Over the weekend Lewinski, Willey, Flowers and Paula Jones were interviewed at length. All said the man is a serial liar and totally dismissed them as having value and said his wife was just like him, stepping on everybody without regard to their worth. All suggested he continues the same bahavior patterns even today, as if we would have thought otherwise. Jones is the ultimate bimbo but appeared to be telling the truth. Willey gave the most meaningful analysis and was obviously, in my opinion, being truthful about his behavior, relating it to deep psychological problems. Lewinski, because I have a daughter the age of Chelsea, had the most disturbing comments, saying that she was then the age Chelsea is now and that he had lied about their relationship up to and including in his book. She feels that he dismissed her value as a person and treated her as trash. All in all, it makes me wonder just how much time out of each 24 hour period the man did spend trolling for women who he could use and discard when he should have been running a country. And why haven't the liberal women's groups and the left ever asked those same questions?
I'm Audrey from Kansas. I guess I didn't exhibit proper behavior before by not introducing myself into the group. Sorry for that.
You know, I've wondered that myself. Why don't the feminist groups just boil over this? I thought this was one of the things feminists have been fighting all these years. The fact that they don't should make us all wonder.
I don't have proof of this, but from what I hear, Bill Clinton does continue this type of behavior to this day. But, the media doesn't report it.
One other comment. I have to wonder about any person (not just the male species) who answers a question about adultery, ("Why did you do it?"), "I did it because I could." I think that answer is most revealing about the type of person Bill Clinton is.
To anyone who reads this message, think about his answer. What does this reveal about his character?
I have trouble grasping the concept of respecting and admiring a liar and cheater. Where's the redemption? Would you ever trust anything they said or did? I wouldn't dance with any of them . . . well, maybe Don. He's not in their category.
Let's look at it from this perspective: All these female school teachers who have recently been arrested, some sentenced) for having sex with underage boys in their schools; what if there answer were, "I had sex with the boy because I could". How would you interpret that? How would any of us interpret that? Would my response be, "Well, the woman is a sexually charged female with great sex appeal"? I think not. Of course if Clinton had (to our knowledge) sex with underage girls, he would not be alive today. To answer our own question as to why the libs and women's lib groups have not condemned and railed against his behavior, it is simply because they are frauds and practice selective morality and selective women's rights.
I’m keeping my comments in this post within a narrow focus. I didn’t see those interviews, don’t now how he treated Monica, whether he is still cheating, whether Hilary cares, etc. This particular two-cents worth concerns the feminist response to Bill’s sexual shenanigans. I hardly represent the entire women’s movement, but I consider myself a feminist and, in my opinion, it doesn’t serve women to depict other consenting, adult women as victims. I’m not as well-informed about his other paramours as I am Monica, but I would never see her as a victim. The fact that she was then the age that Chelsea is now is relevant to ... what, exactly? At the time, Monica was an adult and Clinton’s employee, not his relative. Here’s a news flash, Monica: S#*t happens when you perform sexual acts on the leader of the free world and then tell someone. This does not excuse any aspect of Bill's behavior, it only speaks to how I perceive these women's post-mortems. Ladies: Your 15-minutes are up. Move on.
I'll take up that gauntlet! Here are a few more categories of consenting adults for whom the liberalie fems take the stage and rant and rave: prostitutes, women in abusive relationships who return to them over and over, women who have sex with their bosses in an employment context willingly, adult groupies who follow entertainers around and have sex with them. Well, those are just a few who the libs take under their wing and pronounce victims while they try to recruit them to 'the cause'.
Scuse' me, did I miss something? Kathleen Willey was a 'willing adult' when Clinton groped her and shoved his hand up under her? Paula Jones willingly allowed him to throw her across the bed in the motel room after he told the highway patrolman to summon her to see him? And, as a final question, why didn't the libs chant about Hillary being victimized by the scoundrel? But, the point should not be to segregate those who consented from those who did not. The point, for the libs to evaluate, is, what is the overall fallout from this sort of behavior and will it tend to cheapen or broaden the perceived value of women as a whole (pick one), and why do certain people in power and authority get a complete pass when they totally victimize others in a serial manner? Why did Bob Packwood get a pass from the feminists for the same behaviors over 30 years? Why do only people of certain political persuasions invoke their ire?
For one who claims to be a feminist, I am amazed that you claim to not follow the news about women and their issues. But, as our leftist friend Parabeagle says, I do respect your right to your opinion and support your right to voice it. x:-)
> Here are a few more >categories of consenting adults for whom the >liberalie fems take the stage and rant and rave: >prostitutes, women in abusive relationships who >return to them over and over, women who have sex >with their bosses in an employment context >willingly, adult groupies who follow >entertainers around and have sex with them. >Well, those are just a few who the libs take >under their wing and pronounce victims while >they try to recruit them to 'the cause'. >
I probably wouldn't take any of the above under my wing, but I generally try to evaluate situations one at a time instead of by categories. I've formulated and expressed my opinion about Monica. Regarding the other two alleged victims, I'm not convinced - either way -of the voracity of their claims, but as I said (and what you misconstrued as a clain that I do not follow women's issues), I'm not as familiar with their stories or supporting evidence. News-wise, I follow what I follow (the newspaper and NPR, primarily) and you follow what you follow (per your statement, 30 min. of Rush Limbaugh a day althougth I'm sure that's not all). You won't change my mind and I won't change yours. But, like you, I'm very respectful of your right to your opinion and the expression thereof.
Comments
I'm Audrey from Kansas. I guess I didn't exhibit proper behavior before by not introducing myself into the group. Sorry for that.
You know, I've wondered that myself. Why don't the feminist groups just boil over this? I thought this was one of the things feminists have been fighting all these years. The fact that they don't should make us all wonder.
I don't have proof of this, but from what I hear, Bill Clinton does continue this type of behavior to this day. But, the media doesn't report it.
One other comment. I have to wonder about any person (not just the male species) who answers a question about adultery, ("Why did you do it?"), "I did it because I could." I think that answer is most revealing about the type of person Bill Clinton is.
To anyone who reads this message, think about his answer. What does this reveal about his character?
Scuse' me, did I miss something? Kathleen Willey was a 'willing adult' when Clinton groped her and shoved his hand up under her? Paula Jones willingly allowed him to throw her across the bed in the motel room after he told the highway patrolman to summon her to see him? And, as a final question, why didn't the libs chant about Hillary being victimized by the scoundrel? But, the point should not be to segregate those who consented from those who did not. The point, for the libs to evaluate, is, what is the overall fallout from this sort of behavior and will it tend to cheapen or broaden the perceived value of women as a whole (pick one), and why do certain people in power and authority get a complete pass when they totally victimize others in a serial manner? Why did Bob Packwood get a pass from the feminists for the same behaviors over 30 years? Why do only people of certain political persuasions invoke their ire?
For one who claims to be a feminist, I am amazed that you claim to not follow the news about women and their issues. But, as our leftist friend Parabeagle says, I do respect your right to your opinion and support your right to voice it. x:-)
>categories of consenting adults for whom the
>liberalie fems take the stage and rant and rave:
>prostitutes, women in abusive relationships who
>return to them over and over, women who have sex
>with their bosses in an employment context
>willingly, adult groupies who follow
>entertainers around and have sex with them.
>Well, those are just a few who the libs take
>under their wing and pronounce victims while
>they try to recruit them to 'the cause'.
>
I probably wouldn't take any of the above under my wing, but I generally try to evaluate situations one at a time instead of by categories. I've formulated and expressed my opinion about Monica. Regarding the other two alleged victims, I'm not convinced - either way -of the voracity of their claims, but as I said (and what you misconstrued as a clain that I do not follow women's issues), I'm not as familiar with their stories or supporting evidence. News-wise, I follow what I follow (the newspaper and NPR, primarily) and you follow what you follow (per your statement, 30 min. of Rush Limbaugh a day althougth I'm sure that's not all). You won't change my mind and I won't change yours. But, like you, I'm very respectful of your right to your opinion and the expression thereof.