28, 2014 at 8:47 AM

The dems have become the people they once rallied against. It’s okay now to defend a misogynist and philanderer. It’s okay now to slut shame.

The “excuse” that he was a victim makes him appear as the weaker sex and thus negates him from any wrong doing. And blaming the woman is such a “she shouldn’t have dressed that way” cliche. They were both wrong in their actions but how this man has been able to carry out his life for so long in the public while Lewinski will always be the scapegoat is beyond me.

RDE2010 on January 28, 2014 at 9:04 AM

The GOP lost in 1998 by making Clinton’s sex life the issue instead of anything with any relevance to the average voter.

thuja on January 27, 2014 at 11:13 PM

The only people that claim any of that was about the feeble “Clinton’s sex life” strawman are Democrats, a$$hat.

It was always and only about perjury, and obstruction of justice.

Midas on January 28, 2014 at 9:05 AM

Since Bill Clinton was our first black president will Hillary be our first black female president?

gwelf on January 28, 2014 at 9:08 AM

Shorter Washington Post Democrat columnist Ruth Marcus:

She was asking for it.

#WarOnWomen

Good Lt on January 28, 2014 at 9:12 AM

I’ll be a while recovering from this fit of laughter … : )

listens2glenn on January 27, 2014 at 11:44 PM

Not the least bit funny, considering these are the same clowns that demand federal funding for campus rape crisis centers, Planned Parenthoods, abortion-on-demand because “rape,” etc.

“She was asking for it” when it suits their needs, “War on Womyn” when it doesn’t.

Maddie on January 28, 2014 at 9:21 AM

It does not matter what Lewinsky’s felt.

Clinton was the CEO. She was a low-level employee/intern.

IN the private sector he would have been asked to resign or most boards would have removed him from his office.

zdpl0a on January 28, 2014 at 9:23 AM

… grasping for ways on television to dismiss presidential intern-shtupping with variations of “she was good to go shovel-ready.”

FIFY

Shy Guy on January 28, 2014 at 9:26 AM

As for Rand bringing this up in the first place,

ahem Allah, David Gregory brought it up in the context of Paul’s wife being quoted in Vogue. Like most political shitstorms, the left sets them up and pulls them out when they feel the need.

We’re going to spend another two years, and maybe four years after that, and then maybe four years after that — 10 years! — neck deep in Clinton drama. Again. I don’t have the energy.

this we know

DanMan on January 28, 2014 at 9:26 AM

A feminist who defends Bill Clinton is basically Clayton Bigsby.

libfreeordie on January 28, 2014 at 8:47 AM

63% of American women give Bill Clinton a pass, according to a 2013 Gallup Poll.

And NOW will endorse Hillary.

HTH

Del Dolemonte on January 28, 2014 at 9:29 AM

Monica Lewinsky wasn’t a victim, period, much less an innocent victim.

aunursa on January 27, 2014 at 8:22 PM

While I don’t disagree in concept with you and NonPArt on this, the law says otherwise.

Clinton violated just about every sexual discrimination/harassment statute on the books. No excuse, no nothing. If you argue the opposite you are either stupid, or a partisan hack. Perhaps both.

If democrats wish to argue the opposite then please amend the various civil rights statutes to eliminate the offending legal support for women being victims. That will also eliminate the basis for years of case law as well. Since they are not advocating that, it seems it is now open season on female interns. They all want it, right? BTW, first pol who does that to one of my grand daughters won’t have to worry about impeachment.

Zomcon JEM on January 28, 2014 at 9:29 AM

BTW – Hillary will not win the nomination for the dems – she is a terrible politician and not aging gracefully. HD will kill her. While I will not be surprised to see a D win the 2016 presidential election – it will not be Hillary.

Zomcon JEM on January 28, 2014 at 9:32 AM

There are plenty of innocent victims to talk about lady, why don’t you mention them.

jake49 on January 28, 2014 at 10:01 AM

Monica Lewinsky wasn’t a victim of any sort.

in fact she was the predator…clinton was more the victim, if there were any victims (I don’t think there were).

lewinsky, like most women, knows very well the sexual power they wield over men who are helpless prisoners of their libido.

nonpartisan on January 27, 2014 at 8:56 PM

Are you deliberately this stupid? Bill Clinton was a serial adulterer. Clinton was no sort of victim. You seem to think men are nothing more than a walking peni$.. Grow the f8c8 up and meet a real man for all our sake.

melle1228 on January 28, 2014 at 10:03 AM

Monica Lewinsky wasn’t a victim, period, much less an innocent victim.

aunursa on January 27, 2014 at 8:22 PM

Wrong… Clinton was in a position of power and as such made Lewinsky off limits. Furthermore, he was the Cinc of the military which was and STILL is charging their members with adultery. He should have been held to a higher standard, don’t ya think?

melle1228 on January 28, 2014 at 10:05 AM

The GOP lost in 1998 by making Clinton’s sex life the issue instead of anything with any relevance to the average voter.

thuja on January 27, 2014 at 11:13 PM

The fact that you think it had anything to do with his “sex life” shows how you view life. It had to do with him lying under oath in a civil case. It had to do with him trying to use the Soldiers Relief Act after he dodged a draft..

melle1228 on January 28, 2014 at 10:07 AM

The GOP lost in 1998 by making Clinton’s sex life the issue instead of anything with any relevance to the average voter.

thuja on January 27, 2014 at 11:13 PM

The fact that you think it had anything to do with his “sex life” shows how you view life. It had to do with him lying under oath in a civil case. It had to do with him trying to use the Soldiers Relief Act after he dodged a draft..

melle1228 on January 28, 2014 at 10:07 AM

Btw, didn’t Scooter Libby go to jail for perjury?

melle1228 on January 28, 2014 at 10:09 AM

The fact that you think it had anything to do with his “sex life” shows how you view life. It had to do with him lying under oath in a civil case. It had to do with him trying to use the Soldiers Relief Act after he dodged a draft..

melle1228 on January 28, 2014 at 10:07 AM

It has everything to do with integrity and trust.
If Hillary couldn’t trust her husband to keep his supposedly sacred promises to her then citizens cannot trust his promises to us.

Instead you get “it depends on what the meaning of ‘is’ is”.

And it revealed the utter hypocrisy on the left that supposedly cares about certain issues but give their own politicians a complete pass on matters they supposedly hold to be very important.

gwelf on January 28, 2014 at 10:17 AM

63% of American women give Bill Clinton a pass, according to a 2013 Gallup Poll.

And NOW will endorse Hillary.

HTH

Del Dolemonte on January 28, 2014 at 9:29 A

Very few American women identify as feminist, nor know what the word means.

libfreeordie on January 28, 2014 at 10:22 AM

It has everything to do with integrity and trust.
If Hillary couldn’t trust her husband to keep his supposedly sacred promises to her then citizens cannot trust his promises to us.

Instad you get “it depends on what the meaning of ‘is’ is”.
And I
t revealed the utter hypocrisy on the left that supposedly cares about certain issues but give their own politicians a complete pass on matters they supposedly hold to be very important.

gwelf on January 28, 2014 at 10:17 AM

I agree to an extent, but thuja is under some misconception that the GOP went on a witch hunt, because of his sex life. The GOP investigated him, because he lied under oath in a deposition after Paula Jones lawyers subpoenaed to testify. It had nothing to do with his adultery and everything to do with adultery. The fact that he lied about sex just made it tittilating to the press, and furthermore even more idiotic. Had Clinton told his wife and came clean and apologized, it would have been a non-starter. He lied and that is why it got blown out of proportion, because then the dress got brought in and the taped conversations.

melle1228 on January 28, 2014 at 10:22 AM

Very few American women identify as feminist, nor know what the word means.

libfreeordie on January 28, 2014 at 10:22 AM

Very few feminists even understand what the word means anymore.

melle1228 on January 28, 2014 at 10:23 AM

It had nothing to do with his adultery and everything to do with adultery his perjury..

FIFM

melle1228 on January 28, 2014 at 10:24 AM

Very few American women identify as feminist, nor know what the word means.

libfreeordie on January 28, 2014 at 10:22 AM

Very few feminists even understand what the word means anymore.

melle1228 on January 28, 2014 at 10:23 AM

But it certainly explains the wide selection of women’s shaving products at my local grocery store.

CurtZHP on January 28, 2014 at 10:32 AM

I’ll bet Ruth hasn’t “driven a car” in 18 years, either.

*wink, wink*

Fallon on January 27, 2014 at 8:21 PM

I don’t think Ruth has seen the back seat of a car in like… never. Ick.

Hill60 on January 28, 2014 at 10:38 AM

Very few feminists even understand what the word means anymore.

melle1228 on January 28, 2014 at 10:23 AM

No. Conservative women consistently lie about what feminism. It is not about “equality” between the sexes. Feminism is an ideology meant to expose the destructive impact of patriarchy on society. Period, end of story. “equality between the sexes” is not feminist.

libfreeordie on January 28, 2014 at 10:39 AM

Ruth is just jealous that she never got the opportunity to be an “intern”.

Tater Salad on January 28, 2014 at 10:41 AM

No. Conservative women consistently lie about what feminism. It is not about “equality” between the sexes. Feminism is an ideology meant to expose the destructive impact of patriarchy on society. Period, end of story. “equality between the sexes” is not feminist.

libfreeordie on January 28, 2014 at 10:39 AM

And liberal women conveniently lie as well. It was never about abortion as the original feminists would be appalled that future feminists treated their children like property which is what women were treated as. Not only that, but feminism was about giving women choices and not JUDGING them for those choices even if it meant staying home with their children, and yet you have modern feminist showing disdain form stay at home moms, and traditional families. So, yeah, liberal feminists don’t know feminsism any better. And even better is a GAY MALE trying to LECTURE me a FEMALE on what feminism is. LMAO… WHEN YOU HAVE YOUR FIRST PERIOD, CALL ME..

melle1228 on January 28, 2014 at 10:44 AM

No. Conservative women consistently lie about what feminism. It is not about “equality” between the sexes. Feminism is an ideology meant to expose the destructive impact of patriarchy on society. Period, end of story. “equality between the sexes” is not feminist.

libfreeordie on January 28, 2014 at 10:39 AM

And liberal women conveniently lie as well. It was never about abortion as the original feminists would be appalled that future feminists treated their children like property which is what women were treated as. Not only that, but feminism was about giving women choices and not JUDGING them for those choices even if it meant staying home with their children, and yet you have modern feminist showing disdain form stay at home moms, and traditional families. So, yeah, liberal feminists don’t know feminsism any better. And even better is a GAY MALE trying to LECTURE me a FEMALE on what feminism is. LMAO… WHEN YOU HAVE YOUR FIRST PERIOD, CALL ME..

melle1228 on January 28, 2014 at 10:44 AM

libfreeordie has an advanced degree in identity politics so he gets to define what “feminism” means.

I’m sure he’ll also correct Camille LaPaglia on this point as well.

gwelf on January 28, 2014 at 11:01 AM

No. Conservative women consistently lie about what feminism. It is not about “equality” between the sexes. Feminism is an ideology meant to expose the destructive impact of patriarchy on society. Period, end of story. “equality between the sexes” is not feminist.

libfreeordie on January 28, 2014 at 10:39 AM

You got it right, it has nothing to do with facts, but it certainly is an ideology.

itsspideyman on January 28, 2014 at 11:04 AM

libfreeordie has an advanced degree in identity politics so he gets to define what “feminism” means.

I’m sure he’ll also correct Camille LaPaglia on this point as well.

gwelf on January 28, 2014 at 11:01 AM

LaPaglia is taking a lot of heat for her recent articles. I liked them a lot, and I think her perspective changed, because she is raising a son. I can relate to it. You can see the other side when you have to raise a male. Males have their own set of gender biases, and anyone that claims they don’t is delusional. In our effort to create equality in schools and such, we have created some times a hostile environment for our boys.

melle1228 on January 28, 2014 at 11:07 AM

No. Conservative women consistently lie about what feminism [is]. It is not about “equality” between the sexes. Feminism is an ideology meant to expose the destructive impact of patriarchy on society. Period, end of story. “equality between the sexes” is not feminist.

libfreeordie on January 28, 2014 at 10:39 AM

Bullshit. The original feminists were indeed concerned with equal rights (not strict equality of outcomes). The common usage of the term has not strayed from that meaning, with three exceptions:

1: highly politicized academics

2: extreme political activists

3: other people pejoratively referring to said activists.

If you exist in a bubble in which words are given meaning according to the fads of the academic and extreme leftist political classes, then sure, the meaning has changed. But this is highly disingenuous, since if said activists and academics wanted to refer to a distinct ideology honestly, they would have given it a distinct name, e.g. “anti-patriarchy”.

It’s not hard to understand why they have not done this. The “anti-patriarchy” definition is unappealable to many who doubt it’s premises. So the movement tries instead to have its cake and eat it too, adopting a word that signifies to many (not merely conservatives) a movement devoted to equality, while simultaneously imposing entirely different criteria for what constitutes being a good feminist.

If there was a shred of honesty in the modern “feminist” movement, then they would either

A. Forthrightly admit that the ultimate end goal/ defining property of their movement is NOT a desire for equality, by abandoning the name “feminism”, or

B. Still declare equal rights as the ultimate goal, whereby “anti-patriarchy” arguments can only be made to the limited extent that they can be shown to advance the cause of equality, from which feminism derives it’s popularity.

And you have the gall to call others liars.

RINO in Name Only on January 28, 2014 at 11:13 AM

No. Conservative women consistently lie about what feminism. It is not about “equality” between the sexes. Feminism is an ideology meant to expose the destructive impact of patriarchy on society. Period, end of story. “equality between the sexes” is not feminist.

libfreeordie on January 28, 2014 at 10:39 AM

And liberal women conveniently lie as well. It was never about abortion as the original feminists would be appalled that future feminists treated their children like property which is what women were treated as. Not only that, but feminism was about giving women choices and not JUDGING them for those choices even if it meant staying home with their children, and yet you have modern feminist showing disdain form stay at home moms, and traditional families. So, yeah, liberal feminists don’t know feminsism any better. And even better is a GAY MALE trying to LECTURE me a FEMALE on what feminism is. LMAO… WHEN YOU HAVE YOUR FIRST PERIOD, CALL ME..

melle1228 on January 28, 2014 at 10:44 AM

Nice way to exert your white privilege patriarchy there libfree. Good job.

gwelf on January 28, 2014 at 11:14 AM

“unappealable”? Really, auto-correct? Really? It’s come to this? Is that really how it’s going to be from now on?

RINO in Name Only on January 28, 2014 at 11:18 AM

Republicans didn’t lose in 1998. Where did that come from?

Lonetown on January 28, 2014 at 11:33 AM

How do people like this rise in the morning, look in the mirror & convinced themselves that they’re journalists. How do they reconcile partisanship & truth.

RdLake on January 28, 2014 at 12:28 PM

63% of American women give Bill Clinton a pass, according to a 2013 Gallup Poll.

And NOW will endorse Hillary.

HTH

Del Dolemonte on January 28, 2014 at 9:29 A

Very few American women identify as feminist, nor know what the word means.

libfreeordie on January 28, 2014 at 10:22 AM

That’s totally irrelevant to the poll result I posted, and you know it. All I was showing was that nearly 7 our of 10 American women in general give Clinton a pass. No matter what their politics.

But to rebut your claim, which I’m sure you just made up out of thin air, 25% of American women do identify themselves as feminists, and 82% of American women believe that “men and women should be social, political, and economic equals.”

According to the group that ran this poll, which was from April of 2013, and these are their exact words, not mine:

But the vast majority fit the basic definition of the word.

Who did this poll? The Huffington Post

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/16/feminism-poll_n_3094917.html

Thanks for the strikeout!

Del Dolemonte on January 28, 2014 at 12:39 PM

I’ll be a while recovering from this fit of laughter … : )

listens2glenn on January 27, 2014 at 11:44 PM

.
Not the least bit funny, considering these are the same clowns that demand federal funding for campus rape crisis centers, Planned Parenthoods, abortion-on-demand because “rape,” etc.

“She was asking for it” when it suits their needs, “War on Womyn” when it doesn’t.

Maddie on January 28, 2014 at 9:21 AM

.
Your comment caused me to go back, and double-check myself. I do ‘miss it’, occasionally . . . . . but I don’t believe I did this time.

I’m not laughing at Ruth Marcus, or any other feminists. I was laughing (still am, actually) at this commenter and his (her?) comment:

Monica Lewinsky wasn’t a victim of any sort.

in fact she was the predator…clinton was more the victim, if there were any victims (I don’t think there were).

lewinsky, like most women, knows very well the sexual power they wield over men who are helpless prisoners of their libido.

nonpartisan on January 27, 2014 at 8:56 PM

.
We have a history of experience with comments by nonpartisan, which only adds to the hilarity.

I don’t believe anyone here (least of all, myself) disagrees with your comment, as it pertains to describing feminists in positions of ‘public influence.’

But I’m not going to allow the serious nature and influence of Feminism stop me from laughing at nonpartisan‘s comment. I’m just not.

listens2glenn on January 28, 2014 at 12:43 PM

Very few feminists even understand what the word means anymore.

melle1228 on January 28, 2014 at 10:23 AM

No. Conservative women consistently lie about what feminism. It is not about “equality” between the sexes. Feminism is an ideology meant to expose the destructive impact of patriarchy on society. Period, end of story. “equality between the sexes” is not feminist.

libfreeordie on January 28, 2014 at 10:39 AM

F-

Just gave you HuffPo’s definition of “feminism” in my post a few minutes ago. And the dictionary definition of feminism is…

the advocacy of women’s rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men.

Now, please document, with credible and multi-sourced cites, some of your favorite examples of conservative women “lying” about what feminism is.

And remember before you post that I just demolished your “definition” of the word above, and in the earlier post.

Del Dolemonte on January 28, 2014 at 12:45 PM

Republicans didn’t lose in 1998. Where did that come from?

Lonetown on January 28, 2014 at 11:33 AM

thuja made it up last night, and never returned.

Del Dolemonte on January 28, 2014 at 12:46 PM

. . . . . Conservative women consistently lie about what feminism [is].

libfreeordie on January 28, 2014 at 10:39 AM

.
An incorrect/inaccurate/untruthful statement is a “lie”, only when the person(s) making said statement knows the truth, and deliberately misstate it, with the clear intention of deception.

Conservative women really have viewed Feminism as a “battle for equality.”
.

It is not about “equality” between the sexes.

libfreeordie on January 28, 2014 at 10:39 AM

.
Okay . . . we agree on that. (we have some “common-ground” ! )
.

.

Feminism is an ideology meant to expose the destructive impact of patriarchy on society. Period, end of story.

libfreeordie on January 28, 2014 at 10:39 AM

.
Uh oh . . . . . you just “blew” our common-ground all to pieces.
I’m going to go “out-on-a-limb”, and say you and I disagree on the definition of “patriarchy/patriarchal”.
But I won’t know for sure, until you present it.
.

“equality between the sexes” is not feminist.

libfreeordie on January 28, 2014 at 10:39 AM

.
Well, “bust my buttons”, back to the common-ground !
.
The explanations and ‘reasons why’ “Feminism” became a political movement vary among those persons who are sympathetic to it.

I’m only going to say that I believe it was, and is “just another tool” for those persons trying to destabilize, and destroy the United States … “Period, end of story.”

listens2glenn on January 28, 2014 at 1:17 PM

No. Conservative women consistently lie about what feminism. It is not about “equality” between the sexes. Feminism is an ideology meant to expose the destructive impact of patriarchy on society. Period, end of story. “equality between the sexes” is not feminist.

libfreeordie on January 28, 2014 at 10:39 AM

.
And liberal women conveniently lie as well. It was never about abortion as the original feminists would be appalled that future feminists treated their children like property which is what women were treated as. Not only that, but feminism was about giving women choices and not JUDGING them for those choices even if it meant staying home with their children, and yet you have modern feminist showing disdain form stay at home moms, and traditional families. So, yeah, liberal feminists don’t know feminsism any better. And even better is a GAY MALE trying to LECTURE me a FEMALE on what feminism is. LMAO… WHEN YOU HAVE YOUR FIRST PERIOD, CALL ME..

melle1228 on January 28, 2014 at 10:44 AM
.

Nice way to exert your white privilege patriarchy there libfree’. Good job.

gwelf on January 28, 2014 at 11:14 AM

.
The comedy GOLD just won’t quit: )

listens2glenn on January 28, 2014 at 1:24 PM

From 4 months ago, a Bill Clinton Prodigy!

From the (Blue) State of Michigan:

Judge who had sex with witness in chambers and lied under oath should be removed, commission says

A Michigan judge known for the shirtless photo he texted of his bare chest to a bailiff who worked in his courtroom and his unapologetic response when confronted by a news reporter last year should be removed from the bench, an ethics panel has recommended.

It focused on the affair Wayne County Circuit Judge Wade McCree subsequently had with a complaining witness in a child-support case he was overseeing, and the material misrepresentations he made under oath, among other issues in what it called a pattern of misconduct, the Detroit Free Press reports. The Associated Press also has a story.

Over a period of months, including while he was presiding over a case in which Geniene Mott was a complaining witness, McCree “used his chambers to engage in sexual intercourse with Mott, permitted Mott to enter the courthouse through an employee entrance without going through security, allowed Mott to remain alone in his chambers while he was on the bench, arranged for Mott to park her vehicle in an area reserved for judges, and brought Mott’s cell phone into the courthouse for her, in violation of the court’s security policy, so that she could communicate with him while he was on the bench.

“Career Enhancement!”

Del Dolemonte on January 28, 2014 at 1:54 PM

Followup to my post upthread about how Bill Clinton’s Department of Justice successfully prosecuted a Federal employee for lying under oath about sex. He and his supporters would later claim that he was Above the Law for doing the same thing.

I didn’t at the time mention said employee’s name; she was/is former VA Psychiatrist Dr. Barbara Battilano.

And as a story at that time correctly noted:

Battalino might have served out her sentence in obscurity―had the White House and its supporters not begun proclaiming last spring that no one’s ever prosecuted by the federal government for lying about sex. Steadfast Clinton loyalist Geraldo Rivera even offered $10,000 to anyone who could find such a case, Jonathan Mitchell recalls, though he didn’t take the bait. Instead, impeachment commentators Joe diGenova and Victoria Toensing got the ten grand for bringing Battalino to Geraldo’s attention. The winner should have been David Tell, however; he wrote an editorial about Battalino’s case in the conservative Weekly Standard on June 22. Tell refuses to name his source, but, he adds, “This was not a feat of superhuman journalistic effort.” (In fact, the Boise Weekly had beaten him to the punch months before.)

Irony of ironies, this account was penned by the infamous Clinton Kneepad Nina Burleigh-who at the same time herself offered Clinton a Free Lewinsky if he would keep abortion legal.

Del Dolemonte on January 28, 2014 at 3:15 PM

Here is the bottom line (I think): I am a therapist for this sort of behavior. It is reprehensible! Folks get in trouble for less!

AnnaS on January 29, 2014 at 11:38 AM

WaPo columnist: Hey, Monica Lewinsky wasn’t exactly an innocent victim, you know

Does anyone know if this woman said the same thing about Mark Foley?

Freddy on January 29, 2014 at 5:51 PM

we all know hillary is a liar
bosnian snipers
and
what difference does it make

so the dems plan on saying lewinsky was a HO and it was personal

well i have this question, how can she effectively lead the country, when she will have to nonstop have the distraction of billy clinton being a sexual preditor, prowling the secretarial pools.

sniffles1999 on January 30, 2014 at 9:04 AM

Comment pages: 1 2