Discussion:
The Clintons held the Democratic Party hostage for 2 decades - corruption!
Add Reply
a425couple
2018-11-20 20:15:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
from
https://www.businessinsider.com/bill-clinton-hillary-revisionism-democrats-2017-11

The Clintons held the Democratic Party hostage for 2 decades — and the
sudden revisionism is inconveniently late

Josh Barro Nov. 17, 2017, 11:16 AM
Hillary Bill Clinton
Hillary and Bill Clinton. AP

Many liberals and Democrats have begun a reckoning in recent days of
Bill Clinton's presidency and the Clintons' domination of Democratic
politics for the past two decades.
It would have been much more convenient for Democrats to have rid
themselves of the Clintons years ago.

As some liberals have come to realize in recent days that a president
having sex with a White House intern is a very bad thing that shouldn't
be waved off, some conservative commentators have carped that this
timing is awfully convenient— Democrats are only discarding the Clintons
once they weren't needed anymore.

This is wrong. This timing is decidedly inconvenient.

It would have been much more convenient for the Democratic Party to
jettison the Clintons years ago. There would probably even be a
Democratic president right now.

The reputational vortex that drowned us all

As Matt Yglesias notes, Democrats couldn't find the time to break with
Bill Clinton over the sex stuff because Hillary's political career was
starting just as his was ending.

"Once Hillary Clinton threw her hat into the ring, she immediately
became America's presumptive first woman president, creating a kind of
reputational vortex that shielded her husband's behavior from scrutiny,"
Yglesias writes.

One reason Bill and Hillary's reputations weren't separable for
Democrats was the key role Hillary had played over the years in seeking
to discredit Bill's accusers. If you admitted that his sexual
misbehavior consisted of more than just a "consensual blow job," as
Hillary's longtime press aide, Philippe Reines, characterized Bill's
affair with Monica Lewinsky on Thursday, then you would have had to
admit she had been wrong, and not feminist, to defend him through it all.

But it isn't just the sex stuff. Over the years, the Clintons built a
financial apparatus together that got more and more uncomfortable for a
party of the left to defend.

The Clinton model of doing good should be an uncomfortable one for the
left. Associated Press

The Clintons forced Democrats to be the party of big-money interests
The Clinton Foundation, as we have been reminded ad nauseam by the
Clintons' advocates, is an international philanthropy that does really
valuable work. It has to be — it wouldn't work as a vehicle to build the
Clintons' profile and international business connections if it were a
pure Trump-style scam.

The Foundation provided little direct material benefit to the Clintons
(save as a place to warehouse Sidney Blumenthal when he couldn't get a
job in the Obama administration). But it meshed well with Teneo Group, a
consultancy built on monetizing Bill Clinton's global connections for
profit.

And you might ask, what's wrong with that? Why shouldn't the Clintons
get very rich while they did good for the world? Didn't they deserve it?
Believe me, their defenders asked these questions constantly — and
indignantly.

The Clinton model of doing good should be an uncomfortable one for the
left — one in which extremely wealthy people and countries with
questionable human-rights records come together and freely give their
money away to further their agendas and burnish their reputations,
convincing one another all the while that concentrations of wealth can
be a good thing so long as the wealthy are civic-minded.

I can't believe what the Clintons made Democrats defend

Anthony Weiner and Huma Abedin
Anthony Weiner at a July 2013 press conference with his wife, Huma
Abedin. Eric Thayer/Reuters

All these big-money entities made it impossible to tell where the
Clintons' public activities ended and private interests began.
During her last months in Hillary Clinton's State Department, the top
Clinton aide Huma Abedin was even allowed to work on the payrolls of the
State Department, the Clinton Foundation, and Teneo Group — all
simultaneously.

Abedin presumably needed the extra money to support her pervert
ex-congressman husband, whose actions would ultimately doom Hillary's
presidential campaign in spectacular Shakespeare-meets-Alexander Payne
manner. I can assure the conservative pundits: Accommodating this
arrangement proved not the least bit convenient for Democrats.

After finishing her service as secretary of state, Hillary Clinton made
a set of decisions that would put Democrats in the ridiculous position
of having to argue that it was appropriate and normal to spend a
two-year hiatus before your presidential campaign giving high-dollar
speeches to interest groups.

No, this is not something that "everybody does," goddammit! This
buckraking behavior was highly bizarre — so bizarre, Yglesias has noted,
that it led some people to assume Hillary was not going to seek the
presidency after all.

When I complain about this stuff, this is usually where Clintons'
defenders will say that she was running against Donald Trump. How can I
complain about her financial conflicts of interest when her opponent was
Trump?

This is absolutely the wrong question.

The right question is: How could Democrats possibly have been so stupid
as to nominate a candidate who could not gain a clean advantage on
independence from moneyed interests over Trump? Could they not find
anyone who had not taken $675,000 in speaking fees from Goldman Sachs?

One great irony of Hillary Clinton's career is that she became a senator
by elbowing another woman out of the way. Associated Press/Andrew Harnik

Democrats got what they deserved — but the country didn't

The core problem is that Democrats decided the Clintons were their
people, and then reasoned backward to their principles. If Hillary took
speaking fees from Goldman, then taking speaking fees from Goldman was
OK. If Bill got a blow job from an intern, then getting a blow job from
an intern was OK.

Look at Reines' tweet attacking Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand for saying
Bill's affair with Monica Lewinsky was resignation-worthy behavior.

"Over 20 yrs you took the Clintons' endorsements, money, and seat,"
Reines said. "Hypocrite."

Reines doesn't talk about New York's Senate seat as having belonged to
Hillary Clinton. He talks about it as having belonged to the Clintons —
jointly.

This is a cult.

In a way, Democrats have gotten exactly what they have deserved for
accommodating the Clintons' nonsense. Their antics have cost Democrats
not one but two presidential elections.

One great irony of Hillary Clinton's career is that she became a senator
by elbowing another woman out of the way. If she had not become the
first female senator from New York, Rep. Nita Lowey would have.

If that had happened — if the Clintons had agreed to go off into a
normal post-presidency instead of holding Democrats hostage in an
emotionally abusive relationship for 16 more years, or if Democratic
voters had insisted that they do so — that would have been decidedly
more convenient for the party.

There would probably be a Democratic president right now — maybe even a
female one.
Baxter
2018-11-20 21:39:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by a425couple
from
https://www.businessinsider.com/bill-clinton-hillary-revisionism-democr
ats-2017-11
The Clintons held the Democratic Party hostage for 2 decades — and
the sudden revisionism is inconveniently late
Utter bullshit.
Al Czervik
2018-11-23 18:58:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Baxter
Post by a425couple
from
https://www.businessinsider.com/bill-clinton-hillary-revisionism-democr
ats-2017-11
The Clintons held the Democratic Party hostage for 2 decades — and
the sudden revisionism is inconveniently late
Utter bullshit.
Enough about your breastfeeding experiences already.


---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com

Loading...