The Democrat Party and its media-based handlers went apoplectic during Candidate Trump’s campaign, and when he won the Presidency they were in even worse shape, as all the typical tricks used to turn the election in their favor backfired on them.
Then, Harvey Weinstein happened. The #MeToo movement was born. And with the revelations of more and more distraught women (and men) who came forward to lay out the torrid and horrid stories of sexual favors for film roles, the mainstream press was faced with a dilemma. Much of the Hollywood establishment was very close to the Clintons, as they have been close to liberals in the Democrat Party for years.
Yet the former President, Bill Clinton, was a womanizer in the first degree, earning an impeachment for lying under oath, and securing a reputation for himself that could never be quite forgotten, though the succeeding state of things in America after his two terms got so bad that he actually began to look almost prudish by the modern day view of what constitutes depravity.
The mainstream media finally appeared to “wake up” about the fact that they did not ever honestly address this matter, and they also realized that if they didn’t do it now, they would have no “moral high ground” from which to pursue a similar demonization campaign against now-President Trump. President Clinton is now seen in quite a bit less graceful light.
But he himself does not seem to see this, nor is he responding in any contrite way to it.
In a PBS two-part interview that was brought about by the release of a book co-written by Mr. Clinton and James Patterson, the former president was asked by Judy Woodruff, the program’s managing editor and anchorwoman, about the #MeToo movement and what his reaction to this was:
Here Clinton expressed surprise when he started learning about the history about his friend Harvey Weinstein, and in his usual rather convincing manner (the man knows how to weave a tale) it seemed evident that he never thought Mr. Weinstein would be involved in such things as the “casting couch” sexual favors trading.
Interestingly enough at this point, his co-author James Patterson spoke up at this point, saying “why didn’t the press investigate this stuff 30 years ago?”
But thirty years ago was 1988. Bill Clinton was elected to the Presidency in 1992. While Mr. Patterson’s statement was apparently off-the-cuff, it probably backfired as it would raise the question of “why wasn’t Bill Clinton himself investigated more thoroughly? He was doing his philandering back then!!”
However, this didn’t derail the interview visibly. At this point, though, things really started to get weird.
Question: I assume that you think what happened with you was more serious than what happened with Senator – former Senator Al Franken – he was driven from office from the US Senate, So norms have changed. Do you think that’s a good thing?
Clinton: Well, I think in general it’s a good thing, yes. I think the norms have really changed in terms of, what you can do to somebody against their will, how much you can crowd their space, make them miserable at work. You don’t have to physically assault somebody to make them, you know, uncomfortable at work or at home or in their other – just walking around. That, I think, is good.
“I think that – I will be honest – the Franken case, for me, was a difficult case, a hard case. There may be things in it I don’t know. But I – maybe I’m just an old fashioned person, but it seemed to me that there were 29 women on “Saturday Night Live” that out out a statement for him, and that the first and most fantastic story was called, I believe, into question.”
This last reference was to the fact that about three dozen women who worked with Senator Al Franken during his tenure on “Saturday Night Live” came out in his defense while he was facing allegations of sexual misconduct last October.
Taken in light of the #MeToo movement, Clinton’s comments seemed to be definitely “incorrect” because he appeared to be defending Senator Franken. In fact, the overall way that Mr. Clinton responded to the questions regarding his history was as though the “increased sensitivity” allegedly brought about by #MeToo revelations was itself valid.
One can see this when viewing the former President’s comments in context. Bill Clinton is an excellent talker, and quite honestly, an excellent storyteller. He has literally won Grammy awards for Spoken Voice recordings, and he is a master of the spoken word, no matter what that word is. But he is crafty, and able to play up the very likely over-done aspect of #MeToo in such a way as to appear to exonerate himself and to also subtly slam the movement even where it is entirely right and appropriate.
Clinton’s answer raised eyebrows in the news media even in CNN’s newsroom, as well as Fox News. The exception to “what you can do to somebody against their will” phrase was the source of the exceptions taken in the news media outlets, as it seemed that Mr. Clinton was subtly defending the right to take advantage of women.
Given his history and his total lack of honesty about this matter, this may have been a reveal into where the man really lives in his heart and soul on this subject. It was almost pitiful to see this in action, even, as noted before, when his partner on the interview alluded to actions that would have implicated Clinton long ago had they been taken.
It seems that the person most fooled by Bill Clinton is indeed… Bill Clinton. He seems at best, blissfully unaware of having done anything wrong.