|
 |
October 11, 2003 GROPING-GATE EXPLAINED....I don't think this is going to change anybody's mind, but LA Times editor John Carroll has a piece in the Sunday paper explaining his decision to publish the Arnold-groping story five days before the recall election. His main points:
Carroll is obviously pretty peeved at the accusations hurled at the Times, and it shows. I suspect that the most quoted part of his explanation will be this one, where he hits back at reports that the Times acted maliciously:
For what it's worth, (a) he's probably right, and (b) he probably shouldn't have written this. Under the circumstances, it sounds a little too close to Bill O'Reilly petulance for his own good. POSTSCRIPT: Carroll also tells us that the story was too graphic for some people. "My wife informed me that I'd strayed far over the line in publishing one of the anecdotes," he says. At a wild guess, click on the story and search for "coffee" to find the anecdote he's talking about. A complete list of all the groping stories is here. Posted by Kevin Drum at October 11, 2003 03:13 PM | TrackBackComments
I am still trying to figure out why publishing true stories about a candidate a week before the election is a smear. Posted by: EmmaAnne at October 11, 2003 03:27 PM | PERMALINKBecuase there was nothing pornographic telling stories of Cubans strip searching white women at the turn of the century... Posted by: Rob at October 11, 2003 03:30 PM | PERMALINKAfter Monica and the cigar, I wasn't aware there was a line anymore. The TV news doesn't even warn us to send the children out of the room before they give us Kobe details. Posted by: Justene at October 11, 2003 03:36 PM | PERMALINKAt least we can all be relieved that by the public summarily dismissing the Schwartzenegger allegations--(and by the way, I have film industry friends who have been saying things like this for years)--this method of taking down your opponent should be off the table for years. This doesn't mean that I don't support the LA Times for running their article, quite the opposite. I just think that perhaps we've seen the end of personal persecution against public candidates as it relates to their sex lives. Thank you, GOP! Posted by: Kat at October 11, 2003 04:06 PM | PERMALINKI'm talking to the shadows Now a man is born to go a lovin' Why does every scandal have to end with a "gate"? It's a good thing that they didn't try to break into the HoJo across the street, or every scandal would end with a "Johnson". Here's the problem: The Times published the story on the THURSDAY BEFORE THE ELECTION, ie. the traditional day that damaging info is ALWAYS released during during dirty campaigns to insure that it's the final major story people see before voting. IMO, the Times made a strategic error of epic proportions by publishing when they did, undermining both their own credibility and that of the story. By and large, people seem to have taken the highly suspicious timing of the release to indicate that the information was false or exaggerated, and could therefore be disregarded. Now whether or not Carroll (or whoever made the decision) was in fact out to "get" Arnold with a classic Thursday surprise, he had to know (or had to be unbelievably naive not to know) that it was going to look that way. So all this whining about people misinterpreting what was done seems a little disingenuous. Personally I think heads should roll over the decision to publish that Thursday--had the story been released even Monday or Tuesday of that same week much of the criticism could've been avoided. Posted by: Boz at October 11, 2003 04:37 PM | PERMALINKTo add to what Boz said, there's the additional point that not only was the Times editorially opposed to the recall and Arnold (absolutely kosher in my view), but that almost without exception their columnists were anti-recall and pro-Davis, and that their news coverage read to me as similarly biased (money quotes from an article on Minnesota's experience on 8/28: >With Republicans enjoying a virtual stranglehold in the Legislature, >One of the costs of Ventura's tenure, it seems, was the rise of Pawlenty.) In that context, seeing the article on Thursday - without even a nominal effort to put it into context ("we know it's right before the election, but this is just ready and we don't want not to report it") or to convincingly argue that they investigated the equally damning reports on Davis (today's Carroll comment is the first serious one he's made) - left many reasonably informed people (me included) with the clear sense that it was a hit, not reporage. More as I get time to blog it. A.L. Posted by: Armed Liberal at October 11, 2003 05:02 PM | PERMALINKI'm a registered Democrat, from the DLC wing (*not* a left Democrat). I voted for Gore in 2000. I will vote for Clark in 2004. And I voted for Schwarzenegger in the recall. I agree with Boz - I seriously doubted the factual accuracy of the allegations. They were just too sensational, too anonymous, and too well-timed to be true. The fact that the Times allows headlines like "Der Gropenfuhrer Muscles His Way into office" (link) makes me think this was a clear issue of a timed, late hit. They would never allow a writer - even in an oped - to use such an obvious ethnic slur against Bustamante (e.g. the "Gambling Gardener" or something). Their bias is clear. Now, if Schwarzenegger had a *criminal* conviction, or if these women had gone to the police, or if he had been involved in a DWI (like W), I'd have paid much more attention, even with the late timing of the charges. But Carroll's equivocations strike me as false. There is tons of dirt on Davis, including the campaign aide stuff, and the idea that there "wasn't enough for a story" is just BS. See here, for example, for a reprint of an article by Jill Stewart in the New Times LA: On the day in question, in the mid-1990s, the staffer was explaining to Davis that his perpetual quest for an ever-larger campaign chest (an obsession she says led Davis to routinely break fundraising laws by using his government office resources and non-political employees to arrange fundraisers and identify new sources of money) had run into a snafu. A major funding source had dried up. Recalls the former staffer: "He just went into one of his rants of, 'Fuck the fucking fuck, fuck, fuck!'" I can still hear his screams ringing in my ears. When I stood up to insist that he not talk to me that way, he grabbed me by the shoulders and shook me until my teeth rattled. I was so stunned I said, 'Good God, Gray! Stop and look at what you are doing! Think what you are doing to me!' And he just could not stop." Furthermore, the LA Times' pro-Davis slant was transparent and wasn't limited to just the Schwarzenegger hit piece. They were the ones who came out with the spurious numbers showing Bustamante in the lead, and they were the ones who kept printing stories like "Davis aides feel more confident" and so on. In other words, Carroll objects too much, and richly deserves the canceled subscriptions and bad press. I'd like to see another paper launch an investigation into the LA Times'...or does the public's right to know stop at the newsroom door? Posted by: DLCdem at October 11, 2003 05:02 PM | PERMALINKI'm still trying to figure out why some people still think this story
of Schwarzenegger bullying and humiliating people whom he knew were
unable to effectively retaliate had anything to do with his sex life. (Kat, this question is inspired by your comment, but not exclusively directed at you.) Is it okay for a newspaper to have a pro-candidate or anti-recall bias? Don't all newspapers eventually endorse one candidate or another? I am curious if people are more inclined to disagree with the allegations because 1.) They don't believe them to be true 2.) They aren't "newsworthy" 3.) They came from a source that was already stridently against the recall? (And, really, was Gray Davis getting a lot of positive, glowing press? Weren't anti-recall positions more or less staked on its procedural nature and the precident that it sets for the future? 3.) The timing was all wrong? i.e. if this story had come out 1-2 weeks earlier or even after the election, would this have been more palatable? Just curious. Posted by: Kat at October 11, 2003 05:19 PM | PERMALINKBut why examine this at all? As we know, it is all Old News. Staleness trumps any promise of: "As soon as the campaign is over, I will," Schwarzenegger said. "I can get into all of the specifics and find out what is really going on, but right now I'm just really occupied with the campaign..." So does any blog have a countdown clock on this promise? The campaign is over, isn't it? Posted by: kathryn at October 11, 2003 05:22 PM | PERMALINKI'm still trying to figure out why some people still think this story of Schwarzenegger bullying and humiliating people whom he knew were unable to effectively retaliate had anything to do with his sex life. (Kat, this question is inspired by your comment, but not exclusively directed at you.) Of course, good point. His being a bully isn't necessarily indicative of his sex life, per se. I guess I was thinking that many of the lobs tossed at Clinton were of the same variety (Paula Jones, et al) but since they tended to be lumped into the consensual nature of the Gennifer Flowers/Monica-gate issues, I think they sometimes become one in the same in the public mind. Rightly or wrongly. Posted by: Kat at October 11, 2003 05:23 PM | PERMALINKKevin, I continue to think that the left's concern with Arnold's groping is highly hypocritical. First of all, let us not compare apples to oranges. Some have noted that Clinton's sexual misconduct were consesual and therefore different than Arnold's. That is true about the Monica Lewinsky episode, but not of the Paula Jones and Kathleen Willey episodes. Google search for their names and the world "groped" and you will find their stories. Clinton groped without consent, too. And as I recall, the defense of all of Clinton's misconduct was, "No matter how wrong it is, it is still the private business of the Clintons and the victims." Now Democrats aren't saying the same thing about Arnold -- according to them, Arnold's gropig is everyone's business. Why the difference? Don't get me wrong: I'm not saying that Arnold or Clinton should be totally excused. I'm just wondering: Why did Democrats say this is private matter when Clinton did it, and a public matter when Arnold did it? Posted by: Bo Cowgill at October 11, 2003 05:35 PM | PERMALINKhe probably shouldn't have written this Why not Kevin? You know there is a difference between what happened to those many women and partisan politics. Obviously Arnold does in fact grope women and if it's unwanted then it's a crime so why is it wrong to report this crime? There are enough women who had now stated that Arnold touched them in an inappropriate way and so there actually is a class action lawsuit in the waiting here. You said "don't go after Anold" but really, I'm tired of Dem's not standing up to clearly illegal doings and not going after the people they should be go after. Those women should file a lawsuit against Arnold and if it is proven in a court of law that "yes" Arnold did in fact do what those woman accused him of in the LATimes then Arnold should resign right away. It's to bad the LATimes is gettng so much the negative commentary on this subject. Jean over on Body and Soul said that the LATimes has lost over 1000 readers who called to cancel subscriptions and yet the paper stands firm on the story and reason why the publish it-and that exactly what the paper should be doing. The fact is that what happened to those women isn't political, it's criminal and even you Kevin Drum seem to have lost the ability to differentia between the two. Like you said below in "Valerie Plame's Career" a bit about the fact that Valerie's career has now been ruined. She can never be a CIA agent again so this is what is defined as a criminaly maliciously act and the Bush administration is saying it's not anything but partisan politics. But it's a crime and so is Arnold's groping - in fact it's quite serious what Arnold did and so he should be prosecuted to full extend of the law on this issue. If found guilty than he should resign from his new government posting. It not malicious for John Carroll to publish this accounting of Arnold's groping in the LATimes. It's an obligation of the news service to report the news and to bring the news to the people, unpleasant or not. You sound like Greg Eastbrook telling us that NO doesn't really mean NO. I don't think it's hypocritical---in fact, many Dems were solidly behind investigating the Paula Jones claims. As it turns out, through what I believe to be a thorough investigation, those claims turned out to be insubstantiated. (Much to do with the fact that Paula herself changed her story several times, so it was difficult to know what the original complaint was.) At any rate, it was investigated as it should have been. It probably should NOT have been included in any way, shape or form into Whitewater, though. I'm still scratching my head on that one. Will the allegations against Schwartzenegger be investigated? Should I hold my breath? Will some Dem group be inclined to shoulder all the legal fees for some of these accusers like rightwing groups did for Paula Jones? Personally, I think that would get really ugly. But I do disagree with the notion that Dems are somehow being hypocritical. Posted by: Kat at October 11, 2003 05:42 PM | PERMALINK"I agree with Boz - I seriously doubted the factual accuracy of the allegations. " You mean you do not believe Arnold? He admitted to them my friend. You seem to believe what is convenient not what is supported by the evidence.] Did you see the women 'testify' on TV? The 3 I saw were very credible. These are not quacks. Arnold promised to address the allegations after the election. Now he refuese to. Why did he lie to the voters? These allegations are not new. They did not first appear on tghe eve of election. A fully investiggated news story with each victim's story corroborated by another witness to whom the victim reported the attack shortly after it happened did first appear then. But arenol announced on the evening before the deadline for candidartes to file, a mere 6 weeks before the election. There was little time to incvestigate. And what about Arnis' timing? If he is so passionate about being the govenor of Calif., why the heck did he sit out the REAL election a mere 11 months ago? I will tell you why. He never could have survived the full scrutiny of his positions and conduct that would have taken place. And as a democrat, please allow me to say you are an idiot and please go join the GOP where you belong. Just look at the people he is bringing in. Right wing Bush people and Wilson peolple, and GWB himself. Thanks a lot moron. Posted by: obe at October 11, 2003 05:56 PM | PERMALINKCheryl: I didn't say Carroll shouldn't have run the groping story. I said he shouldn't written those four paragraphs. They make him sound petulant. For what it's worth, I think the story was legitimate news. And really, the fact that the entire campaign was only 70 days really does explain the lateness of publication. I don't think you need to look too much further. AL: I think that putting context around the story would have been really hard. I mean, either you stand behind a story or you don't. Running an investigative piece and accompanying it with a note would make you look defensive from the start. (And it would really piss off the reporters who wrote the story.) I'm not sure how you could pull that off. I honestly think the Times was in a difficult position. It was a legitimate story, the women were almost certainly telling the truth, and it was bound to run late in the campaign. I'm not quite sure what choices they had. And while I generally find Arnold's character to be fairly sleazy, I think it's worth saying that the comparison to Clinton is pretty legitimate. Sleazy treatment of women is either bad or it's not, and if it is we shouldn't have elected Clinton in 1996. We all knew perfectly well what he was like. Posted by: Kevin Drum at October 11, 2003 05:56 PM | PERMALINKI want to add a comment on the LAT's general coverage of Arnold. I didn't read it thoroughly enough to have a firm opinion, but let's face it. You have a celebrity candidate who firmly refuses to take any detailed positions on anything and who talks only to local TV stations, not print reporters. This is bound to piss off print reporters, and bound to piss off anyone who cares about policy. So while the news columns should be fair, what kind of coverage can you expect of someone who acts like that? Posted by: Kevin Drum at October 11, 2003 05:59 PM | PERMALINK" Sleazy treatment of women is either bad or it's not, and if it is we shouldn't have elected Clinton in 1996. We all knew perfectly well what he was like." Granted. But Arnis' conduct was criminal, not just sleazy, and there appear to have been many many more victims. Clinton's conduct was not criminal sexual battery. Also, if the allegations against Clinton had been revealed before his first election, he probably would have lost. Finally, I will wager that if a Dem candidate in the future has similar allegations come up, the GOP will be right there screaming their heads off. Why do the rules always get bent in their favor and against the dems? Caused we let them, i suspect. Posted by: obe at October 11, 2003 06:02 PM | PERMALINKThe Dem's don't need to shoulder any of the legal fees and that would be inappropriate anyways. The Dem's should, however differentia between partisan politics claims and real crimes against women. In a class action lawsuit no legal fees are required as the lawfirm
that prosecutes we'll take a percentage of the settlement when the case
is done. And in fact some of the women may well have already be visited
by lawyers (ambulance chasers) to incite the victims to bring suit for
damages after all Arnold made a habit of claiming that he had plenty of
money. DCLDem, Just be a Republican, okay? The Davis story, i.e. where Davis mistreated two subordinates who worked for him, never checked out, said the LA Times. Now you may say, "Oh that's just THEM!" Well, don't you think that Al Chechi and Jane Harman, and the other fifty newspapers and Republican operatives checked this out when Jill Stewart wrote her story in late 1997 about this? How about Jill herself? All she did was repeat her story six years later with nothing to show for it. That's it. Nothing. No story. Yet, it went out in the last 24 hours with big coverage in most of the newspapers who hated Davis plus the talk shows. Yeah, talk about smear. That's one for the books. Compare that to Arnold's conduct. The women who came forward were the tip of a larger iceberg of mistreating people, particularly women. Forget just the Premiere magazine article in 2001. Remember Spy Magazine's expose on Arnold around 1990? It went even further. I'm not saying that's why I voted against him. I was simply outraged that Republicans who thought the PERSONAL traits of a person were so releveant with Clinton suddenly found it acceptable with a Republican--particularly a Republican who was even more outrageous in his personal life than Clinton. Wake up and smell the coffee. There may have been good reasons for people to be pissed (car tax and illegals getting licenses). But the reason people on the GOP side are attacking the LA Times is that the Times was essentially ALONE in reporting anything negative about Arnold. The rest, particularly the radio talk show hosts and tv cable guys, gave him a pass once the word came down from the national Republican National Committee. It was breathtaking to watch and listen. Finally, Kevin is right about the LA Times. They were more pissed for institutional reasons--Arnold wouldn't talk to the political news press. If Ueberroth or Dick Riordan was the standard bearer for the Republicans, the LA Times would have supported those two over Davis and Bustamante hands down. Geez. I've been moving on with regard to this topic, but some of the comments on this thread are unbelievably naive and uninformed. Posted by: mitchell freedman at October 11, 2003 06:12 PM | PERMALINKWell the newspaper is losing a lot of business and so I don't think
it was petulant at all for the newspaper editor to justify the news.
This news is the perhaps the same news that might have Arnold remove
from office since Arnold did say he would deal with this groping issue
afterwards. Of course this means that the State of California may well
end up with a governor that was not elected to finish out the term - a
Republican governor of course. Oh that should be "prosecutes will take a percentage" and not "we'll" -oops. Posted by: Cheryl at October 11, 2003 06:33 PM | PERMALINKIt makes my head spin. Really. The LA Times did a legitimate news story about an important issue -- Schwartznegger's sexual harassment of underlings -- and they did the legwork. They have the evidence and sourcing to back it up. So what if they published it on Thursday, Bloody Thursday? Facts is facts. Deal with it. This would not even be cause for comment in a rational world, but we live in a perverted Inside Baseball world of fake journalism where peple take viciously biased, revoltingly hypocritcal, and/or shockingly irrational stances, and we just chat about them like they are all equally meritorious. Many of these "attacks" on the LA Times are so scurrilous, illogical, biased, and mind-numbingly stupid as to be beneath contempt, in my view. And they would be, if we had not sold off rational discourse long ago for a framed talking bass. I very much resonate with Carroll's indictment of today's journalistic pronography. He hit the nail smack squarely on the head. Posted by: jsaro at October 11, 2003 06:39 PM | PERMALINKLater, intoned on TV by people in dark suits, it acquires the solemnity of established truth. I feel certain this will be the case as 15 women are a lot of women
and I'm sure there is more like Freedman said, "the women who came
forward were the tip of a larger iceberg of mistreating people,
particularly women." There is a huge difference between Clinton and Arnold. Clinton was a womanizer. Arnold is a serial molestor. One is sleazy and one is criminal - and rightfully so. Many of the allegations against Arnold were witnessed and at least one was on film. I am confident in stating that Clinton was not a groper, because the Arkansas project spent eight years digging up every bit of dirt they could find. If he were a groper they would have turned up a bunch of victims. There were two women who indicated some level of nonconsensual activity, both of whom changed their stories more than once and had serious credibility issues. Arnold, on the other hand, had 17 victims come forward in a matter of weeks. This is what happens when a real groper is accused. They other example we've seen is the Senator who stood on the reporter's feet and stuck his tongue in her mouth. She went public and immediately dozens of other stories came out. I am really having trouble understanding why so many people can't see the difference between having affairs and sexually assaulting women. I know this doesn't happen to men, but I wouldn't think it would take that much imagination. What if a powerful person pulled down your pants in public and he and his friends laughed at you and your boss told you not to make trouble? Posted by: EmmaAnne at October 11, 2003 06:44 PM | PERMALINKI'm not against investigating, per se. But I do have a problem with the fact that the women did not report any of these alleged crimes to authorities when they happened. If these women weren't upset enough to file charges, and they are now coming forward for political reasons, something about the calls for criminal investigation just rings hollow to me. Posted by: whaledog at October 11, 2003 07:01 PM | PERMALINKHere is the bottom line: Arnold promised to address the allegations after the election. Now he refuese to. Why did he lie to the voters? HE'S GOING TO GET AWAY WITH IT. Not only with those behaviors in the past, but with breaking his promise to honestly deal with his accusers now that the election is over. And if you Californians don't care about that, I don't know what to say to you. You are hopeless. The reason Arnold kept handling unwilling tits and ass all over the world is because there were never any consequences. If no one holds his feet to the fire about it now, there never WILL be any consequences. What kind of lessons will other powerful men take away from this? I'll tell you what they'll learn: "If you're rich and powerful enough, you can get away with it." And a lot of them will want to demonstrate their wealth and power to their entourage by pinching bottoms at the first opportunity. "Hey, looka me! I'm just like Ahhnolt!" wink-wink I don't think it was "petulant" of Carroll to point out exactly what happens in the media news cycle these days, Kevin. It's only the sad truth, and it is clearly happening even as we speak. I was surprised to see you take such a view, and it made me want to call YOU some unpleasant names, very frankly. But I won't, because most of the time I like you. Posted by: Julia Grey at October 11, 2003 07:12 PM | PERMALINK"I'm not against investigating, per se. But I do have a problem with the fact that the women did not report any of these alleged crimes to authorities when they happened. " Valid concern. However, if you look into this you will learn that there is a very good reason for it. One is that historically when a woman made allegations against a man, especially a wealthy and powerrful man, the woman is turned into the criminal and the man into the victim. The woman is trashed, humiliated, doubted and accused. It is humiliating and in the end as bad as the attack itself. Why just look what is beiung said about these women. And in fact in the few instances where women did report Arnis, this is what happened to them. Arnold bought the govenorship of the most important state in the USA with his fame and fortune. That is how powerful he is. What chance does a gofer on a movie set have, and what will happen to her if she is not believed. Her small live will be crushed. Posted by: obe at October 11, 2003 07:16 PM | PERMALINKWhaledog, I acknowledge your rational point about the timing of the accusations. I can see how rational people may question the veracity of the charges based solely on the timing. My response to your point is that I don't know enough about the facts to respond. I will comment that in my experience as a professional woman, incidents of inappropriate touching and come-ons are far more frequent than most men can fathom (especially if a woman is young and attractive). Most of them are just blown off, disregarded, because the consequences of pursuing them often involve ending one's own career path. Try, if you can, to put yourself in the place of a younger attractive woman being groped by Arnold S., one of the most famous celebrities on earth. You want to keep your job as a costume mistress, or wardrobe girl, or whatever. If you complain about the rude advances, you risk losing your job, your rent money, your food money, your livelihood. But if you just tolerate it, and shut up, and swallow your revulsion, you can just go on as if nothing has happened. But if you know this man is a pig, and he seems poised to become governor because everything thinks he's such a great guy, you might be compelled to speak out, and take the negative consequences. I admire these women very much for speaking out. I am sure they are also experiencing a living hell because of the mass hysteria of ludicrous adulation of Arnold and denial of the reality of his piggish bullying. So I acknowledge your point, but counter it by suggesting that you consider the plight of the women whom Arnold groped. What have they gained by coming forward? They knew full well that he might still be elected, and he was. Now they must suffer the consequences. And yet they did it anyway. I, for one, admire them for that courage. Posted by: jsaro at October 11, 2003 07:32 PM | PERMALINKIf the "Coffee" story is true, then it is one of the grossest things I've ever read! Posted by: Max at October 11, 2003 07:45 PM | PERMALINKWhat'struly hilarious about all of this is the big stink Carroll made a little over a month ago about LAT reporting and how he was going to keep all the "Liberal" stuff at bay. Then he turns around and does the one thing to most enrage Republicans. It was a sold, absolutelyjustified piece of reporting. But in today's ultra-ideological atmosphere running an article like that is the most Politically Uncorrect thing any editor could possibly do. Posted by: David Ehrenstein at October 11, 2003 07:54 PM | PERMALINKDoyle McManus of the Los Angeles Times was on Washington Week In
Review on the October 10 edition. He was asked specifically about this
story and replied that the reporters began their work as soon as
Schwarzenegger announced. Of course, it took time to trace a reasonable
number of women and get their stories. Many of the women were afraid to
go on record because of the fear of retaliation, a highly reasonable
fear given the SturmAbteilungen tactics of the right and the power that
Arnold wields in the industry. Nevertheless, they reported the story to
the Schwarzenegger campaign 36 hours before publication and asked if
they wanted to comment. Doyle said that advance notice was the reason
that the campaign was able to handle the story so well. Notice, too, that Arnold's ass and tit grabbing always involved bit players, wardrobe and costume workers, etc. Never a big name star. He knew the power he had over the small-time people on the set and knew he wouldn't have that same power over a well-known actress. They would have sued his ass. Posted by: tip at October 11, 2003 09:27 PM | PERMALINK"Also, if the allegations against Clinton had been revealed before his first election, he probably would have lost." I don't know about that, but they weren't, and the media knew already knew about many of them. The reason Democrats aren't able to get traction on this issue is because they gave up their ability to do so in their defense of Clinton. Pre-Clinton, there was a nationwide movement to focus on inappropriate situations where men in a position of power would utilize that power to bring women into sexual situations which were not to the liking of the women. This was seen in feminist condemnation of professor/teacher 'relationships' and relationships between bosses and their underlings. This played a big part in dealing with former Senator Packwood and in the attempt to destroy Clarence Thomas. Frankly I think that the critique in general is quite compelling, especially teacher/student relationships and even in Packwood's case. The feminist stance on Jones/Lewinsky/Willey/Broadrick was not in line with that tradition. In the Packwood/Thomas cases the feminist approach was 'believe the woman until proven otherwise'. When the Jones allegations were first aired, feminists didn't try to 'believe the woman'. They tried to paint her as trash. It is sometimes difficult to remember, but when Lewinsky's allegations first came out, Clinton tried to paint her as a crazy stalker who was making up stories. Until the semen on the dress confirmed her story, feminists weren't saying 'believe the woman'. They were willing to attempt to protect the Administration. Whatever you think about Willey's allegations (and I think there is legitimate evidence pointing both ways) it is absolutely not the case that feminists applied thier old 'believe the woman' doctrine to her. When the allegations first came out they had no public objection to the Clinton administration going into full smear mode. You can draw all the super-fine lines you want now, but the INITIAL feminist reaction to the Clinton allegations showed to the public that feminists preffered to use sexual harassment charges as a political weapon rather than a principled stance. Feminists ended up protecting Clinton by trivializing sexual
harassment charges. That wasn't their intention, but that is what
happened. The folks berating the LA Times are acting like Arnold's mysoygny and harassment charges came completely out of the blue. If anyone was not aware that he was carrying this baggage from the beginning of his campaign then they weren't paying attention and needed to be apprised of it. Posted by: wired mennonite at October 11, 2003 10:42 PM | PERMALINK"You can draw all the super-fine lines you want now, but the INITIAL feminist reaction to the Clinton allegations showed to the public that feminists preffered to use sexual harassment charges as a political weapon rather than a principled stance. " Not to be rude, but so what. Is something ok just because a hypocrite criticizes it? The govenor's office is not a prize awarded in a contest between dems and repubs. It is a public office, and generally people guilty of crimes are not deemed qualified for that office regardless of what dem and repub partisans do or say. Posted by: obe at October 11, 2003 10:45 PM | PERMALINKWhy not see the victory? Dirty tricks has a history. Nixon used it to win in 1948, against Helen Gahagan Douglas, saying she was "pink." And, America went nuts looking for communists in every immigrant community. Okay. Some more than others. It even let the FBI infiltrate the left during the 60's and 70's. So who knows WHAT the left is ever saying? It's bought and paid for by some special distructive interests. Oh, yeah. On the right all those screaming people are really volunteers. But here? Schwartzenegger didn't get hurt. He has behaved like this. And, in a world where women don't want to be stuck at home, HOW MEN handle their testeserone driven desires is NORMAL. That's what happened. Schwartzenegger got a pass on 'normal.' Why bother? He was only flexing his muscles. Brain's a muscle. He got entertained doing the top of the mountain call. And, no one sued him for sexual harrassment. Did the attack smell? But it didn't disuade. And, that's a problem for politics as 'usual.' People didn't allow the impeachment process to take Clinton out. We've grown up. Sexually we're on par with the French. And, the French thought they'd retire the award on "chez femme fatale." I am so unimpressed, you have no idea. So the LA Times ran a hit piece? Well, it missed! And if there's recoil its on the journalists. Where's the downside? Posted by: Carol in California at October 11, 2003 10:58 PM | PERMALINKIt is sometimes difficult to remember, but when Lewinsky's allegations first came out, Clinton tried to paint her as a crazy stalker who was making up stories. Sigh. It's difficult to remember because it didn't happen. Read Blumenthal's book for the real story and learn how the VRWC works its magic. Posted by: Basharov at October 11, 2003 11:01 PM | PERMALINKjsaro It's not that I doubt the veracity of the claims. It's that the idea of criminally investigating him at this point, and under these circumstances, rubs me wrong. Posted by: whaledog at October 11, 2003 11:09 PM | PERMALINKDon't you have to wonder about people who think a friendly blow job and aggressive ass-grabbing are essentially the same thing? "Well, Father," said the rabbi, "wasn't that better than bacon?" . When the Jones allegations were first aired, feminists didn't try to 'believe the woman'. They tried to paint her as trash. Sebastian, that's just a lie. It's that the idea of criminally investigating him at this point, and under these circumstances, rubs me wrong. Whaledog, why does it bother you that if a man has allegedly committed a series of crimes, those crimes should be investigated? Posted by: Jesurgislac at October 12, 2003 01:39 AM | PERMALINKTo Fisk Sebastian "Also, if the allegations against Clinton had been revealed before his first election, he probably would have lost." I don't know about that, but they weren't, and the media knew already knew about many of them. The reason Democrats aren't able to get traction on this issue is
because they gave up their ability to do so in their defense of Clinton.
1) Arnold's campaign quickly labeled the Times report as a 'smear', and given the time frame, the story could not get enough momentum to affect the actor by the day of the election. The smear label was particularly effective, IMHO, because of the genuine smear tactic Arnold's opponents used against him: the admiring Hitler charge 2) The Democrats hyped up the severity of the allegations. Groping is not in the same league as rape. 3) People are really pissed off with the economy and politics as usual. Pre-Clinton, there was a nationwide movement to focus on
inappropriate situations where men in a position of power would utilize
that power to bring women into sexual situations which were not to the
liking of the women. This was seen in feminist condemnation of
professor/teacher 'relationships' and relationships between bosses and
their underlings. This played a big part in dealing with former Senator
Packwood and in the attempt to destroy Clarence Thomas. Frankly I think
that the critique in general is quite compelling, especially
teacher/student relationships and even in Packwood's case. The feminist stance on Jones/Lewinsky/Willey/Broadrick was not in line with that tradition. In the Packwood/Thomas cases the feminist approach was 'believe
the woman until proven otherwise'. When the Jones allegations were first
aired, feminists didn't try to 'believe the woman'. They tried to paint
her as trash. It is sometimes difficult to remember, but when Lewinsky's
allegations first came out, Clinton tried to paint her as a crazy
stalker who was making up stories. Until the semen on the dress confirmed her story, feminists
weren't saying 'believe the woman'. They were willing to attempt to
protect the Administration. Whatever you think about Willey's allegations (and I think there is legitimate evidence pointing both ways) it is absolutely not the case that feminists applied their old
'believe the woman' doctrine to her. When the allegations first came out
they had no public objection to the Clinton administration going into
full smear mode. You can draw all the super-fine lines you want now, but the INITIAL feminist reaction to the Clinton allegations showed to the public that feminists preffered to use sexual harassment charges as a political weapon rather than a principled stance. Feminists ended up protecting Clinton by trivializing sexual harassment charges. That wasn't their intention, but that is what happened. That was neither the outcome nor their intention. The latter was to defend a President, who had defended their values, against their mutual right-wing adversaries. Adversaries who were and are prepared to use any means--moral or not, ethical or not, constitutional or not--to discredit him, his wife, his party, his associates, and--most of all--his liberal democratic agenda. Posted by: Dazir at October 12, 2003 01:57 AM | PERMALINKSebastian: I don't know who "feminists" refers to, and I certainly can't speak for them, but about your claim that their lack of consistency resulted in a trivializing of sexual harrassment allegations: It is probably true that, in a broad sense, allegations of sexual misconduct by politicians are taken less seriously after the 1990's. But whose fault is that? Does the public take its cues for appropriate outrage from this subset of "feminists" you describe? I think the public's fatigue and scepticism regarding sex scandals is more due to the ubiquity and baselessness (perceived) of such charges in the 90's. When someone sees sex scandal, they think of Clinton's impeachment - so wouldn't scepticism of current allegations more likely stem from a popular view that the impeachment was unwarranted; a trivial lie about a personal failing? Perhaps pundits can score a few points off of feminists' support of Clinton, (I wasn't keeping a scorecard back then, but it sounds plausible)...but I think there is no way that the kind of guys who voted for Schwarzenegger judged the merit of the allegations against Arnold based on what a group of feminists did or did not do in the 90's. That's ridiculous. People can call argue that certain individuals are hypocrites, but that does not explain why, as you said "Democrats aren't able to get traction on this issue because they gave up their ability to do so in their defense of Clinton." Posted by: andrew at October 12, 2003 03:31 AM | PERMALINKSebastion is exactly right about the deflation of Feminist power. The inability of the Democratic partisans posting here to grasp that nettle of truth shows why Democrats continue to commit political suicide. Such willfull blindness to the truth will destroy them. Posted by: Brad at October 12, 2003 03:49 AM | PERMALINKIf the right wants to say, "Clinton did it first," that's one thing (though the magnitude of the actions are arguable)...but to dress up this defense and say that feminists, by failing to criticize Clinton, changed the calculation of guilt-assessment of such charges in the minds of, say, 20% of the population of California...well, that's wacky. And it sounds a little like blaming the victim: the Right trivializes the issue of sexual harrassment, then when women stand up and say, "Hey, this happened to me, this is real," the Right says that such accusations have no credibility anymore, based on cherry picked evidence that certain "feminists" didn't bark enough that last time. BTW Sebastian, as always, you add to the civility quotient here. :) Posted by: andrew at October 12, 2003 03:54 AM | PERMALINKSuch willfull blindness to the truth will destroy them. Heh, Brad: for "willful blindness to the truth", read Bush's 2003 SOTU speech. Think that will destroy him? Instead of doing what amounts to an apologia, the LATimes should continue publishing stories about Arnie's defalcations. Posted by: raj at October 12, 2003 05:30 AM | PERMALINKBTW, like Tacitus, it's fairly apparent that this Sebastian character is just a troll. One who tries to hijack a thread. Posted by: raj at October 12, 2003 06:14 AM | PERMALINKAs the Steroid Nazi has been given a pass for groping women in the past there's no reason to assume he has any reason to stop now that he's Governor of california. The ball is therefore in the court of the LAT. Will it pay any attention to reports of future groping? More important, will the authorities pay any attention to any women with the courage to step forward in the future? I have no doubt that having gotten away with what he has so far the Steroid Nazi will move on to rape. Posted by: David Ehrenstein at October 12, 2003 08:01 AM | PERMALINKSorry this is so long, but I think it has to be. Clinton's consensual relationship with Lewinsky was not sexual harrassment. Neither were his relationships (whatever they actually were) with Gennifer Flowers or Dolly Browning. Paula Jones giggled that she wanted to be Clinton's girlfriend. By her own testimony she let him nuzzle her neck and put his hand up her dress and responded by only coyly moving away and sitting down on the couch. It was only when she discovered that her coveted relationship with him was going to have to involve the act that she didn't like to perform that she made her exit. If I was a wife who had to explain the hotel room visit to my opportunistic, Clinton-hating husband when my name showed up in a magazine article, I might have framed it as an unwanted horror myself. Broaddrick had to explain why her friend Norma smelled sex in the air and why the bed was all rumpled up when Norma came back unexpectedly soon to the room they shared at the nursing conference. Broaddrick was undoubtedly upset that Clinton hadn't wanted to bill and coo a little more, and hadn't made any plans to see her again -- hadn't, in fact, acted like it meant anything at all. Norma later remembered the "Of course I didn't LET him!" story when Clinton pardoned the murderer of Norma's father, and Norma told that story to some people seeking dirt on Clinton. One of those people visited Broaddrick and asked her about it. Knowing that the guy was in contact with Norma and afraid that if she admitted the encounter was consensual, it would get back to her husband, Broaddrick confirmed the rape fantasy to her visitor, not knowing that the guy was running a tape recorder. When Broaddrick was later put under oath, she wisely, and truthfully, denied that she had been raped (sealed testimony that she at that time had no fear would be revealed to her husband). HOWEVER, when Ken Starr eventually got hold of the story, he threatened her with perjury charges, holding the secretly recorded tape as evidence that her sworn denial was false. If she stuck by it, she would also have to let it become public, and her husband would have to know that she had been lying about the "rape" all along. That is why Broaddrick retracted her original affidavit. She knew what happened to people who went against Ken Starr. It's a convoluted story, and it took me time to figure it out, but in the end, it fits all the facts. However, it assumes that Broaddrick and Clinton actually had sex, and there is some pretty interesting circumstantial evidence that they in fact did not. I'm agnostic on that, but lean toward the idea that they in fact did get it on. Consensually, but not quite as romantically as Broaddrick perhaps hoped. Willey is an even more interesting story. LINDA TRIPP testified that Willey told her "I want to be his Judith Exner" and after the incident was excitedly planning where she and Clinton could meet clandestinely. Tripp said Willey was glowing with excitement after the horrible groping, and that she only later decided she was offended, because after Clinton discovered Willey's husband had killed himself that very day he declined to continue the relationship. All this is to point out that I do not believe that Clinton's history can, in fact, be compared to Arnold's history. Arnold's pattern is one of consistent, continuous, casual, non-consensual humiliations of dozens of women. Clinton's pattern seems to be one of sexual approach to women who have every appearance of being willing to have a relationship, and in the case of three out of the half-dozen, having a consensual relationship. In any case, Arnold said he'd address these charges after the election, and now he is declining to do so. California: SUCKERS. Nobody ever accused Lewinsky of "making up stories". Lewinsky didn't ever want to talk, but was duped by lovable old Lucianne Goldberg. Posted by: Zizka at October 12, 2003 10:33 AM | PERMALINKWow, I'm accused of blaming the victim, and it is the liberals on the board who say that Willey and Broadrick are women who 'wanted it'. As for the ridiculously silly idea that the White House didn't shop around a Lewinsky as stalker story, you people need a better memory . Before the semen-stained dress, the White House was denying that Clinton had sex with her. Remember, "I did not have sexual relations with that woman..."? You quote Sidney Blumenthal who claims that HE was not the source for
the stalker claims. Did you read his whole book? This is what he
claims that Clinton said to him: "And it was at that point that he gave
his account of what had happened to me and he said ... ``Monica Lewinsky
came at me and made a sexual demand on me.'' He rebuffed her. He said,
``I've gone down that road before, I've caused pain for a lot of people,
and I'm not going to do that again.'' Feminists lost a lot of credibility on the issue of sexual harassment when they circled the wagons for Clinton. They didn't only lose personal credibility, they also squandered the idea that women are to be believed when they make such allegations. They squandered this idea by not initially supporting the women who came forward against Clinton. They spent decades carefully building the idea that women who came forward ought to be believed, and they squandered their hard work on Clinton. I don't have to believe that: "the kind of guys who voted for Schwarzenegger judged the merit of the allegations against Arnold based on what a group of feminists did or did not do in the 90's." They judged the merit of the allegations based on the current standard of proof for such allegations. That standard of proof is much higher now than it was against Packwood and Thomas. The standard which feminists had been advocating was abandoned by them in the Clinton cases, and won't be coming back any time soon. And BTW, dismissing 3,850,804 votes as 'the kind of guys who voted for Schwarzenegger' is exactly the kind of snobbery which causes problems for Democrats, but that is a different issue. Posted by: Sebastian Holsclaw at October 12, 2003 12:45 PM | PERMALINKI'm a feminist, and frankly, I never, ever advocated a standard that the woman should always be believed, no matter what. No feminist I ever knew ever advocated that. Feminists have advocated for a standard that did not, as the old standard did (de facto), assume that the MAN should always be believed, or at least excused because "boys will be boys." What standard do you believe has the upper hand these days, Sebastian? From here it looks like the old "distrust the woman first" is not only firmly back in place, but "NEVER believe the woman" is downright fashionable in certain circles. Posted by: Julia Grey at October 12, 2003 01:01 PM | PERMALINKThis is so easy. Here's the test question: Would Gray Davis have been blown out of office on an even wider margin? What exactly did the Times deliver to the loser governor? Gray Davis has been ousted. The 'decency' and Constitutional arguments (that he was already elected), didn't quite fly. And, in a world of advertisements, didn't the LA Times discover what Detroit learned when Japanese cars shot ahead of American cars in sales? A product is judged on its QUALITIES. Bum up the engineering and there are no ad agencies, or PR firms out there than can save your hide. SO? Did Schwartzenegger lose votes over the LA Times campaign? That's what it was. It was designed to force the electorate away from Schwartzenegger as a choice. And, I don't think it even made a marginal difference. What did Gray Davis need to know for him to realize he angered the majority of Californian voters? What do politicans need to know in that they're at the bottom of the barrel when it comes to being respected. They're slightly higher up than the homeless. But even below journalists. What happens to 'career politicians' when encumbancy is no longer an excuse to keep you in office? Re-election, time? Or wouldn't a bit of deep soul searching be a better topic to discuss? 3 grandmas, democrats all, Pelosi, Feinstein, and Boxer, all chose to take the "high road." Surprising to them, I'm sure, that it led out of town. The other side of the coin, since Feinstein refused to run for governor, is that insiders told her she'd lose, too. And, this was BEFORE Schwartzenegger announced. Ah, to think we could have been sitting and reading some good analysis on this topic right now; but journalists don't write for a massive audience. They're bought and paid for by special interests. First the NY Times gets tossed in the gutter. And, not to be outdown, the LA Times prostrates itself on its behind, spread eagled in the gutter. Wow. Who thought there would be a day that the National Enquirer will become our newspaper of record? Once, only for aliens. Go figure. Posted by: Carol in California at October 12, 2003 01:13 PM | PERMALINKSleazy treatment of women is either bad or it's not, and if it is we shouldn't have elected Clinton in 1996. See... by Canadian standards, this is an indefensible leap of logic. Sleazy treatment of women is bad. No argument there. But it is not relevant to public life. When you are considering whether a candidate should be elected to public office, you should look for evidence of how that candidate will handle the duties of that office. If you find indications that the candidate is corrupt, or a puppet for powerful interests, or enthralled by a cult, or out to fill his own pockets, or not capable enough to handle the job, that's relevant, and voters have a right to know it before they cast their votes. "But character matters!" I hear you cry. Well, I suppose it is important to make sure you're not voting a psychopath into office. I'd strongly recommend looking for at least one case of the candidate changing his mind on a public issue because new evidence came to light. And it might be a good plan to find out what people who have had to work for the candidate think of his ability to get differing factions to work together. That sort of character, sure. All the dirt that gets dug up by the American media, though...? Ninety percent of it has no bearing on how well the candidate will do his job. Ann Landers was right, with her old common-sense rule of MYOB. Consider. Suppose Arnie was, instead of a shallow, useless, unqualified celebrity, a brilliant financial genius who would really be able to pull California out of its current budget hole? Suppose his behavior with women was unchanged. If you had to choose between letting the state spiral down the tubes, and letting a serial groper become the governor, and save your bacon... which would you choose? The Canadian answer is very pragmatic: pick the guy who looks like he can solve the problem. Period. If some women have serious issues with his behavior, let them go after him in court, and if he's convicted, he may well have to resign, but until he has been convicted, stop with all the muck-raking, it's just disgusting and has nothing to do with ability to handle elected office. And if, in an election campaign, one side starts dragging out things
we think are irrelevant, we generally punish that side for violating our
standards of what we think is legitimate public discourse, by voting
against them. Because keeping dirt out of our election campaigns is an important public issue. a) Jon Carrol doesn't work for the LA Times. -N Posted by: Chris Chasteen at October 12, 2003 04:41 PM | PERMALINKI think you guys are missing the key point. The LA Times was so biased in its other reporting on the election that it destroyed its credibility. Then they came out with the groping stories and the only people who believed them were committed Democrats predisposed to believe anything bad about Schwarzenegger. The stunning thing about those stories is not that they did not change men's minds about their votes - men might just say "Boys will be boys". It is that they did not change women's minds. The LA Times is now at the journalistic level of fish wrap. It is unlikely that any of their negative Schwarzenegger stories will evere be taken seriously. This is the prices you pay for overly biased news reporting. Remember the boy who cried wolf? Schwarzenegger is now sitting pretty - the only LAT stories about him that anyone will believe are positive ones. TFL, LAT - it's your own damned fault. Posted by: Mike at October 12, 2003 06:02 PM | PERMALINKAnd BTW, the people who ignored the LAT were not just the usual suspects - die hard Republican right wingers. A lot of people who voted Gore/Lieberman and Clinton/Gore clearly
ignored the LAT and voted for Schwarzenegger. How do you explain that? Sebastian wrote As for the ridiculously silly idea that the White House didn't
shop around a Lewinsky as stalker story, you people need a better
memory. The president's supporters, mindful that Ms. Lewinsky would risk her protection from prosecution if she altered her account substantially, are taking pains to portray her in public as truthful and consistent. It is a marked difference from a year ago when presidential lawyers sought out inconsistencies in her story, hoping to discover an innocent explanation for her 37 visits to the White House after she was no longer employed there. Other presidential supporters were dismissing her as a "stalker." "I don't see her as a hostile witness at all," said former presidential special counsel Lanny Davis, who continues to advise the White House. "On 23 occasions, she was questioned by Ken Starr's staff, anxious to bulldoze her, and I admire the fact that she has stuck to the truth throughout." The AP reporter simply restates, as a given, that the president's supporters were dismissing Ms. Lewinsky as a "stalker" in '98. This is incorrect, and is dealt with, in length, in "The Clinton Wars" BTW, check out this earlier sentence in that AP story: Chief
among those statements was her assertion last August: "No one ever asked
me to lie and I was never promised a job for my silence." You quote Sidney Blumenthal who claims that HE was not the source for the stalker claims. Did you read his whole book? ...[Excerpt from "The Clinton Wars"]...I have difficulty believing
that Blumenthal was not the source for the stalker claims. But am I to
believe that Clinton was telling his aides that she was stalker, and
COINCIDENTALLY numerous press stories started to circulate that she was a
stalker at the same time? Even a dull-witted conservative can see that
isn't believable. Given the extensive and grotesque charges levelled against former president Clinton by the right-wing, and the consistency with which they crumble when properly investigated, I demand a higher standard of evidence than anecdotes, rumors, or pundit musing. Posted by: Dazir at October 12, 2003 08:09 PM | PERMALINKClinton did try to paint her as a crazy stalker to Blumenthal in the part I quoted. He tried to falsely portray Lewinsky as someone who was trying to engage in an affair with him by threatening to reveal an affair that had (according to Clinton at the time of the quote) never happened. Clinton was painting her as a crazy stalker to his staff. The crazy stalker line got wide play in the press at the time. Since Lewinsky was in fact NOT a crazy stalker, since Lewinsky was not in fact threatening Clinton, since in fact Clinton was lying to his own staff, the timing is excellent circumstantial evidence that one of the staffers was telling the press that story. Even if Blumenthal was not the source, his quote is excellent evidence that someone in the White House was the source. You certainly aren't stupid enough to suggest that Republicans were spreading around the lie that Lewinsky was a stalker are you? Why in the world would they do that? And I don't know why you brought up the 'Talking Points' but I will guarantee that the 'Talking Points' were far too legalistic to have been written by Lewinsky. Someone with excellent knowledge of legal proceedings, the law on sexual harassment, and depositions wrote that memo, and Lewinsky was not such a person. Posted by: Sebastian Holsclaw at October 12, 2003 10:09 PM | PERMALINKSebastian wrote Clinton did try to paint her as a crazy stalker to Blumenthal in the part I quoted. He tried to falsely portray Lewinsky as someone who was trying to
engage in an affair with him by threatening to reveal an affair that had
(according to Clinton at the time of the quote) never happened. Clinton
was painting her The crazy stalker line got wide play in the press at the time. Since Lewinsky was in fact NOT a crazy stalker, since Lewinsky was not in fact threatening Clinton, BTW, I am not accusing you of lying lightly. Such a charge is very serious to me, but I see it as the only conclusion of the following propositions: You have read Mr. Blumenthals writing on the subject. Therefore you are lying. since in fact Clinton was lying to his own staff, the timing is
excellent circumstantial evidence that one of the staffers was telling
the press that story. As for the timing, please see above regarding the publication of the Talking Points. Even if Blumenthal was not the source, his quote is excellent evidence that someone in the White House was the source. You certainly aren't stupid enough to suggest that Republicans
were spreading around the lie that Lewinsky was a stalker are you? Why
in the world would they do that? And I don't know why you brought up the 'Talking Points' but I will guarantee that the 'Talking Points' were far too
legalistic to have been written by Lewinsky. Someone with excellent
knowledge of legal proceedings, the law on sexual harassment, and
depositions wrote that memo, and Lewinsky was not such a person. In order to sensibly accuse me of lying in this instance, you would have to assert that I believe everything I read. I don't believe Blumenthal when he makes ridiculous assertions. I don't believe for a single second that Lewinsky wrote the talking points. She was not, and from listening to her in interviews is still not, knowlegeable enough about the legal process and specifically the deposition process to have written the document. She was especially not capable of writing the first portion of the memo. 'Not to your knowledge refuted by anyone UNDER OATH' as if there weren't people lying under oath in the matter. Sheesh. I'm provisionally willing to believe that she transcribed the talking points memo with advice from Ickes or other people, but she did not come up with things like 'People don't go to jail for perjury' on her own. Therefore I don't believe any of the silly suppositions which Blumenthal draws from the ridiculous premise. You would have me believe that Republicans were spreading the story that Lewinsky was a stalker. That runs counter to what they wanted out of the case, and makes no sense. As for 'Clinton doesn't call her a stalker', please give me a break.
Clinton was being asked about Lewinsky by one of his close aides. He
recounted a story where she allegedly suggests she is a stalker. That
story, even if totally fabricated, is told with the express purpose of
conveying to the listener that Lewinsky is a stalker. You know that, so
calling me a liar over the point seems way over the top. So you choose to ignore the facts that don't support your case, and instead resort to speculation; as the church lady would say, "how conveeenient." Posted by: Dazir at October 13, 2003 11:57 AM | PERMALINKUh, would they be groupies, or gropies? Second question: Do feminists concede to a female counterpart to a womanizer, and if so, would she be called a "manizer"? (uh, like Monica for instance?) Sexism in the English Language cuts both ways. Posted by: Jay at December 10, 2003 12:13 AM | PERMALINKOh, I forgot. Couldn't we please have a scandal invoving Bill Gates so we could call it a "Gatesgate"? Posted by: Jay at December 10, 2003 12:15 AM | PERMALINKonline casinos | casino bonus | casino directory | high roller casinos | casinos Posted by: doi at May 23, 2004 08:52 AM | PERMALINKrealgirlstv real girls tv reel 18 taylorlittle taylor little taylor little images taylor little movie clips taylor little movies taylor little pics taylor little pictures toristone tori stone taylor little gallery taylor little movies taylor little photos taylor little pics taylorlittle pictures taylor little pictures taylor little trailers xxxraimi xxx raimi xxx raimi gallery xxx raimi pics xxx raimi pictures tugjob Posted by: street blowjobs at June 30, 2004 10:45 AM | PERMALINKBest XXX Sites - |
|
|
Powered by Movable Type 2.63 
|
||||
