In the summer of 2013, Democratic National Committee chief Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL) called for the resignation of Democratic San Diego Mayor Bob Filner, previously a U.S. representative, after former supporters of the mayor went public with accusations of sexual harassment.
Wasserman Schultz (emphasis added):
The misconduct Mayor Bob Filner has been accused of is reprehensible and indefensible.I am personally offended by his actions, and I firmly believe no employee should face a hostile environment or harassmentat their place of employment. There is no place for this type of conduct in the workplace and certainly not in our city halls and public offices.
For the good of the City of San Diego, I call on Mayor Filner to resign.
Fast foward to this past Sunday’s “Meet the Press” where Andrea Mitchell asked Wasserman-Schultz:
But if he — Donald Trump is going to raise this issue, as he is warning, of Bill Clinton’s past and sexism, does that give you any pause as Democratic chair?”
Oh, that’s different. Wasserman Schultz replied (emphasis added):
I think that Donald Trump, or any candidate on the other side of the aisle, would raise Bill Clinton as somehow a negative to their peril.
I think every poll I’ve ever seen shows that if President Clinton were a candidate tomorrow he’d be reelected. He presided at that time over the longest period of prosperity, sustained up to that point, finished his term very popular —and continues to be one of the most admired elected officials and former elected officials and men in the world.
1) About Mitchell’s dainty term, “past and sexism,” to describe the serial sexual depredations of Bill Clinton, which include a credible, on-the-record charge of rape: This is a euphemism so enigmatically prudish as to put Victorian grannies to shame. Not that it was chosen to spare the sensibilities of viewers. It was chosen so as not to prick or disturb or agitate our carefully conditioned memories, or hers.
2) About Wasserman Schultz’s crocodile concerns for Donald Trump: She says Trump et al. raise Bill Clinton as a “negative to their peril” because Clinton is so popular. So, we are supposed to believe the DNC chairwoman is trying to protect the Trump campaign from harm?
I think Wasserman Schultz is terrified that Trump will do to the Clintons what he does to everything else: Tear down the carefully constructed fake PC edifice and say what’s what. If that ever happens, the Clintons will have to go hide their heads in shame where they belong.
All of which should swivel our heads back to Mayor Masher in San Diego.
Whoosh, they got rid of that man fast — and thanks in no small part to the DNC “chair’s” good feminist outrage, not to mention that of
Unless, of course, the employer is Bill Clinton, and the public offices are in Arkansas or Washington, D.C.
Nineteen women in all would publicly denounce Filner. Read their claims. The more specific and credible-sounding ones seem to start and end in a onetime patted or grabbed rear end/“tush,” also a “grabbed” breast. There are several instances of a rebuffed kiss, a rubbed armed, a “flirtatious email,” etc., and a kind of “headlock,” which I don’t understand. OK. Blech! Sppff! Thwwgp! And what about a good hard slap across the kisser (ask: What would Barbara Stanwyck do?)
But it’s not rape and a parting suggestion to “put ice some on that” (Juanita Broaddrick). It’s not exposed genitals and exhortations to “kiss it” (Paula Jones). Nor are there any stained dresses (Monica Lewinsky), or private investigations of “bimbo eruptions” or smear campaigns targeting the victimized women (Kathleen Willey). One woman made the Filner roster, CNN reported, for feeling “uncomfortable as Filner moved closer and closer — so close she nearly fell off the couch trying to move away from him.” And that’s it. (See below for a very different couch story.)
But even if Filner had been a predator of Clintonian menace and degradation, the question remains: Why did the dogs of feminism that were unleashed on Filner protect Bill Clinton? And why do they still lick his hand?
The answer has everything to do with power — and nothing, but nothing, to do with protecting vulnerable women from predatory men. Otherwise, Paula Jones would be a saint in the Democratic Party.
In 1991, when Bill Clinton was governor of Arkansas, Paula Jones was a young, married state employee, working at the registration desk of a governor’s conference. Summoned by a member of Clinton’s security detail to “meet” the governor, Jones went to his suite whereupon Clinton, in the course of small talk, mentioned he was a good friend of Jones’ boss. Talk about “hostile work environment.”
To find out what happened next, let’s pick up Point 14 of Jones’ declaration in the famous sexual harassment case that she brought against President Bill Clinton, who would finally settle out of court with a payment $850,000 to Jones — $150,000 more than the $700,000 she originally sought in damages. Emphasis added:
14. Mr. Clinton then unexpectedly reached over to me, took my hand, and pulled me toward him, so that our bodies were close to each other. I removed my hand from his and retreated several feet…