The Clinton Reckoning Is One of the Most Essential #MeToo Revelations Yet

[Voltaire2]

By CHRISTINA CAUTERUCCI JAN 26, 20186:40 PM

...
For the #MeToo movement against sexual harassment, insofar as it exists, that’s a good thing. If interpreted correctly, this Clinton report will function much the same as “Your Fave Is Problematic,” the blog that launched a popular catchphrase for beloved celebrities doing and saying dastardly (usually racist, sexist, or homophobic) things. It is, in other words, evidence that sexual harassment can thrive even in a workplace that is the culture’s most on-the-nose symbol of women’s empowerment. It disproves the comforting and false idea that people can be easily sorted into piles of good and bad actors when, in fact, there are a thousand degrees in between. And it is a striking reminder that women, too—to protect their own careers, friends, or self-image—sometimes help male abusers keep up their abuse.

...
There is value in this opportunity to evaluate the distance between Clinton’s words and actions. A culture-wide, generations-long epidemic of workplace sexual harassment and assault doesn’t persist without a broad network of complicity, composed of individuals with varying degrees of knowledge and culpability. For any movement against sexual misconduct to succeed, and for observers to fully grasp the machinations of abuse, that network must be scrutinized as thoroughly as the abusers themselves. The New York Times’ reporting on Harvey Weinstein revealed a slew of female executives willing to lure women to meet alone with Weinstein, in addition to a whole class of female assistants employed specifically to facilitate the producer’s bathrobe-and-hotel scheme. Some of those women might be considered victims themselves. That’s not the case with Clinton, who appears to have willingly put her friend’s career and her campaign’s immediate PR concerns above the safety of her female employees. Still, both Clinton and the likes of Weinstein’s assistants belong somewhere in the web of non-abusers who grease the wheels of abuse. We are only starting to understand how those wheels move.

This entry in the ongoing #MeToo saga may frustrate progressives, as did the assault allegations against former Minnesota senator Al Franken, for their illumination of the higher standards for left-leaning politicians. It would hardly be news if a Republican presidential candidate allowed a harasser to keep his job; it would be astonishing news if there wasn’t rampant harassment in, say, the ranks of the Donald Trump campaign. On Friday, the Republican National Committee was silent after its finance chair, Steve Wynn, was accused by dozens of women of sexual misconduct in a Wall Street Journal report. And few were surprised to hear the allegations against Bill O’Reilly, Roger Ailes, and the rest of the Fox News crew, because Fox News displayed just as much contempt for women on air as its male stars did behind the scenes.


But, as I argued when Franken resigned, holding Democrats to a higher standard is a good thing if it means fewer instances in which a woman who’s harassed by a higher-up gets reassigned while her harasser gets a slap on the wrist. According to the Times, in previous months, no former Clinton campaign staffers would speak about the 2008 incident. “That changed in the wake of the #MeToo movement,” the piece says. Today’s brighter spotlight on harassment and abuse is already encouraging progressives to point fingers at one of the most powerful figures on their side. The shame of this public showing of ethical dissonance should be enough to scare them into transforming their own workplaces, too.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/01/the-clinton-reckoning-is-one-of-the-most-essential-metoo-revelations-yet.html

[pnwmom]

1. This article is slanted hard against Hillary and doesn't acknowledge that TEN YEARS AGO

the standards were very different. The man had his pay docked (a few months pay, which is significant to most people) and was instructed to go through training. This was more than happened to most men who engaged in similar behavior.

But yeah, some people will always find a way to blame HILLARY for a man's misbehavior.

[dalton99a]

2. +1

[Voltaire2]

3. So ten years ago it was ago to sexually abuse women at work and cover it up?

I didn't know that.

But yes she explicitly states that we *should* expect a double standard. We actually care about this issue, they don't.

[Ms. Toad]

11. Why would we expect anyone who proclaimed, in 1995,

that women's rights are human rights to know in 2008 that it is inappropriate to respond to allegations of sexual harassment in the workplace by, among other things, transferring the woman to another job.

[R B Garr]

15. Where is the outrage about two women being transferred

from Bernie’s campaign — much more recent. It’s hard to take this outrage so seriously without a proper accounting of how some other candidates handled their staffing issues in a fluid campaign environment.

[Ms. Toad]

23. This particular conversation is about Clinton.

If Sanders, or anyone else, is dismissing a similar action by Sanders because it occurred before the #MeToo movement, my reaction would be the same. Anyone who purports to be a woman's advocate should not be excusing (or excusing others') inappropriate actions using that as an excuse.

Anyone who truly cares about women's rights didn't just wake up a couple of months ago and realize sexual harassment was pervasive and wrong.

[R B Garr]

24. This looks more like an excuse to excoriate Clinton because

so-and-so would have been better. It comes across as just another Clinton vendetta and it really reeks. This is why we have Trump. Impossible double standards and endless fault finding.

Both Sanders and Clinton campaigns occurred before the #MeToo movement. Apparently only Clinton is excoriated because she didn't fire someone (ten years ago!) when Bernie had similar problems and also didn't fire them (just two years ago).

I guess this isn't really the party of labor after all...? No more employee assistance programs where people are diverted to educational programs before being fired. Just fire them.

This happened TEN YEARS ago, and employee assistance programs were big then, but let's give the corporations a break and eliminate them. Too costly. Firing people is the way to go.

[Ms. Toad]

58. Pay attention to what I'm saying, not what you think/wish/etc. I was saying.

I am responding specifically to the excuse that it was 10 years ago. If you believe I am responding for any other reason, please link to a single single other post I have made on this issue that suggests I am generally attacking her for her response, or that I thought the employee should have been fired - rather than the two things I expressly addressed: (1) excuse being offered that someone who fashioned themselves as an advocate for women didn't know better 10 years ago and (2) transferring the accuser.

Please link to anything I have said that suggests that I am excusing Sanders on the basis that the #MeToo movement occurred after similar incidents.

Please link anything I have said suggesting what I believe she should have done with this particular employee. Or better yet, go find my posts on Franken - in which I repeatedly said that even though I believed the women, I did not think he should resign.

I am purely responding to the defense that someone who touts herself as advocate for women should be excused for transferring the accuser because the incident happened before #MeToo. I've been involve in women's advocacy since the 70s, long before #MeToo - and the fact that this event occurred before #MeToo is NO excuse for woman's advocate transferring the accuser - whether it happened a decade ago OR four decades ago.

Don't make accusations about my motives, unless you can back them up. I am very straightforward about what I mean - if I didn't say I thought he should have been fired, don't assume I believe he should have been and don't put words in my mouth.

[R B Garr]

61. Okay, you are responding to that one reassignment element only.

I'll still stick with my observations that this is a gross double standard and just gratuitous Hillary bashing. If Hillary were a national employer and that was a standard practice or that had occurred in her place of employment, then that could be a reason to question her.

But this was in a campaign environment where staff comes and goes literally based on logistics, rapidly moving and changing voting results or current news events -- any number of things. She has just as much right as any man to hire and stick with those who enhance her as a candidate. Her campaign shouldn't be expected to operate as some kind of den mother or socker mom shuttle system for employees who have complaints. It came up; she handled it. It's not like this person expected to have long term employment in a political campaign. It's a time limited event. Bernie had similar problems and look how they were handled. He wasn't expected to diminish himself or his national presence to go between staffers.

[Ms. Toad]

70. I'm talking about both the transfer AND more specifically, the excuses being made on DU

that it's all find and dandy because it happened before #MeToo - so how could she expect to know better.

As a self-described advocate for women, that excuse doesn't pass the laugh test.

Note: I have not seen Clinton claim that excuse. I actually suspect she would reject it. What I have seen is that excuse offered by those determined to blindly dismiss all criticism of her, regardless of whether it is valid or not - and regardless of how much such an excuse would have been ridiculed if offered by a Republican (or Sanders, for that matter).

[R B Garr]

73. Trying to accuse people of blindly rejecting "criticism" of her is just another excuse

to bash her with impunity. Not buying it. There is valid criticism and then there is just completely unprincipled pile-ons and double standards. Hillary is routinely subjected to the latter in the name of "critiquing", but that same pile-on is rejected for other candidates -- hence the glaring double standards.

She was a national candidate. So was Bernie. She shouldn't be held to a different standard. She's not a den mother. MeToo is only one aspect of this. This was TEN YEARS ago. The MeToo hashtag is just being exploited to denigrate her. She's not a national corporation or employer; she didn't move a temporary employee to Siberia just to derail her career. She didn't cover anything up. The affected employee said Hillary was a source of inspiration. No one is talking about the two employees transferred from Bernie's campaign. If any criticism is blindly dismissed, it's not about Hillary.

This is just an opportunity to hold her to higher standards that are not expected of others. She had no long term employment to offer and her campaign was fluid and mobile, like all campaigns. She has every right to keep her campaign on track to enhance herself -- just like everyone else who campaigns.

[Ms. Toad]

79. This discussion is about Clinton, not about Bernie,

and about the doesn't-pass-the-laugh-test excuses/defenses for her transfer of an accuser in a sexual harassment incident that it was long before the #MeToo movement. If you're concerned about the #MeToo hashtag being use to denigrate her, then don't offer it as an excuse for why her behavior 10 years ago was just hunky-dory. That's my primary point.

The suggestion that similar concerns should be raised about every other person in the world (why aren't you complaining about Trump, the corporations, places with Sharia law), or even every other democrat/ally (why aren't you complaining about Sanders) anytime there is a specific discussion about Hillary is ludicrous.

If there is a discussion about Bernie, with similar excuses being offered, I'll respond to that, as well.

I have not started any discussions about Clinton generally as to this issue, and what she should or should not have done. I have not participated broadly in discussions about what she should or should not have done.

I find it highly inappropriate, though, that on DU people are making excuses for Clinton that we would correctly condemn if offered by Trump (for example) for similar behavior.

[R B Garr]

82. This is most definitely about Bernie because it is about double standards.

So talk about not passing the laugh-test excuse. Since you bring up posters here -- most of the posters maligning Hillary are the same folks, so it works both ways.

I didn't offer the MeToo hashtag as an excuse. The article itself uses the MeToo hashtag to tie Hillary in with Weinstein and his "luring" women, and make it sound like this was a huge conspiracy and huge character reveal about Hillary, when in reality, it wasn't. It was an incident that happened in a fluid campaign environment where a woman dared to make her campaign front and center and didn't act like a den mother with a shuttle van to deliver employees where they preferred. It certainly isn't about sexual harassment if it's not about how a man's campaign handled the same incident without a peep from those so concerned about Hillary.

What's highly inappropriate is to say this is about sexual harassment when it really is just an excuse to malign Hillary some more. You are trying to denigrate the woman's entire career and public life and beliefs just because of some decision about one employee on one campaign TEN years ago. It was a decision in the moment, the man was disciplined. There was no long-term employment that was compromised. Neither Bernie's campaign nor Hillary's is about Sharia Law or anything else you mentioned.

[Hortensis]

65. The GOP and Russia weaponized Hillary's name long ago.

Tie a message to it, launch, and it goes straight to the gut, bypassing the guard posts of intellect.

This isn't about sexual harassment at all. This article is a delivery system of poison into the Democratic camp and it struck gut.

We know that 100%, Mrs. Toad, because if it was about harassment, we'd be talking about both Sanders and Hillary, admitting that her campaign did better by its employees, and all of us coming together to agree righteously that the GOP is the enemy of women's rights and far behind all of us.

[R B Garr]

75. Hortensis, I love this post. I hope that you resubmit it for Mrs. Toad since I see

it has her name in the text.

I totally agree with you. This whole article is being presented as nefarious Clinton derangement syndrome text, but when you really break it down, she was involved in a campaign where she was preoccupied with her next move as a candidate. Men do that routinely, and they are expected to do that. Women are obviously maligned over it, especially Hillary.

So you are SO right -- this is not about harassment after all.

[Hortensis]

80. :) Ms. Toad, Ms. Toad, Ms. Toad, whoo-hooo!

Lol. Actually, hers is just one of the names I only remembered because I just saw it. She clearly knows about Hillary's decades of fighting for women's rights, though, but amazingly does not see her as a "true advocate."

Gee, I wonder, who would be those "true" advocates protecting womankind from our callous, backward exploiters like Hillary, then?

This behavior is SO WRONG.

Hillary at the U.N.'s Fourth World Conference on Women in Beijing. She is, of course, most famous for challenging China to rectify its poor record at the first one.

[ismnotwasm]

86. She could have handled it better, but she DID handle it.

She is still in contact with the victim. I wish people would pay attention

[delisen]

40. Sexual harasser punished 10 yrs ago! Was it wrong?

Did Clinton campaign do something wrong ten yrs ago? Bring us the facts.

Sure it takes a little research but that is the role of the reporter-who, what where, when, and how.

[Ms. Toad]

59. Pay attention to what I am addressing. Not the strawman you wish I was addressing.

I criticized precisely two things, the facts of which are undisputed:

The defenses/excuses that the incident occurred before #MeToo
Transferring the accuser to another position.

No true advocate for women would excuse the inappropriate response of transferring the accuser to another job on the basis that the #MeToo movement hadn't happened yet. I haven't seen Clinton claim it, but there are plenty on DU who are excusing that inappropriate response 10 years ago, long after Clinton declared herself an advocate for women, as acceptable because it was the dark ages.

[delisen]

64. Re: Transferring the the accuser to another position

Did you know whether the accuser asked, or wanted to be transferred? The NYT article I read did not address that.

What right do you or anyone else have to tell an accuser whether the he or she must remain in a position if he or she prefers a transfer?

I myself have been involved in such a situation just recently. The accuser did not want to stay in her position and was given the opportunity to select a position within the organization and choose a higher position which gave her more opportunity to use her skills and talents.

While the fact that she was transferred may not be in dispute, the news article did not address the details.

While you may consider the response inappropriate for yourself, the rest of us in such a situation have the right of choice and many of us value out rights
If you think you have evidence that the employee was transferred against her will, I think you should present it.

If you can get a copy of the policies that the campaign lawyers say was in existence I think it would be useful in making judgements.

Your judgement about what makes a person a true advocate for women is your judgment, your opinion.
The remaining millions of us in the US are entitled to form our our opinions. To me it is the difference between democracy and authoritarianism,

[Ms. Toad]

74. Darn those non-disclosure agreements . . . that Clinton could waive.

Until she does, and permits the woman to say whether she wanted to be transferred or not, it is a fair presumption that the move was consistent with the standard (discriminatory) practice of the time: Move the accuser, rather than the accused (even when there is enough evidence to discipline him). As in a civil court, if you choose to remain silent, it is fair to draw presumptions from that silence. Here, not only is Clinton remaining silent (as to the transfer), she holds the key to the lips of the other person who could clarify it.

Sorry, but you cannot honestly advocate for women for decades and simultaneously pretend that either sexual harassment is brand new with the #MeToo movement - or that transferring the accuser (especially when there is enough evidence to discipline him) was an acceptable response 10 years ago (or even a couple of decades ago) just because #MeToo hadn't happened yet. It doesn't pass the laugh test.

[Demit]

81. You write as if Strider was not disciplined.

You write as if Hillary Clinton pretended that he didn't sexually harass the campaign aide. Neither of those things is true. She accepted the evidence of sexual harassment and she took action.

[Cha]

88. Mahalo, delisen, for explaining how reality

can be quite different than what goes on in someone's head.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

93. Yours is like the 10th anecdote I've seen posted in last several days where the victim...

... got a promotion and better job out of being transferred due to sexual abuse.

I never knew being the victim of sexual harassment could be so rewarding

Women I know in real life have suffered PTSD type effects from abusers in the office.

[delisen]

105. Choice. You present anecdotal evidence of women who have suffered ptsd

type effects from abusers in the office. I can present experience of both bad outcome and good outcomes.

The point is it always should remain the woman's choice whether or not to be transferred. It is not for the rest of us to make decisions for that person- whether it is the company in question or persons not directly involved who are concerned about sexual abuse in the workplace. We who are concerned are not the direct victim and the victim is entitled by virtue of her personhood to make his or her own decisions.

[Demit]

83. No True Scotsman argument, huh?

Also, I think you have it backwards. It's Clinton's critics who are arguing that because the MeToo movement exists now, Hillary Clinton should have followed its zero-tolerance dictates then.

What no one will acknowledge is that Strider was in a unique position in her campaign. It's impolitic to have to acknowledge it, I suppose, but there was no one else who had the ins to the religious leaders that he did. I don't know what job the woman had but apparently her skills were transferrable, and she continued to work in the campaign, happily not in the same office as her harasser.

You're calling Clinton's response inappropriate. That's a matter of opinion, even in the current environment. It's certainly not a basis for disparaging a woman's entire career.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

27. Whataboutism

Whataboutism (also known as whataboutery) is a variant of the tu quoque logical fallacy that attempts to discredit an opponent's position by charging them with hypocrisy without directly refuting or disproving their argument, which is particularly associated with Soviet and Russian propaganda.

[R B Garr]

30. How banal. Hillary is the one targeted by the Russians. You should research

double standards expected of women. Her big mistake is that she didn't fire someone -- ten years ago. I guess you are for big corporations now?? Employee assistance programs are a thing of the past. Any indiscretion and you just get fired.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

33. Straw man

A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent. One who engages in this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man".

[R B Garr]

36. Yes, double standards are a hypocritical strawman. When a man is not criticized

for something that a woman is excoriated for, that is a double standard. BTW, I saw your posts where you were outraged that this man wasn't fired, so I guess you are all for firing people. That is really the only criticism here -- Clinton didn't handle this properly because the man wasn't fired.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

99. Yeah, men who rub on women and kiss their heads and send suggestive emails to subordinates...

... in the middle of the night should absolutely be fired.

Absolutely 100 frickin' percent.

Since when did this become an issue?

[R B Garr]

102. It's not too late to write Sanders about your concerns over the Arturo allegations. nt

[Hassin Bin Sober]

103. .

[R B Garr]

104. Hillary was the one attacked by the Russians.

Have you ever shown concern for that before?? This is something new.

[NCTraveler]

39. Deflection.

A debate tactic used when one is confronted with an uncomfortable truth.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

49. Absolutely. This thread is ground zero!

[R B Garr]

54. Actually it's a sobering look at double standards.

The hypocritical double standards women are held to when the same circumstances are ignored when a man doesn't fire someone. The only nit being picked is that Hillary didn't fire someone -- ten years ago.

[R B Garr]

51. Why would someone be uncomfortable with the truth that Hillary

disciplined a campaign staffer? The only crumb the Hillary haters have is that she didn't fire him. That is the "debate tactic."

[NCTraveler]

56. Completely agree.

Calling arguments strawmen and the like, when they are clearly providing context, is deflection.

[R B Garr]

60. I thought that's what you meant, but just wanted to check

considering a response you got.

[emulatorloo]

95. +1

Some can’t get out of primary 2016 mode, can they?

[Demit]

63. I suspect that if she did fire him she'd be condemned for doing it quietly

and not shouting it from the rooftops. Or, if she had called a press conference to announce it, they'd criticize her for being overdramatic and self-congratulatory. Inauthentic too, probably.

There will always be criticism for whatever action Hillary Clinton takes. She's damned if she does, damned if she doesn't. The appetite for it is bottomless, too. It's Hillary-haters all the way down.

[R B Garr]

66. Yes all the way around. Great points.

[Demit]

76. I had a mother like that. She could find the fault in whatever you did.

Eventually you came to realize that. Because you'd adjust your actions thinking okay, I'm doing what she wants now, but then there'd be something wrong with that too. Or, if she approved of it, you were doing it for the wrong reasons (inauthentic).

Hillary Clinton listened to everyone involved at the time, then arrived at a solution that attempted to satisfy everyone's concerns (including her own desire to do outreach to faith communities). She didn't know she was supposed to meet the conditions of a zero-tolerance movement that was going to happen in the future, ten years later.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

94. Overruled a firing recommendation.

[delisen]

42. Bring us the facts! Not "some people sayism"

[ismnotwasm]

87. Cherry picking

Picking whatever part of an argument that supports your opinion with zero regards for any other other facts or relevancies. See also; spin

[karynnj]

98. Two wrongs do not make a right

The reason that this hits harder is twofold. First, women's rights and children's rights were HRC's signature issue. That likely is why you have some people essentially arguing that she get a pass because her position on this issue is well known and has proven time and time again. There are others that hold her to a higher standard just because that was the level she demanded. For people who admire her, that is why attacks on her actions on this are so hard to take. This leads to minimizing, disputing the facts, or making excuses. It is too close to the core of who Clinton is.

However, people are not perfect and here, she likely made a pragmatic decision to keep a person she saw as unique and valuable to the campaign, especially if there were to be a Clinton general election, with essentially a slap on the wrist. This is hardly evil -- just not a profile in courage. Consider this - imagine she had fired him and she won the nomination ... and lost narrowly to McCain with people suggesting that had she just had a stronger outreach to evangelicals, she would have won. Wouldn't an ardent feminist have agreed that this devil's bargain was good for the country?

Bernie never became the frontrunner -- and in fact never became close enough that he got the level of scrutiny that goes with being the nominee. I never allowed my kids to defend bad behavior because "another kid" did the same thing. I certainly don't want to accept it for a leader.

[R B Garr]

101. None of what you say matched what happened. The man was disciplined.

And this isn't kid level stuff so, please..... It's about double standards, one set for women and one set for men.

[uponit7771]

12. Due process is covering something up?! REALLY !?!? Stop hating her, it's not fun

[KitSileya]

17. How is going through an HR process that ends up with docking of pay and mandatory counseling

"covering it up" Can you please tell me that?

So they investigate, determine the accusations are credible, and disciplines the offender, and that is somehow not doing anything and covering it up? Disciplining someone who sexually abuses is to be ok with sexual abuse?

Wow, with Clinton Derangement Syndrome black is white and up is down and we've always been at war with Eurasia.

[George II]

18. I didn't hear or read anything about a "cover up". The man was disciplined, demoted, and docked...

....some pay.

And could you please direct me to where anyone in the article "explicitly states that we should expect a double standard"? Nowhere in the article you posted.

[KitSileya]

35. Yeah, disciplining a sexual harasser by demoting him, docking his pay, mandatory counseling,

All of that is doing nothing and covering it up if you're Hilary Clinton.

My God, the misogyny is blatant and the Hilary hatred all-encompassing for some. Facts don't matter, actions don't matter - they substitute their own fake world view for facts. In their world, Hilary is a monster that stole the election from their savior, who kills people, traffics children as prostitutes from a pizza parlor, and is dying from a dozen ailments - all at the same time.

[George II]

37. Didn't she writes some essays about ......................oh, that's right, she didn't.

[Ninsianna]

26. Well, since no one said that and it is literally not applicable to this incident, you

didn't read that either. I didn't know that in 2008 actually responding to the complaint instead of dismissing it was so very wrong, but then I guess we don't look at everyone like we look at Hillary and expect her to do what everyone is doing right now, that they didn't even do last year.

You should expect a double standard where you hold one woman to a totally different standard than any man? She actually cares about this issue, that's why in 2008, instead of saying this behavior was okay, and covering it up, her campaign actually did something about it. Sorry it wasn't the perfect 2018 solution, but the constant abuse and attacks are simply ridiculous and the lies and false outrage is simply not believable.

If we care about this issue then we should actually address the stuff that happened in 2016, should we not? Like Arturo Carmona for instance? It's the behavior that's the problem right, like a guy in charge who has a sexual harassment complaint reported to him by his staff and his comment is that she might have enjoyed it if the harasser was younger? That's the sort of thing we care about right?

[NCTraveler]

41. Cover up?

Transparent.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

5. Where do you gat "a couple months pay"? All the articles I've seen say a couple weeks

[pnwmom]

6. I'll look for it. But I just found that he was ALSO given a demotion, including a drop in pay.

Addressed to Strider, the language stipulated that, effective Nov. 16, he would be docked in title and pay. “You will be demoted and your title and future compensation will be commensurate with a one step demotion,” the email reads. The recommendations also required Strider to complete counseling, and his campaign email would also be set up with controls preventing him from contacting the woman who lodged the complaint.

https://www.buzzfeed.com/rubycramer/hillary-clinton-let-him-stay-women-say-his-harassment?utm_term=.iw7Ezl3DQ#.rqqxVmLBZ

[George II]

20. Not only that, but there was a procedure in place to handle situations like that, and apparently....

....that procedure was acceptable to anyone hired by the campaign.

Now, had they deviated from that procedure and done anything different and/or stricter, there would be an uproar "they're not following the procedure".

When it comes to Hillary Clinton, "damned if you do, damned if you don't". And sadly the articles about this situation, beginning with the NY Times mis-characterization of "shielding", have a definite negative slant.

[Me.]

77. The NYT Recently Did The Same

though for less weeks in the case of star reporter Glen Thrush

[karynnj]

96. Even in the 1980s and 1990s, there were people fired for harassment in many companies

In fact, most large companies had policies on it and training on it was included in corporate meetings.

What is new is the huge amount of attention and the fact that many who had stayed quiet in past decades AND many very important men being publicly held accountable.

I would say what happened here is that he was someone with a unique role and connections to people that benefited her campaign. He also was one of the people who vouched for HRC religious beliefs to the evangelicals. It is easy to see that she made the decision that firing him might leave a gap in that effort that could not be replaced. It was pragmatic and I would bet that relatively few decisions made in campaigns place values above likely success.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

4. Wow.

[progressoid]

7. "holding Democrats to a higher standard is a good thing"

Now, why would we want to do that?

[Hassin Bin Sober]

8. One would think

[Voltaire2]

21. That was sort of the point of the article, but some people just can't get past

the fact that Clinton did not behave perfectly. The author is saying something I happen to agree with: we can clearly differentiate our party on this issue. We have to reject partisanship here, and make it clear to all women in this country that our party stands with them.

[R B Garr]

22. Holding women to a higher standard is more like it.

Only Hillary is expected to micromanage every interaction between her temporary campaign staff. She has to take time away from the intensity of her campaign to make sure everyone is happy. They were all out of a job soon enough anyway—it’s a campaign. It’s not like people are showing up to the same job and their stability is threatened. The whole environment is in a constant state of flux.

In the meantime, a lawyer called one of the victims on Bernie’s campaign to feel out if they might sue —after two staffers were reassigned. But that’s okay, which is just pure hypocrisy.

This whole article sounds like an over-reach. How dare Hillary focus on herself as a candidate. That’s a privilege only for men. This was TEN years ago. She took corrective action; it certainly wasn’t ignored.

[Ninsianna]

32. So the point of the criticism is that perfection is expected of Clinton,

in 2008 of the perfection we've defined for 2017. We can indeed differentiate our party on this issue by not acting like Republicans making unreasonable demands in hindsight. We do have to reject the Republican partisan hackery that leads to these double standards in retrospect.

Women understand our party stands with them, we also understand the misogyny inherent in insisting that a woman is held to different standards than a man is. We see what's happening here, and we're not pleased, how much more clear do we have to make that to you men who insist on doing the very wrong thing, no matter how many times you're told that these double standards are exactly what you keep doing wrong?

[Voltaire2]

44. No actually that is not the point at all.

Instead of pretending that our side can do no wrong, we should admit our mistakes, re-affirm our commitment to equality and diversity, and proudly pursue a bold and comprehensive agenda for a future for america that promises economic and social justice for everyone.

[Ninsianna]

47. Except no one is doing that, not on the Democratic or Clinton side.

We should indeed admit our mistakes, and do all the things you said, so when will the outcry for our side to admit that we all make mistakes and that employing Arturo Carmona?

How do we do this when we're only attacking a woman for holding a man accountable in 2008, not covering it up and actually believing and listening to women? We saw this in 2016, and no one is breathing one word what went on with this man, not even the campaign he worked for. How do we do this when we refuse to call this out when we see it, and barely a year later?

When does pretending "our side can do no wrong" begin? When does the admitting mistakes part start? When does the affirming of our commitment to equality and diversity and rejection of double standards start?

Or does that only apply to some women, who should just listen to what men want to make clear to us, and who refuse to listen to us?

[TeamPooka]

9. Only Hillary Clinton would be held accountable for the sexual harrassement committed by some man.

[uponit7771]

13. +1, especially when there was action taken after due process. They hate her

... so much

[mythology]

57. Blatantly not true

Our society blames lots of women for men's bad behavior. What was a rape victim wearing for example.

[progressoid]

67. ahem....Al Franken

[Demit]

78. ? Who was the woman blamed for not controlling Al Franken?

The situations aren't comparable at all.

[loyalsister]

68. The article also points the finger at women who were Weinstein's enablers

It's significant that she protected the most powerful man in the most high profile instances of sexual misconduct. We had an opportunities for to say sexual misconduct is not appropriate anywhere and especially when it comes to men in positions of the highest authority during hearings for Clarence Thomas, when Bill Clinton was running and again in 1998. We didn't. And the "champion for women" didn't draw the line in the sand that a credible feminist would have ten yrs. later.

There were women who were criticized for defending Bill Cosby and the only people who give Malania Trump a pass are Trump supporters. The stories of women who have enabled sexual predators matters because it is one more reason that it has not been challenged until 40 yrs after the women finally demanded equality. A movement that took place 50yrs after we got the right to vote.

Both Clinton's could contribute to. the momentum of the me too movement. However, the first woman to run for president in a general election is standing in the way rather than admitting to being part of an institution that has objectified and victimized women. The thing is that a lot of us have been a part of it. My mom discouraged me from quitting a job where the manager made me uncomfortable with his leering. It has been happening for a long time and both genders have participated. Refusing to be honest about our heroes flaws is something we usually criticized when we see it on the other side.

[Lordquinton]

10. Rough

But the truth has to come to daylight.

[uponit7771]

14. ... and this article is far from it. Just wanted to finish the statement for you :)

[Lucinda]

25. +1

[Lordquinton]

29. Out of the woodwork

[George II]

19. And that "truth" is? Everyone is acting like this was/is a big secret. It isn't.

[Lordquinton]

31. Oh George...

How wonderful to see you.

[George II]

34. God Bless You Lord!

[Lordquinton]

43. Satan watch over you!

[Ninsianna]

48. Indeed it has, sadly, there are some who cannot handle the truth, hence they

attack, abuse, and lie about Hillary, rather than address the truth.

https://medium.com/misogynyleaks/as-congressional-candidate-arturo-carmona-denies-allegations-of-sexism-a-deluge-of-prominent-women-20dfc49dbc29

[loyalsister]

69. It's uncomfortable to be sure

The really uncomfortable and unfortunate fact we will eventually have to come to terms with is that a woman (feminist?) who protected men who were guilty of serial sexual misconduct lost to a sexual predator.

Not nearly as many women would be saying me too if it weren't for so many men and women who looked the other way.

[KitSileya]

89. How on earth can you say she protected them?

For fuck's sake, she disciplined and demoted the guy! How is that protecting him?

[Lordquinton]

90. He would have been fired

And he was later fired for the same thing.

[loyalsister]

91. Really?

He should have been fired, and it should have killed any chance he had to use that job as a reference.
As for her husband, she, and most of us Democrats stood by him.

[mariesa]

16. Everything is Hillary's fault.

[delisen]

45. The buck stops with Clinton because all know she is real president

Why else would the NYT and secondary press maker the ultimate standard for everything

[still_one]

53. actually Hillary's and Barack's fault

[WhiteTara]

28. What a pile of sh*t.

Three Mile Island, Hiroshima, all drought, plagues and climate change...Hillary's fault.

[jalan48]

38. When was the photo taken of Al Franken pretending to fondle another comic's breasts?

Who's holding who to a higher standard?

[seaglass]

46. Hmm, I think the steps taken were appropriate. Pay docked, counseling required - or does everything

require getting fired from your job?

The only issue I have is the woman who got transferred to another position - was it equal or better, was she satisfied with the outcome? I don't know the answer to that and feel this is important.

[delisen]

50. Reporter uses H Clinton to justify her own sexual harassment

shielding of of male NY times reporter Glenn Thrush.

This above story is based on recent article by Maggie Haberman in the NY Times

The propagation of propaganda against H Clinton-This a a great example of a propaganda network in action.


Maggie Haberman is continuing to work with known sexual abuser at New York Times, Glenn Thrush, at New York Times. Ny Times editor docked pay of Thrush but shielded him by refusing to fire him.

Haberman has not protested the New York Times shielding of Thrush. Instead she is collaborating with him on a book!

Shocking. But the way the Haberman story-which is short on facts- has been picked up by other publications does show us how propaganda can move swiftly and gain wide readership in the current communications world.

Notice the weasel word "appears" in Carterucci's article above. I am astonished that Slate published this.

The writer tells us that "It would hardly be news if a Republican presidential candidate allowed a harasser to keep his job; it would be astonishing news if there wasn’t rampant harassment in, say, the ranks of the Donald Trump campaign."

Are we to conclude that we must the ignore the Republican harassment today as "not news' and instead go back ten years to . Clinton's campaign and try to make news?

Today's news is Glenn Thrush......why don' Haberman and Carterucci team up and gives us an article on Thrush and how the NY times sheds him?

[still_one]

52. what a surprise, another Hillary hit piece

[elfin]

55. If Gillibrand runs on this type of BS rationalizing her "purity" stance

She is worthy of not only losing the Presidency., but her Senate seat as well.

She and her acolytes are pushing MeToo into MeTooMuch.

[Stinky The Clown]

62. Hey!! I have an idea!! Lets post more anti HRC stuff while the turd that was the USA is . . . .

. . . . circling the drain with the Russians having pressed the flush lever.

That is a VERY slanted article.

[MFM008]

71. +1

!!!

[mercuryblues]

72. I need help understanding this

people are mad because Al Franken was forced out over allegations. Yet, people are also mad that this guy wasn't fired ASAP. Instead of being suspended, docked pay and counseling, he should have been fired ASAP, because why?

he ended up working for a SuperPac, reoffended and was fired.

The target of his harassment is on record saying she was pleased with the outcome, so being moved to a new position is a moot point. If the same standard was applied to Franken, he would still be Senator.

[betsuni]

84. "The Clinton Reckoning" -- this is stupid.

[ismnotwasm]

85. Bullshit.

Jesus these assholes are annoying.

[Pathwalker]

92. This link best describes the CRAP posted here:

https://www.vox.com/2015/7/6/8900143/hillary-clinton-reporting-rules


IOW - take this bullshit and put it out in the back forty where it belongs.

[Cha]

97. Confessions of a Clinton reporter: The media's 5 unspoken rules for covering Hillary

Mahalo for the report, Pathwalker.

2) Every allegation, no matter how ludicrous, is believable until it can be proven completely and utterly false. And even then, it keeps a life of its own in the conservative media world.

https://www.vox.com/2015/7/6/8900143/hillary-clinton-reporting-rules

Not only "conservative"

[mercuryblues]

100. +100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000