My take on the latest Hillary "scandal".

I’m worried about stopping the propaganda media and the GOP billionaires that want to destroy our government to enrich themselves.

I hope that we can multi-task here. I hope that we can discuss Trump's many mistakes, while at the same time we can discuss the errors made from our own side.

If there was anything more to it than that, the T___p people would have tried to exploit it during the campaign(especially right after the "grab them by the p___y" thing happened).

I have been trying to think how to state my feelings on the episode without much success.

This view expresses pretty well how I see it, from my chair 9 years later and having not been there.
I do lean more to the side of she could/should have responded differently.

But....

So with her it's a scandal if she was guilty of littering while working on the Goldwater campaign.

Yes, that is a key point! I should have mentioned something like that in my original post.

Hillary in no way was a perpetrator here. She tried to manage a bad situation as best she thought. In my opinion, she could have done better. But she was not a perpetrator.

them is a lie about a consensual blow job. Nothing else. They never even attempted anything with President Obama, because there was nothing there to investigate.

Eight years of Obama = ZERO indictments.
One year of Trump = DOZENS of indictments with MANY more on the way.

in the article.

1. You do not know the written harassment policy of the organization.

2. You do not now whether H. Clinton had an official role in carrying out any policy.

3. You do not know whether the accuser was satisfied with the outcome, or whether she had been presented with a choice and made her own decision regarding a change in her role.

The article does include a statement from the law firm for the campaign.

“To ensure a safe working environment, the campaign had a process to address complaints of misconduct or harassment. When matters arose, they were reviewed in accordance with these policies, and appropriate action was taken. This complaint was no exception,” read a statement from Utrecht, Kleinfeld, Fiori, Partners, the law firm that represented Clinton’s campaign in 2008.

Interestingly, The NY Times has recently punished a high profile employee, Glenn Thrush, for harassment. The outcome was reportedly that the harasser forfeited pay for several weeks but was not fired.

Yes, I do not know all the details. It is quite possible that Hillary knew nothing about this particular sexual harassment situation. And it is quite possible that the accuser was happy about how things turned out.

Perhaps some subordinate called all the shots. Perhaps Hillary was not in the loop at all. But the buck stops at the top. In many respects, that's unfair. But that's how it is.

Glenn Thrush, Suspended Times Reporter, to Resume Work but Won’t Cover White House

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/20/business/media/glenn-thrush-suspension-white-house.html

Very similar actions to what Clinton's campaign did in '08. It's interesting that the New York Times article doesn't reference their company's handling of this sexual harassment case.

It also occurred to me the following conversation might have taken place:

Hillary: "Well, what would you like to see happen here?"

Accuser: "I would like to see the accused judged and punished, and I would like to be reassigned to such and such a job and/or location. That would make me happy."

Hillary: "Requests granted. Anything else?"

It's also possible that Hillary regarded the accused as too valuable in his position to be reassigned permanently. But we don't know that, just as we don't know if the accuser requested the transfer.

And all of this is a distraction from what everyone here should want: to defeat the GOP and retake Congress in 2018, and retake the White House in 2020. Dwelling on this 10 year old matter doesn't help anyone but the GOP and Trump.

heaven forbid she treat everyone like FRANKEN

The response to Al Franken's offense was so extreme that even now I cannot grasp it. Yes, the punishment must fit the crime. Al made a mistake. But he was dealt out a capital punishment. That was wrong.

The same goes with this Hillary "scandal". A mistake was made. But it was not a capital offense. That's all I'm trying to say here.

but I will just leave it there

Are you saying that I didn't post this topic for fair discussion purposes? Are you saying that I had some nefarious plot in mind?

I should be very offended by that, but I'm not. Because you're right. My lifelong reputation as a progressive has all been just a sham. I posted this topic on orders of Karl Rove. But of course he's just a front. My true overlords are the Illuminati.

Does that make you feel better?

Sheesh. Stray off the plantation even an inch and someone will wack you. But I'll give you credit for one thing. At least you didn't use vulgar language when you maligned me.

It always, in my experience, seems to be the victim of harassment who is given a small token payment and fired or moved to another job. It should be the harasser who is fired and moved if the harassment can be proved or obviously happened.

That is so true...so sadly true. I've seen many examples of that in my own workplace. How can someone fight against that? Perhaps all stories of harassment should be openly discussed, and let the chips fall where they might.

That's just what I'm trying to do here.

....and she was satisfied with the resolution.

As I pointed out elsewhere here, none of us were involved in any of those discussions way back in 2008. It could very well be that she wanted to go somewhere else in the campaign. None of us know. I seriously doubt, knowing Hillary Clinton's advocacy for women over the last 50 years AND her own experience as First Lady, that she treated this lightly.

this is helpful to NO ONE.

When Republicans behave in a less than an exemplary manner, we should call them out. We should point out the errors in their ways, and we should suggest better options.

Should not the same apply to our side? But we must be careful here! If we are too critical, we will do more harm than good. And if we are not critical enough, our errors won't be acknowledged and corrected.

....article.

which is more than many do. The media has flipped the script to make it seem salacious.

Keeping him on is not siding with the offender if punishment is doled out to the victims satisfaction.

There are a lot of people that need counseling who never get it, it may not have an effect but you can't know that until it's tried.

Per a poster in another thread someone spoke to the victim and she was satisfied with how it was handled.
https://www.democraticunderground.com/100210150243

especially by Hillary haters

It distracts from Trump’s situation and reinforces the claim that "both sides do it". Someone is manipulating the narrative.

The whole Statute of Limitation thing has merit. It has merit regardless of who the accuser is, and who the accused is.

So yes, any story this old gives me pause.

Makes the whole report suspect, IMO.

And depending on what job I was moved to, I might have been fine with that change, too.

(When I was harassed at work, I was pleased that my boss yelled at the harasser and made him stop. I would have been shocked if the guy had lost 3 months of pay. Hillary's action was quite firm for ten years ago.)

Not in what you posted,
but too many fingers hover over 'alert' on certain topics.

We see it here all the time.

Especially when it comes to the feeding frenzy on the Clintons.

....she was the VICTIM!) was consulted at the time and she was satisfied with the resolution. Who knows, maybe she wanted a different position in the campaign and the arrangements were welcome. We don't know - I don't and you don't.

And how do you know Hillary Clinton didn't stand up for the victim, were you involved in those discussions and conversations back in 2008?

That article has already been posted (surely you've see it), and the NY Times headline is a gross misrepresentation of what really happened.

Now I've got to go out shopping, I need a new pair of socks. Know where I can get some?

You said "And how do you know Hillary Clinton didn't stand up for the victim..."

On reflection, I guess she did stand up for the victim. Hillary believed the victim, and Hillary took action to try to rectify the situation. I just wish Hillary would have done more. This pig (Burns Strider) should have been fired, and he should have been barred from any future involvement in Democrat politics. That's Monday-morning quarterbacking, I know.

As for the socks, I buy mine at Wal-Mart. And I always regret it, as the socks tear long before they should.

puppets!

Where else can you find both socks and puppets? It's amazing.

There is a made in America Supplier names Boardroom Socks. Decent selection of darker business dress socks, may have updated inventories, they seem to do that occasionally.

You can also check the site MadeinUSAForeever.com, it lists some USA garment makers.

And you can shop online at etsy for socks now!

https://www.etsy.com/listing/67523813/sockettclassical-sock-puppets-2-for-30

was reported in the New York Times. I would like to have more clarity, but due to non disclosure contracts, that's not likely to happen.

While it's reported that Burns Strider was not fired, that does not mean he remained active on the campaign. His pay was docked for several weeks and he was ordered to counseling. Since it was reported that he refused counseling, it may be that he just stopped working for the campaign. So not technically fired, but not actively working either.

The young woman worked under Burns Strider, so it makes sense that she would have to be given a new position, especially since Strider was no longer active with the campaign.

I fail to see how this is a scandal at all. The woman came forward and appropriate action was taken.

A statement included in the New York Times article.



https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/26/us/politics/hillary-clinton-chose-to-shield-a-top-adviser-accused-of-harassment-in-2008.html

It seems to me that the situation was addressed, and the harasser was removed.

Several posts here recently using this same story to bash HRC, including this op, I approached your post in the wrong frame of mind

So more negative posts about Hillary...because you are worried she's running for something? Or perhaps she may have a political opinon that may sing Trump that we at DU need a preemptive slap down? Or pehaps there isn't enough RW hypocrisy on this subject alone, to drown out this story 50 times over?

that was in 2008, she is now a private citizen, case closed. As long as Trump sits in the WH and is never called out about his past disgressions/harassment allegations.....I rest my case. I am so sick of calling out all these people and them losing their jobs, or quitting their jobs, etc. and he sits in the WH and supposedly all is well........I do not condone what has gone down with these guys but let’s get real people ..........the biggest perpetrator of them all seems to defy it all. Until, and unless he is called out for who and what he is, I could not care less about any of it. JMHO.

Interesting in light of how other campaigns handled allegations.

http://www.latimes.com/politics/essential/la-pol-ca-essential-politics-updates-congressional-candidate-arturo-carmona-1491016048-htmlstory.html

She is being criticized against standards established after the Me-Too movement. I doubt that she would make the same decision today. The abuser should have been either fired or punished, stripped of authority over anyone and reassigned.

... written policies that did not require firing for ALL kinds of misconduct. Which I think is a rational approach.

there are policies to follow for all sorts of things. Harassment, drugs, drinking, etc, all have a designated policy that requires following certain requirements. If one does not follow the correct procedure, another employee can claim they were discriminated against. It sounds as though there was a policy in the campaign with steps to be followed in this situation and they followed them.

This is all done to once again try to divide Democrats, and we've once again fallen into the pit over a poorly written article with little of the necessary information to get the whole story.

But do think you present it in a very fair manner. I’m very close to that.

Still, considering many of the conversations in this area, I think it should have been mentioned that she was neither an aggressor or perpetrator.

Thanks for sharing such clear and just thoughts.

Hillary is not president.

The situation was resolved. We can argue all we want to about how it should have been handled. But we were not there. Nor do we have all the facts.

I am not saying sexual harassment is not a big deal. It certainly is. It is just misguided to argue about this when we are just guessing about what happened.

Oh, and also: "It's Hillary's fault", and if it isn't hers "it's Obama's fault".

Typical repug scandal mongering—blame those two for everything that can get a "scandal" going"—and she isn't even president and won't ever be running for anything again.

Let's pls don't fall for anymore and please retire the "Blame Hillary and/or Obama" memes.

of inadequately punishing the offender, and asking for her comment today. If they did, they sure did not indicate that in the article, and not doing that is shoddy journalism. Perhaps she will use the excuse Judy Miller did when asked why weren't those who said there were no WMDs in Iraq, views presented in that article. "There wasn't enough space"

Not lost to ironically, one of the authors of the article, Maggie Haberman, is writing a book with sexual harasser Glenn Thrush, who the NY Times only briefly suspended, and is back at work at the NY Times. Perhaps Ms. Haberman can write a follow-up article on how the NY Times is only giving a slap on the wrist of Glenn Thrush. I suspect that will never happen.

and this isn't the first time they have done this.

It was only a few months ago when the NY Times blamed the Democrats, and specifically President Obama for being responsible for pushing republicans to be climate change deniers because of the "Democratic hubris in the Obama years":

"The Republican Party’s fast journey from debating how to combat human-caused climate change to arguing that it does not exist is a story of big political money, Democratic hubris in the Obama years and a partisan chasm that grew over nine years like a crack in the Antarctic shelf, favoring extreme positions and uncompromising rhetoric over cooperation and conciliation."

They then proceeded in the article to make excuses for the republicans by saying "most republicans do not believe climate change is a hoax"

“Most Republicans still do not regard climate change as a hoax,” said Whit Ayres, a Republican strategist who worked for Senator Marco Rubio’s presidential campaign. “But the entire climate change debate has now been caught up in the broader polarization of American politics.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/03/us/politics/republican-leaders-climate-change.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0

They sure didn't solicit President Obama's view on that accusation

.... Is a bunch of people making a bunch of accusations and assumptions based on very little information. Business as usual.

And her out of office.
What's left to say?
Or do...except concentrate on voting OUT
Republicans and neutralize the maggot.

And all campaigns, no matter how long ago, or how recent they are.

Any and all who run as Democrats.

Let sunshine be the best disinfectant.