On Friday evening the MSNBC host Chris Hayes sent out a tweet that electrified online conservatives: “As gross and cynical and hypocritical as the right’s ‘what about Bill Clinton’ stuff is, it’s also true that Democrats and the center left are overdue for a real reckoning with the allegations against him.” Hayes’s tweet inspired stories on Glenn Beck’s The Blaze, Breitbart and The Daily Caller, all apparently eager to use the Clinton scandals to derail discussions about Roy Moore, the Republican nominee for the United States Senate in Alabama who is accused of sexually assaulting minors. Yet despite the right’s evident bad faith, I agree with Hayes. In this #MeToo moment, when we’re reassessing decades of male misbehavior and turning open secrets into exposes, we should look clearly at the credible evidence that Juanita Broaddrick told the truth when she accused Clinton of raping her. But revisiting the Clinton scandals in light of today’s politics is complicated as well as painful. Democrats are guilty of apologizing for Clinton when they shouldn’t have. At the same time, looking back at the smear campaign against the Clintons shows we can’t treat the feminist injunction to “believe women” as absolute. Writing at Crooked.com, Brian Beutler warns that in future elections, right-wing propaganda will exploit the progressive commitment to always taking sexual abuse charges seriously. It’s easy to imagine an outlet like Breitbart leveraging the “believe women” rallying cry to force mainstream media coverage of dubious accusations. The Clinton years, in which epistemological warfare emerged as a key part of the Republican political arsenal, show us why we should be wary of allegations that bubble up from the right-wing press. At the time, the reactionary billionaire Richard Mellon Scaife was bankrolling the Arkansas Project, which David Brock, the former right-wing journalist who played a major role in it, described as a “multimillion-dollar dirty tricks operation against the Clintons.” Various figures in conservative media accused Bill Clinton of murder, drug-running and using state troopers as pimps. Brock alleges that right-wing figures funneled money to some of Clinton’s accusers. In this environment, it would have been absurd to take accusations of assault and harassment made against Clinton at face value. On Monday, Caitlin Flanagan, perhaps taking up Hayes’s challenge, urged liberals to remember some of what Clinton is said to have done. “Kathleen Willey said that she met him in the Oval Office for personal and professional advice and that he groped her, rubbed his erect penis on her, and pushed her hand to his crotch,” Flanagan wrote, recalling the charges Willey first made in 1998. It sounds both familiar and plausible. But Willey also accused the Clintons of having her husband and then her cat killed. Must we believe that, too? https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/13/opinion/juanita-broaddrick-bill-clinton.html
See the article in the Atlantic. Scathing. https://www.theatlantic.com/enterta...ckoning-with-bill-clintons-sex-crimes/545729/
Clinton was President 20 years ago. He went through an impeachment and wasn't removed from office. That is ancient history. These people need to get a life. What do you do when you are trying to elect a child molester? Beat up on someone who was President 20 years ago!
He isn't President or running for office. What is so hard to understand? Do I need to post a drawing to help line it out?
Nah, this speaks very accurately to the internal hypocrisy and the demonstrated targeted histrionics of the liberal party and it's proponents. I'd love to see what ms Steinem has to say about her full throated support of the former President now. And let's just at least be a little honest here. For everyone pointing and cringing at Moore, I see a decided lack of interest in the ongoing trial of mr Menendez, who frankly has about as many allegations of underage abuse.
Would Bill have her husbands and her cat killed? I just do not think Bill is that kinda guy. He was a womanizer like his idol JFK, but not a murderer, IMO. But what about Hillary? Yep, she would be the bad seed in that family. She probably met the right people when Bill was involved, or knew about the CIA running drugs into Arkansas. The list of their enemies, which she took personally, have ended up dead, far too many of them. And not from old age either. Given the number of her body guards and security people who looked out for her that are now dead, not to mention her enemies...yeah, she looks like she could be a killer by proxy. While Bill is just not cut from that cloth. The criminal in that family is Hillary, IMO. She even acts like one. This is only my intuited opinion and nothing more than that, as I have no evidence at all. Just a character accessment. And something is "off" about hillary. Probably a real deal sociopath while Bill was just a womanizer, using his position and power to score with the females.
