An Apology?
[guest post by Dana]
I’ve been avoiding posting on the public return of Monica Lewinsky due to the tabloid tone of the entire Bill-Monica affair, as well as the inevitable re-hash of the entire debacle. Do we really want to re-visit that sordid mess?
Well, there’s an interesting new twist to the matter to consider. It has been suggested that Bill Clinton is weighing out a public apology to Monica for her past 15 years of suffering since the affair became public.
◆ The rationale? To fend off critics of his wife Hillary who blame her for protecting a powerful husband who is a sexual predator. Hillary Clinton is eyeing a 2016 presidential bid.
◆ The big question: Will Bill “I love an audience” Clinton choose to apologize to Lewinsky and his wife for the mess he placed in their lives — and appeal for forgiveness — in order to put the past behind him before his first grandchild is born . . . and reap a lotta love for being a penitent?
As far as I can see, the only reason Bill Clinton would ever consider a public apology would be for the sake of political power. To think there might be any other reason is to not have paid attention to the sly smoothness of this master manipulator over several decades. And, if the Clintons and their people are concerned with this episode hindering Hillary’s push for 2016, it might benefit them to get ahead of things before anyone else attempts to use it against them. Rand Paul has been bringing up the issue since February of this year in an attempt to tie in Bill’s predatory behavior toward women as part of the Dem’s larger “war on women” and ostensibly, Hillary’s “war on women”.
He [Clinton] took advantage of a girl that was 20 years old and an intern in his office,” Paul told host David Gregory. “There is no excuse for that, and that is predatory behavior.””What if that unsavory character is your husband?” Paul asked. “What if that unsavory character is Bill Clinton raising money for people across the country, and what if he were someone that was guilty of sexual harassment and inappropriate behavior at the workplace – which, obviously, having sex with an intern at the office is inappropriate by any standard.”
Then he came back to it in a pre-taped C-SPAN interview to be broadcast Sunday.
Said Paul: “The Democrats can’t say, ‘We’re the great defenders of women’s rights in the workplace and we will defend you against some kind of abusive boss that uses their position of authority to take advantage of a young women’ when the leader of their party, the leading fundraiser in the country, is Bill Clinton, who was a perpetrator of that kind of sexual harassment. Anybody who wants to take money from Bill Clinton or have a fundraiser has a lot of explaining to do.”
If the suggestion is true that there will be a public apology and if it’s not to help Hillary position herself, what other reason could there possibly be for an (in)famous narcissist to publicly adorn himself in an annoyingly familiar crown of faux humility and his special poor-me look while wagging a self-indulgent finger at a Clinton-weary America and apologize?
–Dana
One of Rand’s finer moments.
mg (31009b) — 5/10/2014 @ 9:34 amBy God’s mercy and grace repentance is available to anyone,
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 5/10/2014 @ 10:17 ambut manipulation of the message is the norm.
As has been said by others, perhaps even the Vanity Fair article was calculated as a preemptive “let’s get it behind us” strike, as Obama’s history of drug use.
When Clinton does his mea culpa watch the reaction of the Candy Crowley’s, Andrea Mitchell’s, MO DO’s, and other feminist media types. It is they who will be the final arbiters of Clinton’s apology and how it will effect Hillary!!!!. In the end they will accept it and say how brave our Bill is and how strong Hillary!!! is and look at how elegantly she has handled things. It is all part of the plan. God help us.
Ipso Fatso (10964d) — 5/10/2014 @ 10:25 amOf course, Vanity Fair, which has issued not one but three vicious hit pieces on the huntress, is in
narciso (3fec35) — 5/10/2014 @ 10:31 amHillary’s pocket, so what does that have to do with the ‘reset’ or Boko Haram,
Will he belatedly offer to pay the cleaning bill, or buy her a new blue dress?
Colonel Haiku (0dcd9c) — 5/10/2014 @ 10:31 amNow, see, here is the thing.
Folks on the right side of the aisle look very carefully at honesty and honor and similar uncomfortable truths. They recognize an “evolving position” as indistinguishable from “pandering to get votes.” They have some positions that are set in stone as defining precepts.
Folks on the left side of the aisle have an, um, nuanced view of these issues. All they really care about are three core issues: abortion, race/gender, and taxes. Everything else is negotiable and not important.
Guess which of those two approaches wins elections? The Left is delighted when the Right attacks one of its own as RINO or insufficiently pure (by the way, has the DNC gotten irritable of all the campaign promises of BHO?). So the Purity Patrol over on the Right simply assures the Left of victories (as they will, I predict, in 2016). They state demonstrable silly things as fact, such as “the R candidate is no better than the D candidate.” Even more alarmingly, the nihilist “Let it burn” is heard commonly.
Which is fine, I guess, if you don’t mind losing elections and being laughed at by the Left.
You seldom see the Left attack its own.
Which brings us back to the issue of Dana’s post. As Glenn Reynolds suggests, battlespace is being prepared.
All the stuff you have been hearing about racism will shortly be applied to sexism, to prepare the way for a person whose only true experience is covering up for her husband’s nasty behavior. And if she falters (again) the DNC will simply plug in that fake Amerind from Taxachussetts.
And then the Right will bicker and carry on, while the Left snickers.
And wins again. With even more SCOTUS appointments.
To each their own. But when you actively help your opponent win, you really can’t complain at their actions when they do.
But hey, it’s much more hip and edgy to play the “above it all” game. Call people you don’t like juvenile nicknames. Insult. Overstate. Go to extremes. But—again—Axelrod and his cronies are counting on it. And they will not be disappointed.
They look forward to several more Sotomayor style appointments on the Supreme Court over the 8 years following this administration.
It just makes me sad. To each their own.
Simon Jester (c8876d) — 5/10/2014 @ 10:32 am#SpunkOnTehApology
Colonel Haiku (0dcd9c) — 5/10/2014 @ 10:33 amInteresting post. I just don’t think there will be an apology to Monica now, public or otherwise. A tawdry one-off affair with a willing star-struck young staffer (even in the oval office) might have been overlookable. A lip biting apology to Monica and his family and the American people shortly after he left office might have looked gallant, mature, and not too terribly cynical. But there are just waaay too many other women out there (and not necessarily consentual) going all the way back to his governorship and his misuse of state police, etc. who also deserve apologies. I can’t see him being willing to open that whole can of worms again, or that it would help a possible Hillary candidacy in any way even if he did. Some men secretly relish dangerous conquests and their reputation as a horndog. I’ve always believed he is one of them.
elissa (a1c062) — 5/10/2014 @ 10:34 amI remember well how social conservatives were pretty much the only ones who backed the Clinton impeachment.
We laugh at the morality of our leaders and are surprised to find that our leaders are lawless. Presidential obstruction of justice is now to be expected.
Amphipolis (e01538) — 5/10/2014 @ 10:36 am#HunnerdDollahBillInTheTrailerPark
Colonel Haiku (207b84) — 5/10/2014 @ 10:38 am‘what difference does it make’
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2014/04/over-200-nigerian-schoolgirls-kidnapped-by-boko-haram-sold-married-off-moved-abroad
narciso (3fec35) — 5/10/2014 @ 10:42 amBill brought shameless lying to a new art. I wouldn’t bet either way as he might see some advantage. Nothing to do with remorse or the truth, of course.
Mike K (cd7278) — 5/10/2014 @ 10:49 amOne of the indisputable attributes of power, real power, is displayed in sharp relief when the obviously guilty can deny culpability to an audience fully knowledgeable of the incriminating facts and yet remains silent too cowed to show even a hint of doubt much less denounce the liar.
The most cowardly sycophants even compete with each other to worship at the alter of iniquity. Thus does the tyrant revel in the proofs of his complete immunity.
ropelight (5e61bd) — 5/10/2014 @ 11:12 amNot only does he owe an apology to Monica, particularly for the way his minions dragged her through the mud after the news broke, but he owes the American people an apology for dragging the rest of us through the same mud so he could stay in office.
He should have just resigned and saved the country an awful lot of bother.
Kevin M (b357ee) — 5/10/2014 @ 12:10 pmThat would have been the act of someone who put the nation above personal ambition. Neither Bill or Hillary Clinton qualifies.
ropelight (5e61bd) — 5/10/2014 @ 12:13 pmIf one doesn’t believe they’ve done wrong, there is nothing to apologize for. Also, with all the cover he got from feminists, his personal war on women became moot. And unfortunately, they are all still on their collective knees adoring him and providing cover. Monica and Palin, no one eats their own like the feminists.
Dana (5ed30d) — 5/10/2014 @ 12:18 pmUhh, question? It was never about Monica Lewinsky in the first place. It was about Clinton perjuring himself and suborning perjury in the Paula Jones sexual harassment trial.
I know the left likes to claim that was some sort of right wing puritanical witch hunt into a President’s private sex life. But Clinton signed the post-Tailhook (see, I have a reason to remember this) Violence Against Women Act that permitted the plaintiff to search for other patterns of conduct that would support the claim. So Clinton had no one else to blame but himself. Not only for the perjury, but for making the perjury necessary (to the mind of a lying sexual predator).
He was hoist on his own petard.
So how is an apology going to fix anything? And is he going to apologize to Jaunita Broderick, who credibly accused him of rape? How about Kathleen Willey? What about any other women James Carville smeared as “trailer park trash?”
Fine, dredge this all up, Clintons. Prove yourselves the manipulating, lying bastards we always knew you were.
Steve57 (d04ba3) — 5/10/2014 @ 12:33 pmthis does beg the queastion of why he simpkly did not refuse to answer the queastion.
Michael Ejercito (becea5) — 5/10/2014 @ 12:51 pmUpon reflection, Dana, this isn’t dredging up the past. We are very much living with the effects of both Tailhook and the Billy Jeff scandal today.
If you recall, feminists rallied around Billy Jeff and savaged his female accusers. Why? TIME contributor and WH correspondent Nina Burleigh put it crudely when she said that she’d be happy to get down on her knees and service Billy Jeff for keeping abortion legal.
Billy Jeff could advance the feminist agenda. This was so important to them they didn’t mind if he got away with using the leverage of his high office to get young girls, something that would have made them livid if it were a corporate CEO. They’d even do the deed themselves, if necessary or just out of gratitude as a reward. I believe there’s a word for women who are willing to exchange sex for something of value. I suggest we exchange the old one syllable word and replace it with “feminist.”
So Billy Jeff got a pass, but now it’s every other man who is presumed to be guilty by the “rape culture” crowd on college campuses (to cite one example). As per usual, Prof. Jacobson at L.I. has documented this, as have the bloggers at Powerline as they document Dartmouth’s (and by extension the Ivy League and beyond) descent into left-wing mob rule. To be accused is to be guilty, and to suggest that the accused deserves due process is to be part of “rape culture.”
We need to expand our time horizons. Some things aren’t really in the past. As I hope Tommy “Dude, that was like two years ago” Vietor learns.
Billy Jeff could have raped Juanita Broderick for all he feminists care, just as long as they got their college campuses.
Steve57 (d04ba3) — 5/10/2014 @ 1:01 pmI realize this is going to seem tautological, but because he’s a lying sexual predator. He thought he was smart enough to get away with the perjury, as he believed himself smart enough to get away with the crime itself.
There’s always a certain arrogant smugness among these types. Think Elliot Spitzer and his high priced call girls. He’s wiring sums of money large enough to be reported offshore, meanwhile he’s sending other men to jail for doing exactly what he’s doing (hopefully without the black socks, though). How could he possibly have thought he could get away with it? But think it he did.
I recall the BTK serial killer displayed the same kind of arrogance. He kept taunting police a long time after he made his last kill. He just thought he was too smart for them to catch. But he wasn’t; he sent a floppy disc (no, really) to a TV station. The cops got it; he hadn’t overwritten everything and they were able to extract sufficient identifying information to track him down.
Those whom the gods would destroy they first make mad.
Billy Jeff’s perjury, Client no. 9’s wire transfers, BTK’s floppy disc; don’t try to get into their minds and ask why.
Steve57 (d04ba3) — 5/10/2014 @ 1:12 pmThe thing one always needs to remember about the Bill Clintons ans John Kerrys of the world is that the Democrats have been trying for decades to find another JFK. And not JFK as he was, but a JFK as they remember him. So they keep supporting candidates who resemble JFK as he was (2nd rate politicians with good teeth and nice hair) and expecting them to morph into JFK as they have mythologized him.
Clinton had about two thirds of JFKs charm and maybe half his smarts, and the Dems spent huge amounts of political capitol propping him up. Kerry had scant charm, and slight smarts.
What the hell they see in Hillary escapes me.
C. S. P. Schofield (e8b801) — 5/10/2014 @ 1:14 pmI think maybe we should acknowledge that the word “feminist” does not have a singular definition and that the meaning of “feminism” has morphed substantially over the period of say the last 40 years. That’s why talking seriously about almost any public issue having to do with “women” is nearly impossible anymore.
elissa (a1c062) — 5/10/2014 @ 1:21 pmElissa, you are absolutely right. I have four sisters. The one closest to me in age is like a Siamese twin” to me in both thought and emotion – that is, until “feminism” entered into the mix. Now, a once privately shared, language has turned into our own “city of Babel”. we must start every serious discussion with a redefinition of terms, which we do out of love/respect for one another.
felipe (098e97) — 5/10/2014 @ 1:33 pmSorry, “enters”, not “entered”. This is how much I love my sister. Only she knows what I mean.
felipe (098e97) — 5/10/2014 @ 1:40 pmMy problem with Hillary is this:
Her husband broke his oath to her, multiple times. She forgave him and took him back, even though the cheating got worse and worse and worse.
This is unacceptable behavior in a President.
If another country breaks its treaties towards us, over and over and over and worse and worse and worse, they must be punished and stopped from cheating again.
She has shown she wouldn’t in the past and so she won’t in the future.
luagha (1de9ec) — 5/10/2014 @ 1:58 pmelissa @22, the usual suspects didn’t cover themselves in glory back in the ’90s and they haven’t improved with age. I rarely agree with Joe Scarborough but I’m pretty much in lockstep with him on this.
Joe Scarborough Goes Off On ‘Pathetic’ Columnists Shaming Lewinsky
And have the other feminists ever said anything negative about Nina Burleigh for saying this?
Sex for a Cause
If she’s still a member of the sisterhood in good standing I don’t think I’m painting with too broad a brush.
It put me in mind of this conversation Winston Churchill may (and knowing Churchill, no doubt did) have with his neighbor at a dinner party.
Steve57 (d04ba3) — 5/10/2014 @ 2:14 pmMLK jr. once said “We will not only remember the words of our enemies, but we will also remember the silence of our friends.”
I’m just remembering the silence of Nina Burleigh’s friends, elissa.
Steve57 (d04ba3) — 5/10/2014 @ 2:18 pmyes, Naughty Nina
Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 5/10/2014 @ 2:33 pmshe took more ballz to teh chin
than Yogi Berra
saucy li’l Nina
Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 5/10/2014 @ 2:42 pmher official Bill knee pads
did come in handy
Somehow, I don’t think looking sounding more like Crack Whore has a lot of upside.
Why remove all doubt?
gary gulrud (e2cef3) — 5/10/2014 @ 7:50 pmMonica was a whore
god love her
happyfeet (8ce051) — 5/10/2014 @ 7:51 pmWho cares, as has been pointed out, the real apology is due Willey and Broderick,
btw, the only really attractive one, Bill seems to have squired, was the one from highlander, Elizabeth Gracen,
narciso (3fec35) — 5/10/2014 @ 7:57 pm…the only reason Bill Clinton would ever consider a public apology would be for the sake of political power.
That’s how the Left typically operates. You’ve seen what they tried to do at Thanksgiving, right? All politics, all the time, serves their pursuit of political power nicely.
Blacque Jacques Shellacque (ff472d) — 5/10/2014 @ 11:00 pmThe most overused words in DC, and therein, Amerikkka–“You are in our thoughts and prayers”.
Coming from atheists just what can that possibly mean?
Cargo mercies?
gary gulrud (e2cef3) — 5/11/2014 @ 4:39 am#17 – Steve57 – when someone brings up Lewinsky and Bill, and how terrible that poor Bill was hounded and impeached for natural male urges inartfully expressed, I remind them that “poor Bill” was impeached for saying, under oath, (paraphrased, since I do not have the transcript of his testimony) “She lied!” …
What he did with Lewinsky was an active abuse of authority … what got him impeached (and his licence to practise law pulled, as I recall), was perjury …
It usually causes a quick change of subject …
Alastor (2e7f9f) — 5/11/2014 @ 8:52 amI took notice of Nancy Pelosi’s hand waving in her statement about partisanship in the upcoming Benghazi investigation, where she violated one of the Sicilian tenets on “how to spot a liar”.
Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 5/11/2014 @ 9:06 am26. Wasn’t that George Bernard Shaw, not Winston Churchill?
Sammy Finkelman (bcd7c8) — 5/11/2014 @ 9:09 amTammy Bruce is not a big Hillary fan:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/may/8/bruce-why-hillary-fears-monica/print/
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 5/11/2014 @ 10:41 amgary, I guarantee you’ll like this story or double your money back: http://www.watt-evans.com/jimtuckermansangel0.html
nk (dbc370) — 5/11/2014 @ 11:10 amSammy, note I wrote “may” when I tentatively attributed it to Churchill. Nobody seems to be entirely sure who said it.
But it does fall in line with the sort of thing Churchill would have said.
For instance, this is definitely a conversation Churchill had with his neighbor at a dinner party.
Socialite: Sir, if you were my husband I would give you poison.
Steve57 (185ff3) — 5/11/2014 @ 11:43 amChurchill: Madame, if I were your husband, I would take it.
So when does the MFM issue its apology for being the Baghdad Bob industry?
Round ball blows, let’s talk about the racism of not associating with those mom told us not to?
The Federal government is bent on our destruction, so lets talk about the insanity of rising up against following racists as heroes.
Urkel cannot solve a single problem that concerns us, so let’s talk about his human feeling of helplessness to address a problem none of us gives a damn about.
ESAD proles.
gary gulrud (e2cef3) — 5/12/2014 @ 6:31 am39. Thanx, that was a good one.
A book of interest to those so disposed is “Expecting Adam”, by Martha Beck.
gary gulrud (e2cef3) — 5/12/2014 @ 7:04 amDon’t expect an apology:
http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-Sports/2014/05/11/Rams-Coach-Not-Afraid-to-Cut-Michael-Sam-if-Not-Good-Enough
Sam says he should have been drafted in the 3rd.
Sorry, kid, hustle is not enough. Undersized, weak and slow makes it the Not For Long league.
gary gulrud (e2cef3) — 5/12/2014 @ 7:21 am