Why Monica Lewinsky is relevant: Liberals have redefined sexual harassment

By 62 Comments 3,241 views

bill and monica

The first sentence in this Mitt Romney article is the very definition of irony:

Failed 2012 U.S. Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney said on Sunday he expects Hillary Clinton to win or lose the White House on her record, not that of her husband, former Democratic President Bill Clinton and his sexual indiscretions.

“Failed Presidential nominee.” Indeed. Mitt Romney is a really nice guy and that’s why he lost.

John McCain declared Obama’s relationship with Rev. Jeremiah Wright “off limits.”

McCain is also known as a “Failed U.S. Republican presidential nominee.”

Mitt says Monica is off limits. McCain said Wright was off limits. Both lost.

Anyone notice a pattern here? Why anyone would want to take Presidential campaign advice from these two is beyond me. What they know is how to lose.

In 2014 male CEO’s can rejoice. Liberals, taking a clue from Hillary Clinton, have redefined the meaning of sexual harassment. As the candidacy of Hillary Clinton slowly begins to materialize the left is desperate to fend off the specter of Bill’s sexual escapades so they can utilize the one weapon they have in the Hillary quiver, i.e. the “War on Women.” But for now, 20 year old female interns are free game.

The 2008 and 2012 Presidential campaigns were all about exploiting race. The country elected a novelty President with zero legislative footprint and no accomplishments other than leaving behind the wreckage known as Parc Grove but he did claim to want to “fundamentally” change the country. Voters were dunned into voting for Obama simply to prove they weren’t guilty of racism and any opposition to Obama was always motivated by racism.

This time democrats might offer up another novelty Presidential candidate- a woman- and the campaign will be about and only about the war on women. Any and all criticisms of Hillary will be because “You hate women.”

Rand Paul has cagily been reminding us of the fact that Bill Clinton is a sexual predator. That DOES matter now, because it demonstrates just how painfully hypocritical democrats are with regard to the treatment of women. Clinton is a sexual predator and Hillary was his enabler.

Hillary called Monica Lewinsky a “narcissistic loon.” Hillary painted Bill as the victim:

When Clinton finally admitted to the relationship after repeated denials, Hillary Clinton defended her husband in a phone call with Blair. She said her husband had made a mistake by fooling around with the “narcissistic loony toon” Lewinsky, but was driven to it in part by his political adversaries, the loneliness of the presidency, and her own failures as a wife.

She told Blair that the affair did not include sex “within any real meaning” of the term and noted President Clinton “tried to manage” Monica after they broke up but things spiraled “beyond control.”

Bill Clinton, the most powerful man on Earth, was the powerless victim, unable to control himself. Twenty two year old Monica Lewinsky was the evil predator. She was the guilty one.

Hillary had an opinion of all sexual harassment accusers at the time. They were “whiney women.”

(And Hillary, despite anything she might say now, is all for single payer.)

And pay close attention to this nugget:

Hillary Clinton told Blair she had received “a letter from a psychologist who does family therapy and sexual infidelity problems,” who told the Yale Law School graduate, “most men with fidelity problems [were] raised by two women and felt conflicted between them.”

I’d like Hillary to flesh that one out in more detail.

On one hand, Hillary doesn’t want the blame,

“[Hillary] is not trying to excuse [Bill Clinton]; it was a huge personal lapse. And she is not taking responsibility for it,” Blair wrote.

but on the other hand, she blamed herself:

She said her husband had made a mistake by fooling around with the “narcissistic loony toon” Lewinsky, but was driven to it in part by his political adversaries, the loneliness of the presidency, and her own failures as a wife.

That’s about right.

This is all new information discovered by Alana Goodman. It is NOT old news.

Monica wasn’t the only awful woman in the Clinton world. There was Paula Jones, whom James Carville described as “trailer park trash.” As long as the accused was a democrat, Evan Thomas called Jones “just some sleazy woman with big hair coming out of the trailer parks.”

Women who had been accosted by Clinton and then talked were known as “Bimbos.” As recently as 2008 friends of the Clintons were fearful of more “bimbo eruptions.”

None of these wisps of smoke have produced a public fire. But four former Clinton aides told me that, about 18 months ago, one of the president’s former assistants, who still advises him on political matters, had heard so many complaints about such reports from Clinton supporters around the country that he felt compelled to try to conduct what one of these aides called an “intervention,” because, the aide believed, “Clinton was apparently seeing a lot of women on the road.” The would-be intercessor was rebuffed by people around Clinton before ever getting an audience with the former president, and another aide told me that the effort was not well received by either Bill or Hillary Clinton and that some Hillarylanders, in particular, were in denial about the continuing political risks that Bill’s behavior might pose.

Kathleen Willey has said that Hillary Clinton “is the war on women” and rightly denounces women’s groups who sided with Clinton.

And Willey also lashed into feminist organizations who never seem interested in the harassment against her by the Clintons.

“All of these women’s groups, they’re all pro-Hillary, they need to … talk to someone like me and listen here, what Hillary Clinton has done to me and many, many, many other women. They are so hypocritical, it’s unbelievable. And this is the woman that wants to be president.”

Barack Obama’s abuse of the IRS was a lesson learned from the Clinton’s. They had all the Clinton accusers audited as well as a whole slew of other enemies:

The National Rifle Association, The Heritage Foundation, The National Review, The American Spectator, Freedom Alliance, National Center for Public Policy Research, American Policy Center, American Cause, Citizens Against Government Waste, Citizens for Honest Government, Progress and Freedom Foundation, Concerned Women for America and the San Diego Chapter of Christian Coalition.

Monica Lewinsky is relevant right now. She matters if Hillary runs for the Presidency because how women were treated by Hillary and Bill during his Presidency is the dagger to the heart of the plan to attack the GOP. It’s certainly fair game. After all, it was Hillary who said

“We are the President”

Liberals are already playing the “That’s ancient history” card. Those would be the same FOS liberals who ridiculed Mitt Romney for giving a classmate a haircut in 1965.

Now liberals dismiss the sexual escapades of Bill Clinton only because their candidate would suffer were they to eschew hypocrisy. Presidents and CEO’s are free to have sexual relations with unpaid twenty year old interns and call themselves the victims. Hillary has landed a haymaker on feminism.

democrats have warned against raising Monica as an issue, but since when is it a good idea for the GOP to take democrat advice on how to run a Presidential campaign?

UPDATE

Glenn Loury asks: How does Bill Clinton “get to go around and be an honorable defender of the Democratic Party line, which is a pro-woman line…”

“… when he took advantage of an intern in his office? And, you know, I’m not a pro-impeach-Bill-Clinton guy and whatnot, but I kind of find it hard to see that Rand Paul doesn’t have a point there, okay? How is it that the press and everybody else can just forget about the exploitation of women when they’re actually exploited and yet are prepared to level their howitzers of criticism on any Republican who might say something that could be construed as anti-woman, who hasn’t been messing around with the interns under his charge?”

Ann Althouse. Video at the link

DrJohn has been a health care professional for more than 30 years. In addition to clinical practice he has done extensive research and has published widely with over 70 original articles and abstracts in the peer-reviewed literature. DrJohn is well known in his field and has lectured on every continent except for Antarctica. He has been married to the same wonderful lady for over 30 years and has three kids- two sons, both of whom are attorneys and one daughter on her way into the field of education. DrJohn was brought up with the concept that one can do well if one is prepared to work hard but nothing in life is guaranteed. Except for liberals being foolish.

62 Responses to “Why Monica Lewinsky is relevant: Liberals have redefined sexual harassment”

  1. 51

    Greg

    @Redteam, #47:

    And you’re proud of the achievements of a multiple rapist? Why?

    No such allegation was ever proven to be true. In each case his accusers changed their stories on various occasion—even when the information changed had been previously provided under oath. And there’s the obvious ulterior motive: money. Legal settlements, paid television appearances, payments from magazines for exclusive interviews, book deals, etc.

    In the absence of evidence, with multiple story changes, and with such obvious motivation to lie, why should I believe them? And why should I have the least bit of appreciation for the political opportunists and media hacks who turned all of this into a full-scale national embarrassment?

  2. 54

    Greg

    @drjohn, #53:

    Packwood’s resignation followed a unanimous recommendation from the Senate Ethics Committee—composed of equal numbers of republicans and democrats—that he be expelled from the Senate. He was probably fortunate that they resisted pressure to conduct an open Senate investigation.

  3. 55

    Redteam

    @Greg:

    No such allegation was ever proven to be true.

    There is no standard of proof for a liberal. You could have personally witnessed it and would swear it wasn’t true. We all know it was. In addition to having Vince Forster terminated.

  4. 57

    Greg

    @Redteam, #55:

    There is no standard of proof for a liberal.

    Of course there is. There’s only one standard. There must be established facts that demonstrate the likely accuracy of an assertion. In the case of those who accused Clinton of rape, not only were there no such established facts; in the case of each accuser there was also a financial motive for being untruthful, and powerful people with ulterior motives ready to encourage them. There’s also the fact that the stories were inconsistent. One accuser actually stated during an interview that she had previously lied under oath.

    @Redteam, #56:

    It wasn’t a full scale embarrassment. I sure as hell wasn’t embarrassed by it, he’s a liberal, I’m not.

    Of course the political right wasn’t embarrassed. It was the political right that was the chief embarrassment. They deliberately put a private matter on public display, running every bit of dirty laundry they could find up the flagpole for all the world to see. They lovingly dwelt on every sordid detail, with no regard whatsoever for decorum. It was like being forced to watch a detailed investigation into a public figure’s private bathroom habits. If they’d had photographs, they probably would have published them. I really think there’s something seriously wrong with such people.

  5. 58

    Bill Burris

    @Greg:”No such allegation was ever proven to be true. In each case his accusers changed their stories on various occasion—even when the information changed had been previously provided under oath. And there’s the obvious ulterior motive: money. Legal settlements, paid television appearances, payments from magazines for exclusive interviews, book deals, etc.

    In the absence of evidence, with multiple story changes, and with such obvious motivation to lie, why should I believe them? And why should I have the least bit of appreciation for the political opportunists and media hacks who turned all of this into a full-scale national embarrassment?”

    ” in the case of each accuser there was also a financial motive for being untruthful, and powerful people with ulterior motives ready to encourage them. There’s also the fact that the stories were inconsistent.” Um, can you say “Herman Cain?” Your high bar for proof certainly wasn’t available to him as the left whipped a corporate out-of-court settlement to a routine, money-mining harassment accusation into serial rape.

    Does the left simply never remember where they stood on issues 30 minutes or more in the past?

    There are so many accusations against Bill, dating long before he became nationally prominent, and the Clintons went to such great, nasty and illegal efforts to silence them that there simply HAS to be some fire below all that smoke.

    And Hillary stood by her man as he beat rap after rap after rap; in fact, she assisted in the character assassinations to enable Bill to keep the party going. Yeah, she’s a real standard bearer for women’s rights alright. Nothing but another left wing hypocrite with no accomplishments but plenty of money.

  6. 59

    Bill Burris

    @Greg: “There are some questions that simply aren’t proper to put to a president under oath, because they have nothing to do with the nation’s security and are private matters that are nobody else’s damn business. ”

    Actually, this had EVERYTHING to do with national security and was, in fact, the only part I had an issue with. Who was Monica Lewinsky? Where did she come from? How did Clinton, the famous womanizer, know she was not some subversive agent angling to blackmail the President and the nation? Bill put the needs of Little Bill above all else and it bit him right… where it hurt.

    The fact that he cheated on Hillary (hell, who wouldn’t?), while despicable and cowardly, was not, as you say, anyone’s business. But, the fact that he did it in the Oval Office, with someone who could have very well been in the employ of some unfriendly nation or industry was, in and of itself, impeachable.

    Bill is a life-long scumbag and Hillary is his enabler, making sure her own career never suffered for his philandering. They are a match made in the sewers and they should just go away and be with each other. They deserve it.

  7. 60

    Redteam

    @Greg:

    In the case of those who accused Clinton of rape, not only were there no such established facts;

    That’s only true for liberals, any objective person that has read the details has absolutely no doubt that Clinton was guilty of rape.

    in the case of each accuser there was also a financial motive for being untruthful,

    That can’t be true once the story is made public, there is no incentive for Clinton to pay off to avoid the story getting out.

    It was the political right that was the chief embarrassment.

    Almost humorous. Let’s see if I understand this. Clinton rapes some women, conservatives don’t think that was a good thing, the conservatives should be embarrassed for thinking the Dimocrats should have some standards. Is that about it?

  8. 61

    Redteam

    @Bill Burris:

    And Hillary stood by her man as he beat rap after rap after rap; in fact, she assisted in the character assassinations

    Her motive was power and position, had nothing to do with ‘loving old Bill”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *