Magic ticket my ass, McBain.

Ahnold has been a gigantic asshole since day one. Not at all surprising that he’s still an asshole.

Shriver could have declined to help him run for governor, and I doubt that anyone would have thought less of her for doing it.

I think many people DO think less of a wife who does not stand up, 100%, for her political husband - I think such a move sets women up for sexist attacks that they can not recover from. Is it selfish for Shriver to put her own public image (and possible future political career) ahead of other people’s lives? Probably, but it’s a selfishness that men are free to engage in all they want.

Women truly can’t win.

I agree.  I felt this right away as soon as I read the story last night, and I pointed out that she covered up for not just a serial cheater, but a serial groper/harasser.  She asked women to vote for him and told them that it was okay to vote for him, because he wasn’t those things.  That’s when she crossed the line.  I got a lot of shit for that on the huffpo, and I’m certain you’re going to get a lot of shit here.

But I believe you have the right of it.

Sarah’s right—I remember during the Lewinsky scandal, there was a not-insignificant # of people who were clutching their pearls that Hillary might dump Bill’s ass while he was still president. I don’t think these were necessarily the same cadre of Hillary haters who would suddenly be oh-so-upset at not having a first lady at all ... but I know there were a fair few of them in that contingent.

The political wife’s role is to be a support figure. Howard Dean’s wife was actually given shit because she planned to continue her medical practice even if Dean won the nomination and the presidency.

Not that I am trying to explain Schwarzenegger’s Oui interview, but considering how bad his English was at that time, is it possible that “Everybody jumped on her and took her upstairs, where we all got together” could be “Everyone joined in and we all went upstairs”.

Not that I don’t think she was coerced or at the very least a reluctant participant.  Schwarzenegger has been proven time and again to be ultra-skeevy, so I’m not going out of my way to give him the benefit of the doubt.

I remember all the shit people got during the recall election for bringing up the Arnold groping.  At the the time Arnold was the hero of the Republicans, the same people who dwell on Obama’s birth certificate wanted to change the law so that Arnold could run for president.  I think there was such hatred toward Gray Davis at the time that the groping stories didn’t crush his chances.  Not only was he a terrible governor, but he was a cheater and I can’t help but feel that the entire right-wing deserves some blame for this as well.

“I agree.  I felt this right away as soon as I read the story last night, and I pointed out that she covered up for not just a serial cheater, but a serial groper/harasser.  She asked women to vote for him and told them that it was okay to vote for him, because he wasn’t those things.  That’s when she crossed the line.”

I’m sure Maria played some part in getting her husband elected.  But let’s not forget (or excuse) that there were many of my fellow Californians who were stupid/deluded enough to vote for the man I used to call SchwarzenBush.  (Instead of being the candidate they’d like to have a beer with, he was the candidate they wanted to co-star with in an action movie.)  In the end he was just another Reichwing politician who wanted to sell California to the wealthy oligarchy, using California’s fiscal problems as weapon of choice, just like the Reichwing in Washington is doing to the whole country.  (Fiscal problems, BTW, that are entirely at the feet of California Republicans…and our sub-optimal proposition process…and millions of “I’ve got mine, fuck you!” voters…)

I’m just disappointed that his downfall was delayed until he was out of office.  At least he could have gone Mel Gibson and get stopped for drunk driving (in a Hummer of course) and then call the female arresting officer “sugar tits”...

Except, Sarah TX, that she’s not standing up for him now. Can you point to instances where women have turned against their husbands and had their career destroyed? The Elizabeth Edwards story would point to the opposite, given she went on to write a bestselling book. I think there’s much more evidence to suggest that the Good Wife becomes the perfect Virgin and Mother in the Virgin, Mother, Whore mode of thinking. Sure, women who are public figures are going to face sexist attacks no matter what they do. Maria Shriver has been for decades. But that’s not a great justification for the whitewashing of sexual violence. I mean, it could also be considered a good reason to stand together with other women rather than alone.

Where’s Mike Ess?  Ok here’s my much lesser approximation of the low-info Republicans who voted for him:

Actor?  Californee?  = 2bd coming of St Ronnie!!!!!!!

Schwazenegger did some sort of documentary/tourism show where he came to Brazil and behaved badly on camera, I’d say in the 80s, by the clothes on the video.
Notice how everybody watching the dance show is sitting on tables away from the stage, and the big famous guy is the only one going on stage to grope the dancers. And that he says he wants a translator to teach him some Portuguese then starts talking about ass while she laughs nervously.

I have a hard time kicking Maria Shriver.  People have an amazing talent for believing what they want to believe.  She’s now had all her defenses of her husband blatantly and undeniably shown to be misplaced.  She has the humiliation of the “love child”, which isn’t the kid’s fault, and shouldn’t still be such a stigma, but it is positive proof of the cheating.

Arnold is not going to face any repercussions from this affair.  Yes, his marriage is over, but it’s not like he really respected monogamy anyway.  His career will be fine.

Maria might actually suffer, since she put her career on bold for Arnold’s and now she’ll face questions of how good a journalist she can be if she can’t even notice she married a cheating louse.

We need to move to a more equitable world before I can feel the haterade for Maria.

I don’t think she would have separated her ‘romance’ vs. ‘public’ motivations. She was probably marrying him (or he was marrying her) with the intent of joining forces politically - like the old alliances between nations formed by marrying princes and princesses.

Except, Sarah TX, that she’s not standing up for him now.

He’s out of office.

Can you point to instances where women have turned against their husbands and had their career destroyed?

Not off the top of my head - note that we’re not talking about “turning against their husbands,” but vocally choosing not to campaign with them. I can’t think of any recent major elections I’ve followed where a wife chose not to campaign with their husband. Laura Bush, for example, is privately liberal (revealed in a book after her husband left office), and yet she campaigned for GWB.

I’ll also note that Elizabeth Edwards wrote the book after her husband left politics, not before. While they were on the campaign trail, she was as outwardly devoted to him as she could be.

But that’s not a great justification for the whitewashing of sexual violence.

I agree, it’s a terrible justification, but it’s an understandable one. Didn’t I call her selfish? I did.

Caren, it was well-known in some circles in the mid-80s that Eddie Van Halen was a party animal who always had a clean “facade” when his wife Valerie was around,  so I wouldn’t be surprised if that wasn’t true about Arnold and his marriage to Maria as well.

While I do think SarahTX and MikeEss both make an excellent points, emotionally I’m still pissed at Shriver.  Schwarzenegger is an asshole, abuser, criminal, and should be locked up…but what Shriver did feels more like a betrayal.  So while I hate Schwarzenegger more, what Shriver did hurts more, if that makes sense.

The only thing that I can say about Shiver is I think she might have helped shift some of Schwazenegger’s beliefs left.  For instance, he came out in support of gay marriage (a shift from his earlier beliefs) and is moderately pro-choice.  I can’t help but think the reason he ended up moderately liberal is because he had Shiver pushing it at home.

Well, yeah. I’m just saying I would add “immoral,” Sarah TX. Selfish reads to me like talking the last piece of cake. Polling showed that she dramatically swayed CA’s skeptical women voters when she came to his defense, thus guiding a sexually violent man into office. I think it’s fair game to judge women for the roles they play in perpetuating a misogynistic society. I’m not going to judge her as I would him- there’s no “haterade!.” But I think the questions that Amanda’s asking are very legitimate.

Because when all these accusations came out about Schwarzenegger, and when he basically admitted to them, it was the presence of the well-respected Maria Shriver that allowed him to basically dodge the accusations.

It is her family legacy to make excuses for her husband’s misbehavior. I like the things the Kennedys do/have done for the poor.  I voted for Ted for Senate, and enthusiastically at that.  But on a personal level, they are a messed up bunch.  The men do whatever they want, and the women look the other way and make excuses. Maria’s no different, and she only now has reached her breaking point.

(I still haven’t forgotten the way the whole family rallied to Willie Smith’s defense when it was apparent that he had, let’s say, a problem with consent. In my book, family loyalty should only go so far.)

She does good work, and that’s what makes it all the more frustrating that she used all the good will she’s garnered in order to propel a groping, lying shitbag into the governor’s seat of the largest state in the country.

Quibble, but….
Most populous, not largest.  Largest has no meaning without context.

Aggressive fucking turns some people on.  Hence, the common usage of the exclamation, “Fuck me!” 

Liberal feminists should be liberal about other people being allowed to have sex.

Comment #18: alex

Fixed.

I saw one news report on the Strauss-Kahn case that he had acknowledged an extramarital affair.  I thought then that the affair did not make the attempted rape charge more likely to be true.  The previous sexual harassment charges did make me lean toward believing the charge, though.  Plus, it seems unlikely to me that a housekeeper would make up such a story, though I could be convinced away from my belief it’s true with additional evidence.

I’m likely spitting in the wind here, but I’ll object again to the use of the terms “violent” or “violence” as a necessary part of sexual harassment.  As was argued in the comments following the “Slut Walk” essay from last week, the term “violent” in common parlance (and my own preference) is something beyond unconsensual, offensive touching.  In Amanda’s opening paragraph, harassment and violence have been conflated.  Arnold, Gingrich and Clinton are appropriately referred to as sexual harassers, but I don’t think it’s appropriate to say that they are therefore guilty of violence against women.

IMO, it’s not only incorrect, but in anticipation of Gingrich in the presidential campaign, it’s counterproductive to accuse Gingrich of personally committing violence against women.  You can have dozens of excellent reasons to argue against Gingrich only to have the credibility of all the reasons damaged by claiming he’s been violent to women.

I’m stunned that anyone would think Maria Shriver had a choice.  If Arnold wanted to be governor and she didn’t support him, the pile-on would never stop:  Selfish, arrogant bitch.  Who does she think she is?  Yeah, right, she thinks she’s a journalist, my ass she is.  If Schwarzenegger had lost his first governor’s race everyone would be sure it was 100% Shriver’s fault for being such a castrating bitch.  Howard Dean’s wife did the non-support thing as quietly and humbly as anyone could—“please leave me alone, I am just a country doctor”—and she got no end of grief. 

And once you’ve bought into the supportive-wife path, you can’t abandon your dude when he is accused of groping, harassment, and near-rape.  If Shriver had been supporting Schwarzenegger’s ambitions and then suddenly withdrew when the accusations came out, the hatred for her would have reached fever pitch.  She’d be saying, in effect, “Yes, the accusations are true.”  People would think she had stabbed him in the heart.  I’ve never heard of a political wife surviving that kind of declaration.

Alex, consent is the important word.

Arnold talks about the other men “jumping” on the woman and about how some of the men didn’t consent to gang banging.  He’s less clear about whether or not the woman consented to be jumped upon.

If she’s a willing participant, alls fine.  If she’s not, as many of Arnold’s gropees were not, it’s not acceptable.

I think Alex confuses “walking out naked” for consent. They are not the same.

As Amanda clearly states, we don’t know if the woman was a consenting participant. However, the wording of Arnold’s description makes it highly suspicious that she wasn’t. If she was, then, fine. But Amanda also makes the point that Arnold discusses the men’s right to consent, but seems not to acknowledge the woman’s.

“If she’s a willing participant, alls fine.  If she’s not, as many of Arnold’s gropees were not, it’s not acceptable.”

I’m sure an entitled prick like SchwarzenBush thinks any woman he deigns to fondle should be honored he chose her to touch inappropriately.  If being rich and famous doesn’t give you free reign to act as you wish, no matter how badly, then what’s the point of it?...

Alex, there isn’t enough information to assess whether the gangbang was consensual or not.  All we know is that she came out naked and Schwarzenegger’s account of the situation did not include her consent at all.

Naked does not necessarily equal “I want to have sex with everyone here.”

Oh, I should have refreshed before posting.

1. I think it’s really hard to be a politician’s wife. The ones I most admire are ones like Cherie Booth (Blair) who keep their own jobs. But the media basically spends a lot of time forcing these women into the “support their husband” role.

2. Given that, and even though I do think that sometimes politicians’ wives probably do some enabling, I don’t really want to criticize them.

3. On the relationship between sexual predation and cheating, it’s worth noting that Gingrich was cruel to his first wife in ways that went beyond cheating, and Bill Clinton had some allegations of sexual harassment and sexual assault that trailed him, as well as the womanizing.

I’m not exactly a big Arnold fan, but it seems like the Oui interview should be placed in the context of the bodybuilding culture at that time.  It sounds like at the time women would show up to the men’s training regimen explicitly with the purpose of fucking a bunch of bodybuilders.  That’s something I personally don’t understand as it sounds pretty uncomfortable and appalling to me, but apparently some women dig that.

In that context, a woman showing up naked in the midst of a bunch of men working out probably has that intent in mind (which doesn’t abdicate the woman’s right to change her mind or decide she doesn’t want sex with particular members of the group).  Unless or until a woman comes forward explicitly accusing Arnold of rape, I think it’s pretty low to drag that interview into this.  Aren’t there enough legitimate accusations against him as it is?

That a liberal Democrat married a Republican seemed loathsome to me, at the time.

I remember having this brief exchange with a friend back in the late ‘70s: “I couldn’t sleep with a Republican, could you?”

“No.”

With, perhaps, the exception of Eisenhower, Republican politicians and politics have always been suspect, going as far back as the 1920s, when they set up the mechanics for the last Great Depression.

Maybe you could argue Republicans are even scarier now, but they’ve been the party of handouts-to-the-rich, screw-everyone-else for at least a hundred years.

And Maria married the bastard.

Okay, it ran in the family, marrying handsome cads.

But still.

At least they married Democratic cads, up to that point.

Alex @ 39:

Yes, I could resist.

1.) I don’t like musclebound guys.  (Give me Antonio Sabato in that Janet Jackson video.)

2.) Beauty is great to look at, but it doesn’t make a great husband/partner.

3.) There was a price to be paid for all of those muscles: a damaged heart valve, and the need for in vitro for all 4 kids.

alex, i only made it about 20 seconds before i had to turn away.  the weird jiggling plus the veins almost made me lose my lunch.

I’ve also seen Schwartzenegger in person, before he took up acting like a governor, and was acting like a director for HBO movies.

The guy is short, and not very attractive (and I say that, at not quite 4’11” myself).

James Earl Jones (at the same press party) could have eaten him for lunch, and bench pressed Arnold for dessert.

Alex @39: do you mean women can’t see beyond appearances and are unable to make good decisions when tempted with attractive bodies? Also, that all women agree on what attractive body means?

http://www.tmz.com/2011/05/17/arnold-schwarzenegger-fathered-wedlock-baby-maria-shriver-marriage-child-welcome/?icid=maing-grid7|main5|dl1|sec1_lnk2|63551

Arnold Used Santa Monica Office for (More) Romantic Liaisons

I live in Santa Monica, and the bigger sin, as far as I’m concerned, was something Maria couldn’t help but notice: the asshole drove around town in a Hummer.

A Hummer, for Christ’s sake, down small-townish streets. Not the desert, not a war, not anything but what had been a down at the heels seaside town, turned into the equivalent of asshole yuppie-ville by Swartzenegger and the other carpet baggers.

Yes, during the height of our Wars for Oil, Arnold made it a point to drive a motherfucking Hummer.

Oh, I’m familiar with that Hummer.  He was the first to have one when they became commercially available, and he must have driven it constantly in the ‘90s, because he could be spotted everywhere.  He thought he was awesome; I and many others* thought he was obscene.

* but not enough of us hated him to keep him from getting elected, unfortunately

I admit when I’m wrong: Arnold didn’t just drive a Hummer, he single-handedly convinced the military manufacturer to produce Hummers for the civilian market, and then spent decades promoting GM’s clown car on steroids, to the tune of 71,000 Hummers sold worldwide in 2006, alone.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/26/AR2010022603248.html?sid=ST2010022605053

Sorry, but I woulda divorced the schmuck after the first Hummer.

I hated the Hummer. (I think it was a hybrid. I still hated it.)

The criticism of it, though, seems to miss something about being rich—which is that in order to enjoy the fruits of their wealth, rich people generally have huge carbon and energy footprints.

One of the biggest contributors to a carbon footprint, for instance, is private jets. But don’t even think of asking ANY rich person with only a few exceptions to switch to commercial. And that goes for rich liberals as well as rich conservatives.

That’s the bit one, but there are also some smaller ones as well- limousines, imported luxury goods, foods, and wines, etc.

Even though I hate Hummers, I would take a trade where wealthy people obtain their status and comfort by riding around in Hummers but they all give up the private jets. That will not ever happen, though.

The recall of Grey Davis and election of Swartzenegger were a stealth campaign rigged by an obscenely rich Republican to inflict a Republican governor on largely Democratic California.

Schwartzenegger, although a long-time announced Republican, didn’t publicly run on a Republican platform. Maria’s backing also gave him cover to run as a “middle-of-the-road” candidate.

Then, immediately after inaugeration Schwartenegger began governing as a Republican, much to the surprise and disgust of the voters.

His polls plunged, but the damage was done and continued to be done.  For instance, despite a state cash-strapped after decades of the Republican minority in the legislator scotching every budget that included taxes for the ultra-wealthy or corporations, Arnold vetoed a yacht tax, that managed to make it through both houses.

Schwartenegger vetoed a yacht tax, during a major recession.

That’s who “liberal Democrat” Maria helped elect.

Private jet versus Hummer argument, well that’s certainly even further off on a tangent.

Although since some Hummers were sold at $50,000 and the private jet price tag ranges from $6 million to $50 million for a new jet, we’re talking applies and oranges here in both numbers produced, and relative wealth of who could purchase same.

Hummers are no longer being made, either, so your imaginary trade is even more imaginary.

I wouldn’t be surprised if Shriver and Schwarzenegger had An Arrangement similar to what the Clintons apparently have. However, I feel safe in saying that any such arrangement would preclude secretly fathering someone else’s child, which would make it a massive breach of faith, especially hiding it for ten years. That’s kind of not related to Schwarzenegger’s overly aggressive past though.

Although since some Hummers were sold at $50,000 and the private jet price tag ranges from $6 million to $50 million for a new jet, we’re talking applies and oranges here in both numbers produced, and relative wealth of who could purchase same.

As I said, I don’t like Hummers.

But Hummers are an annoyance. Private jets are a serious environmental threat.

The reality is, I think people have to be careful about substituting a sort of cultural snobbery (i.e., not liking what Hummers symbolize) for the actual problem here (rich people have huge carbon footprints and do massive environmental damage). This is usually a malady of the right, but it can spring up on our side too.

I wouldn’t be surprised if Shriver and Schwarzenegger had An Arrangement similar to what the Clintons apparently have

I have no idea who has “arrangements” and who doesn’t, and what the arrangements are. But there are certainly issues of bargaining power and relative power and powerlessness and compromises that come into play when one enters a relationship with a famous person who likes to fool around.

What strikes me about the Qui excerpt is not just the lack on information on whether or not consent was given, but also the heavy implication that consent didn’t matter one way or another by both the interviewer and Schwarznegger. Consent doesn’t matter ‘cause she doesn’t matter, and that’s just how it apparently is in that mindset. I don’t know why the stroke gobsmacked me like it did, but it did. Like the recent to-do about Steven Tyler’s “post-abortion depression” or whatever that nonsense is called, for some folks what women think really does not matter one whit.

I do know better, honestly, and I know that nearly 35 years has changed very little, but still.

What Hummers symbolized? Naw, the damage to roadway and the niggling mpg were carbon footprint damn heavy: which is why Hummers were hated.

They also were sold in numbers that private jet manufacturers could only dream of —increasing that carbon footprint—and giving the more average buyer the opportunity to thumb their noses, en mass, against ecology, and the idea that it didn’t damn matter, as long as we could fight wars for “our” oil. It was a military machine, to begin with.

I don’t know why we’re having this argument in the first place.

I used the Hummer as an example of Schwartzenegger’s personal politics that a “liberal Democratoc” wife would have been aware of, and if she were indeed a “liberal Democrat” would not have helped sell Arnold as a “middle-of-the-road” acceptable candidate for Democrats to vote for.

Only after Arnold had taken a wrecking ball to the state of California, did Maria deign to divorce him.

I suspect the total amount of carbon emitted by the entire fleet of Hummers on the road in the US is exceeded by the carbon footprint of any ten celebrities who fly, say, more than 50 times a year each on a private jet.

Hummers aren’t where the action is. They are symbols. Really taking on wealth requires taking on some people who very well may drive Priuses some of the time.

But what the hell in heaven do private jets have to do with Maria Shriver?

Wait, I’ve got your answer: she flies on ‘em.

But what the hell in heaven do private jets have to do with the breakup of the marriage, or for that matter,  as examples that Maria was responsible for foisting Arnold on the state of California.

Now, can we shut up about private jets on this thread, at least.

If you’re a man, Dilan, you’re being tiresome about the ‘mansplaining, on something very, very off-topic.

If you’re not male, there would seem to be no rationale, good or bad.

Oui used to be Playboy’s European sibling, a response to their rival Penthouse, so I’m not surprised that they printed what he said and there wasn’t much of an uproar when they did so.

“Oui was originally published in France under the name Lui by Daniel Filipacchi (first French issue January 1964), as a French equivalent of Playboy.[1][2] In 1972, Playboy Enterprises purchased the rights for a U.S. edition, changing the name to Oui, and the first issue was published in October of that year. Jon Carroll, formerly assistant editor at Rolling Stone magazine and editor of Rags and later editor of The Village Voice, was selected as the first editor.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oui_(magazine)

Qui was published out of New York, and I knew a number of New York writers who worked for it in the ‘70s.

I’m here to testify that the sexual sensibility was very much that of New York City in the ‘70s—for good and ill—post the Sexual Revolution and Second Wave Feminism, and pre herpes and AIDs.

Judibrowni @42:

James Earl Jones (at the same press party) could have eaten him for lunch, and bench pressed Arnold for dessert.

To each their own and all, but have you ever seen the movie Claudette?  He kept kissing her with his eyes wide open!  He literally looked like a fish!  Trying to kiss!  No…just…no.  Since seeing that, I have never been able to think of the phrases “James Earl Jones” and “romantic lead” without wanting to bleach my brain.  Excellent movie, though.

I think Unree’s second paragraph has it right:  Whether she had a choice before he announced his candidacy may or may not be true, but I don’t think he would run without knowing he had her public support, so once he announced, there’s no way she wasn’t going to stand with him.

FWIW, I don’t think she found his politics or behavior abhorrent; if she did she wouldn’t be in love with him (note: not the same as agreeing with him on everything, either).  Hence, the formulation of “I love you, but I won’t foist you on the rest of California”...I guess I can see someone not helping a friend, but the person you’re in a serious relationship with?  I’m trying to imagine how that would work and still fit within the common frame we have of two people in a serious relationship.

I wasn’t comparing Swartzenegger to Jones on a romance basis: but Swartzenegger was a little, not particularly attractive guy, maybe little beefy in the arms.

Jones was a head and more taller than Arnold, bigger body with more oodless more gravitas.

If you love and support your spouse you won’t be able to believe that he’s capable of the bad things others accuse him of unless he rubs it in your face. I feel doubly sorry for Maria, because the person she placed her trust in violated it twice over.

Compared to conservative Republicans, Schwarzenegger is a RINO. He does not believe that every sperm is sacred; he did not try to eliminate unions. He campaigned on reducing one tax: the personal property tax on vehicles.

Speaking of which: The Humvee is the military vehicle that replaced the Jeep. That’s what Arnold wanted. The Hummer is just a reskinned Chevy Suburban—bad enough, but hardly breaking new ground in fuel consumption.

Basically, it boils down to this: despite her feminist and Democratic or liberal credentials, Maria supported her husband as he screwed the citzens of California (and more, if you consider the Hummers), so she shouldn’t be surprised that he screwed her over, too.

RE: the Oui interview about the ‘gang bang’. Since Amanda mentioned it in her post, and a number of people brought it up in the comments, I’m genuinely curious: has this ever been fact-checked? Has the woman in question ever come forth and gave her version of the story? Or any of the other body-builders/alleged participants? I’m asking because I remember when this was brought up back in 2003 during the governor’s race it sounded like BS - like a jock telling his buddies about some imaginary sexual exploit. Or an extremely embellished version of a much more innocuous event.
And let me add, I’m not asking this because I think Arnie’s being maligned or anything. Personally, I find him rather loathsome and don’t doubt for a minute that he’s at the very least a vile serial sexual harrasser. And yes, I find his politics rather loathsome, too.

So, I’d say that there’s no reason to think Bill Clinton or Newt Gingrich harasses women because they’re cheaters.

For the record, Paula Jones accused Bill Clinton of Sexual Harassment, Kathleen Willey of groping (in the WH), and Juanita Broaddrick of rape.

But your moral responsibilities kick in when the man you love starts doing things that are wrong and you help him do it.  Shriver could have declined to help him run for governor, and I doubt that anyone would have thought less of her for doing it.

So was him running for office a ‘wrong thing?’  If Shriver is really focused on womens’ issues, maybe she was assured by her husband that her help would be contingent upon his backing her issues once elected.

Hell, even without such an assurance, I fail to see how his personal misdeeds would have translated into policy that hurts women.  That’s the only way that her feminism would have been at odds with her actions.

What a worthless post.  Her calling out his prior wrongdoings wouldn’t have undone them.

And the Hummer derail was stupid, but the term ‘mansplain’ is going the way of ‘troll’ in terms of use and applicability.  It’s becoming a haughty, pointless rejoinder, resembling the thing it’s meant to mock.

I think ‘mansplain describes the Private Jet derail perfectly: at least there was a point that related to that Amanda’s post with the Hummers.

Private Jet came out of nowhere, and going on and on riding that particular hobbyhorse ‘splainin’ to all us girls why PJs were more dirty than Hummers: ‘mansplaining exactly.

As for Arnold’s “personal misdeeds” (abuse of power, is more like it) screwing him out of an election (without Maria’s support) Amanda is by no means the only writer to connect the dots:

“His megawatt-smile denials were pure pap, and if knowledge of his affair had been public it’s almost a dead certainty that the recall would have failed and Gray Davis would have remained governor. The car tax would have stayed in place, no bonds would have been issued to make up for it, and California’s deficit problems would have been less than half as bad as they turned out to be under Schwarzenegger.”
http://motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2011/05/sorry-about-california

“For the record, Paula Jones accused Bill Clinton of Sexual Harassment, Kathleen Willey of groping (in the WH), and Juanita Broaddrick of rape.”

...and on the scale of accusations against the Clintons (which pretty much includes everything short of being accused of directly causing World War One by personally shooting the Archduke Ferdinand), exactly how truthful are any of these?

Don’t get me wrong, Clinton is a sleaze (Bill, at least), but it’s not clear that he’s any sleazier than any of his Reichwing accusers.  Besides, dragging Bill Clinton into a discussion of Republican misdeeds to deflect criticism of Republicans is so ‘90s.  Got anything fresher?...

(I propose Mike Ess’s First Law of Political Discussions:  As any discussion of Republican bad behavior - ethical, moral, financial, etc. - gets longer, the odds of a wingnut bringing up Bill Clinton to excuse that Republican bad behavior approach 1. 

Corollary:  The actual Democratic President brought up to excuse Republican misdeeds changes decade-by-decade, so this same thing has occurred with ever Democratic President since FDR.  This is considered to be “normal” behavior among wingnuts, and is universally expected to continue for the foreseeable future. 

Trivial Fact: Reichwing blaming of Barack Obama for the state of the country started even before he was elected, accelerated after he was elected, and is projected to exceed the speed of light by the time he leaves office in January of 2017…)

alex @59: if you don’t think that way, what’s the point in asking the question?

The Oui magazine snippet is really weird. I have some trouble accepting the story as true.

Not that he would say it in the interview. Nor do I have issues with any of the conclusions drawn about his character based on what was there (or not. Re: actual consent)

“this hot naked chick just showed up. And we all had sex with her. Not everyone, because some guys aren’t confident about their penises and can’t get it up in front of a crowd. but I totally could. because I’m virile!”

it’s a sexual account that seems only slightly more informed about human sexuality than “I had sex with a hot chick from another school. in Canada. you wouldn’t know her. but she let me pee in her butt. Because that’s how you do the sex.”

It really seems to me that this is not a factual account, but a wish fulfillment account, wherein he tries to assert the sex symbol status that he believes should be present because of all the hard work, and it makes a more interesting story than the musclehead gym being basically a sausage fest where they spend all day sweating with other guys and cracking jokes while they strain to add five pounds to their lift weight and shave down another .2 percent bodyfat. It’s a lot of hard work for very little benefit, and that isn’t the sort of lifestyle he’d want to project.

So yeah, it’s all about gangbanging “this black girl who came out naked.” I will allow you to believe that I believe you, if that’s what your fragile ego requires.

...and on the scale of accusations against the Clintons (which pretty much includes everything short of being accused of directly causing World War One by personally shooting the Archduke Ferdinand), exactly how truthful are any of these?

If you want my personal opinion, I think that Jones was probably lying (and that they had consensual sex), Willey was telling the truth, and Broaderick was telling the truth at least to the extent that she experienced what happened as nonconsensual.

My point in bring this up, however, was not to claim that I necessarily know that the allegations are true, but simply to remark that it is actually entirely possible that Bill Clinton (and Newt Gingrich) do not actually fit in a different category from the Sperminator and DSK.

the term ‘mansplain’ is going the way of ‘troll’ in terms of use and applicability.  It’s becoming a haughty, pointless rejoinder, resembling the thing it’s meant to mock.

It is, but bear in mind, the reason why insults substitute for arguments on the internet is that insults are more fun for the people throwing them out.

It’s like Bill Maher’s point about the people who called terrorists “cowards”. It’s not about what is actually happening or not happening (i.e, whether it actually takes courage to suicide bomb), it’s about the pleasure of insulting a terrorist.

If you’re a man, Dilan, you’re being tiresome about the ‘mansplaining, on something very, very off-topic. If you’re not male, there would seem to be no rationale, good or bad.

And to answer this on the merits, as I said, Hummers are bad things, but they are also purely symbolic things—they don’t actually do a lot of harm.

And I do think one real problem we have on the left is an unwillingness to actually focus on acts that ARE wasteful because some of our political allies do them, while bashing on the Sperminator for driving a Hummer.

exactly how truthful are any of these?

On the most serious allegation, 5 people confirmed that Broadderick had told them about the rape around the time it occurred.

Besides, dragging Bill Clinton into a discussion

I didn’t drag him in. He’s right there in the post.

To deflect criticism of Republicans…wingnut bringing up Bill Clinton to excuse that Republican bad behavior approach

Argument to motive, so you’re dismissed on those ground.

Also hypocritical since it appears you have an interest in excusing such behavior:

“exactly how truthful are any of these?”;

“but it’s not clear that he’s any sleazier than any of his Reichwing accusers.”

Manju, who apparently was asleep between 1992 and 2000, seems to have forgotten how the Leading Lights of Political Washington and their masters, The Arkansas Project and the Republican Party (both nicely funded by Richard Mellon Scaife, and maybe the Koch Brothers too) were able to get Washington to come apart at the seams because Bill Clinton got one or more blowjobs.  From an adult woman.  And the sex was consensual.  Even if it was morally wrong (and I personally think all affairs are wrong), it was still not legally wrong.

Of the Serious Politicians — who were Just Appalled at what that horrible man did in Their Town and spared no time or expense making sure that everyone knew Bill Clinton was the Worst President of All Time (until Bush Jr.) because he Destroyed America’s Moral Fabric! — it seems something like half of them were in the middle of their own affairs at the same time they were denouncing The Clenis (notably Newton “More of a Lizard Than Real Newts” Gingrich), or were still covering-up and denying affairs they had engaged in earlier (notably Dan Burton).

Were we hunting down bin Laden?  No.  Were we monitoring our financial laws and regulations to head off a housing market collapse years before the disaster of the Great Recession?  No.  Did we invest in better voting machines to head off Hanging Chad Disasters in Florida?  No.  Did we spend the money wasted on Ken Starr and his hunt-for-sleaze developing better cancer cures, or new forms of energy to replace oil, or educating Americans so we could compete better in the global marketplace?  No.

We came unglued.  Over consensual sex.  Between two adults.  As if it was the most important thing since the Cuban Missile Crisis.

And the whole time significant numbers of fingers-pointers decrying Bill Clinton’s salacious behavior were engaging in the same kind of salacious behavior.  And in the case of some of them, even worse behavior than they could ever accuse Bill Clinton of doing.

The word here is hypocrisy.  It means, in this case, doing the exact same things you condemn others for doing.

Of, course, given your inability to understand that the current Republican Party is now what the Democratic Party was before, during, and for decades after The American Civil War, I wouldn’t be surprised if the word “hypocrisy” was completely unknown (and impossible to explain) to you…

MikeEss either completely erases the allegations of 3 democratic women who alleged sexual harassment, groping in the workplace, and rape respectively

...or implies they are lying w/o providing evidence (they are part of the VRWC) not unlike BHL

...does this on a feminist blog

...while claiming others are hypocrites

Well, Mike, he did lie under oath about it. (Perjury traps are outrageous, but the fact remains, if a prosecutor sets one, don’t fall into it! He should have just admitted the affair and moved on.) And it was sex with a much younger subordinate, which is a really scummy thing for men to do.

But I’m not really interested in relitigating the Lewinsky case. That was clearly a consensual affair, and therefore isn’t germane to the point. Manju was talking about other women who alleged that Clinton engaged in activities that were less-than-consensual. And many of these women seemed credible (although I will admit that some didn’t—as I said, I didn’t really believe Paula Jones).

I will propose a counter-thesis to Amanda’s. I think that the type of male who is willing to use a powerful position to be able to secure a wife while also having sex with all sorts of other people behind her back, including subordinate employees, is probably also more likely to engage in some nonconsensual forms of sexual activities. Sense of entitlement, privilege, all the rest. And that whatever we think of Bill Clinton’s politics, he may have fit that mold as well (as may have Al Gore).

“I think that the type of male who is willing to use a powerful position to be able to secure a wife while also having sex with all sorts of other people behind her back, including subordinate employees, is probably also more likely to engage in some nonconsensual forms of sexual activities. Sense of entitlement, privilege, all the rest.”

If Clinton did rape someone, nail him.  If the IMF guy raped the maid, nail him.  Find Roman Polanski and bring his raping ass back to jail.

If you’re a raping Democrat, a raping Republican, a raping white man, a raping black man, a raping rich man, a raping poor man, a raping priest, etc., if a conviction can be had, then the perp needs to be held accountable.

But I am truly tired of hearing that something Bill Clinton (or Al Gore, Jimmy Carter, Lyndon Johnson, John F. Kennedy, Harry Truman, Franklin Roosevelt, and now Barack Obama) did excuses all bad Republican behavior, past, present, and future.  I’m not aiming that at you, Dilan, but morons like Manju need to be set straight…

Private Jet came out of nowhere, and going on and on riding that particular hobbyhorse ‘splainin’ to all us girls why PJs were more dirty than Hummers: ‘mansplaining exactly.

What?  It’s a discussion.  Not everyone that agrees with DE is a man, not everyone that agrees with you is a woman.

Neither gender on this site has a monopoly on intellectual swagger.

If you’re a man, Dilan, you’re being tiresome about the ‘mansplaining, on something very, very off-topic. If you’re not male, there would seem to be no rationale, good or bad.

Yeah, the term is officially dead.  And how exactly is gender the determinant of a viewpoint’s applicability?  Such bad faith here.

But I am truly tired of hearing that something Bill Clinton (or Al Gore, Jimmy Carter, Lyndon Johnson, John F. Kennedy, Harry Truman, Franklin Roosevelt, and now Barack Obama) did excuses all bad Republican behavior, past, present, and future.  I’m not aiming that at you, Dilan, but morons like Manju need to be set straight…

Perhaps you are tired of hearing it because you hear it when it’s not even said.

But how else to read your narrative in #80 other than a version of that which you are so tired of hearing: Since Richard Mellon Scaife, the Koch Brothers, and Newt are so evil; Clinton is excused. I reference 3 credible accusations of non-consensual sex acts and you respond with the Arkansas Project.

Or as one Dem operative said at the time:  “Drag a hundred-dollar bill through a trailer park, you never know what you’ll find.”

Re Judibrowni @72:  Just to be clear, Drum’s assumption that the anger towards Davis would dissipate (to the tune of 450,000 votes, or half the 900k that was the margin to recall him) once Schwarzenegger was out of the running is very speculative.  Arnold out <> Davis remains.

Agree with j’s point:  Rick Perlstein has been bemoaning the lack of fortitude in CA Dem oppo research when that Arnold in Brazil clip was begging to be used.