HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Retired » Retired Forums » 2016 Postmortem (Forum) » Breaking News! NYTimes sa...

Wed Jan 20, 2016, 01:22 PM

Breaking News! NYTimes says!

Helping your husband discredit his mistresses as part of an cynical political strategy isn't playing well with women!

"But at an Upper East Side dinner party a few months back, Ms. Dunham expressed more conflicted feelings. She told the guests, at the Park Avenue apartment of Richard Plepler, the chief executive of HBO, that she was disturbed by how, in the 1990s, the Clintons and their allies discredited women who said they had had sexual encounters with or been sexually assaulted by former President Bill Clinton.

The conversation, relayed by several people with knowledge of the discussion who would speak about it only anonymously, captures the deeper debate unfolding among liberal-leaning women about how to reconcile Mrs. Clinton’s leadership on women’s issues with her past involvement in her husband’s efforts to fend off accusations of sexual misconduct."

http://nyti.ms/1NjQxs4

9 replies, 1629 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 9 replies Author Time Post
Reply Breaking News! NYTimes says! (Original post)
EdwardBernays Jan 2016 OP
Kelvin Mace Jan 2016 #1
Peregrine Took Jan 2016 #2
kenfrequed Jan 2016 #3
bigtree Jan 2016 #4
EdwardBernays Jan 2016 #5
kenfrequed Jan 2016 #7
EdwardBernays Jan 2016 #8
kenfrequed Jan 2016 #9
Warren DeMontague Jan 2016 #6

Response to EdwardBernays (Original post)

Wed Jan 20, 2016, 01:48 PM

1. Well, if DU is any guide

 

HRC defenders will swarm in to say either "it's not relevant" or "you are obviously a misogynist for bringing it up".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EdwardBernays (Original post)

Wed Jan 20, 2016, 02:15 PM

2. Great article. Everyone should read it. Why are those women always vilified?

Not one of them was speaking the truth even the one he paid off the 850k settlement?. All lying bimbos and floosies?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EdwardBernays (Original post)

Wed Jan 20, 2016, 02:17 PM

3. I'm a bernie supporter

And I don't think this stuff is going to gain any traction.

Most Bernie supporters don't give a damn about fancy Dinner parties on the upper east side.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EdwardBernays (Original post)

Wed Jan 20, 2016, 02:21 PM

4. Ms. Dunham says they lied

as the article states,

'her spokeswoman, Cindi Berger, said that Ms. Dunham is “fully supportive of Hillary Clinton and her track record for protecting women,” and that the description of her comments at the dinner party was a “total mischaracterization.”

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigtree (Reply #4)

Wed Jan 20, 2016, 05:41 PM

5. Of course she said that

It was off message.

It doesn't change the fact that many women don't like the way that the Clintons have treated Clinton's mistresses.

It's amazing to me that the supposed left is all for calling people sluts and tramps when it suits them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigtree (Reply #4)

Wed Jan 20, 2016, 05:54 PM

7. See above

I didn't give a damn when I thought they were angry at Hillary and I still don't give a damn that they are not angry at Hillary.


It is still an elitist upper income dinner party on the upper east side.


The working class doesn't give a crap what they think either way.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kenfrequed (Reply #7)

Wed Jan 20, 2016, 06:11 PM

8. I think you missed the entire point

’90s Scandals Threaten to Erode Hillary Clinton’s Strength With Women


Note it doesn't say "elite upper income" women.

Just women.

And as Vanity Fair just said:

"Sanders ... enjoys unexpectedly high support among the young, female voters that Clinton was counting on..."

Not, "young, female" "elite upper income" women. Just women.

Again from the NYT:

"But the resurfacing of the scandals of the 1990s has brought about a rethinking among some feminists about how prominent women stood by Mr. Clinton and disparaged his accusers ...

Even some Democrats who participated in the effort to discredit the women acknowledge privately that today, when Mrs. Clinton and other women have pleaded with the authorities on college campuses and in workplaces to take any allegation of sexual assault and sexual harassment seriously, such a campaign to attack the women’s character would be unacceptable.

Back then, Mr. Clinton’s aides, having watched Gary Hart’s presidential hopes unravel over his relationship with Donna Rice in the 1988 Democratic primary race, were determined to squash any accusations against Mr. Clinton early and aggressively, former campaign aides explained. Mrs. Clinton had supported the effort to push back against the women’s stories.

Much of her involvement played out behind the scenes, and was driven, in part, by her sense that right-wing forces were using the women and salacious stories to damage her husband’s political ambitions. Her reflex was to protect him and his future, and, early on, she turned to a longtime Clinton loyalist, Ms. Wright, to defend him against the allegations, according to multiple accounts at the time, documented in books and oral histories.

When Gennifer Flowers later surfaced, claiming that she had a long affair with Mr. Clinton, Mrs. Clinton undertook an “aggressive, explicit direction of the campaign to discredit” Ms. Flowers, according to an exhaustive biography of Mrs. Clinton, “A Woman in Charge,” by Carl Bernstein.

Mrs. Clinton referred to Monica Lewinsky, the White House intern who had an affair with the 42nd president, as a “narcissistic loony toon,” according to one of her closest confidantes, Diane D. Blair, whose diaries were released to the University of Arkansas after her death in 2000. Ms. Lewinsky later called the comment an example of Mrs. Clinton’s impulse to “blame the woman.”

--

That sort of behaviour is seen as both real and unacceptable by women. Many women have seen people like Bill Cosby attack victims for years with no repercussions, and don't think the people that help him deserve credit for "loyalty" to Cosby. Women, that i have spoken to, friends and colleagues, and people on DU and other forums, don't think that Clinton should he hated for cheating on his wife - all relationships are unknowable from the outside essentially - but that attacking and trying to discredit women, for political gain, especially women who claim assault or being manipulated to maintain silence, that sort of behaviour is not something to take lightly.

And again, those opinions aren't coming from the "wealthy elite".

Nor does this story say that those opinions are only of the wealthy elite.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EdwardBernays (Reply #8)

Wed Jan 20, 2016, 06:21 PM

9. Millenials in general are supporting Bernie.

Even more broadly the under fifty crowd is rather pro-Sanders. I think that is good. Young women are getting more in Bernie's camp but I don't think this has a thing to do with any tawdry old sex scandals.

This is about bread and butter issues and that is where Bernie is winning.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EdwardBernays (Original post)

Wed Jan 20, 2016, 05:52 PM

6. by making statements like "women should always be believed" she sets herself up for every RW blogger

in the Universe to tweet to Juanita Broderick, etc for a response.

I mean, it's not exactly rocket science.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread