Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy, Exhumed!

Matt Welch | September 28, 2009

As if to cement my new hypothesis that 2009 is shaping up to be a replay of 1998–sitting Democratic administration robustly defended by its allies against right-wing alt media allegations of wrongoing that in some key cases turn out to be true; media becomes suddenly fascinated by the nefarious backgrounds/motivations/finances of the president's antagonists, who "have not accepted the results of the election"–along comes Bill Clinton to give a big "you bet" to the notion that there's a "vast right-wing conspiracy" out to get Obama, too.

Sure it is. It's not as strong as it was because America has changed demographically. But it's as virulent as it was.

That "demographically" was a nice touch all its own, but what really bakes my noodle here is the former president's apparently limitless chutzpah in doubling down on a phrase that was famouly used by his wife to deny charges he was having sexual relations with that woman, Monica Lewinsky. Don't make me go to the tape! OK, let's go to the tape, if only to remember what a bad year that really was:

LAUER: [...] There has been one question on the minds of people in this country, Mrs. Clinton, lately, and that is what is the exact nature of the relationship between your husband and Monica Lewinsky. Has he described that relationship in detail to you?

CLINTON: Well, we've talked at great length, and I think as this matter unfolds, the entire country will have more information. But we're right in the middle of a rather vigorous feeding frenzy right now. And people are saying all kinds of things, and putting out rumor and innuendo. And I have learned over the last many years, being involved in politics, and especially since my husband first started running for president, that the best thing to do in these cases is just to be patient, take a deep breath and the truth will come out. But there's nothing we can do to fight this fire storm of allegations that are out there.

LAUER: Has he described to you what [his relationship with Lewinsky] was?

CLINTON: Yes. And we'll find that out as time goes by, Matt.

But I think the important thing now is to stand as firmly as I can and say that, you know, the president has denied these allegations on all counts, unequivocally. And we'll see how this plays out. [...]

I mean, Bill and I have been accused of everything, including murder, by some of the very same people who are behind these allegations. So from my perspective, this is part of the continuing political campaign against my husband. [...]

LAUER: So when people say there's a lot of smoke here, your message is where there's smoke...

CLINTON: There isn't any fire, because think of what we've been through for the last six years and think of everything we've been accused of. [...]

LAUER: If he were to be asked today, Mrs. Clinton, do you think he would admit that he again has caused pain in this marriage?

CLINTON: No, absolutely not. And he shouldn't.

You know, we've been married for 22 years, Matt. And I have learned a long time ago that the only people who count in any marriage are the two that are in it.

We know everything there is to know about each other, and we understand and accept and love each other. And I just think that a lot of this is deliberately designed to sensationalize charges against my husband, because everything else they've tried has failed. And I also believe that it's part of an effort, very frankly, to undo the results of two elections. [...]

[signifiant snip]

I mean, look at the very people who are involved in this. They have popped up in other settings.

This is—the great story here for anybody willing to find it and write about it and explain it is this vast right-wing conspiracy that has been conspiring against my husband since the day he announced for president. A few journalists have kind of caught on to it and explained it. But it has not yet been fully revealed to the American public. And actually, you know, in a bizarre sort of way, this may do it.

I don't for a minute want to go back to the terrible old days of independent prosecutors investigating presidential semen stains, or first ladies being grilled on morning TV about the conditions of their marriage. But the above is a handy and always-timely illustration that the flame-the-messenger strategy for dealing with allegations emanating from opposing political camps is not only a way to change the subject and marginalize critics, it can and will be used to spread lies about the people holding power. Even if the liar in question isn't aware of the exact truth.

It's also worth remembering that the vast right-wing thing's once-reviled vortex, Richard Mellon Scaife, is now totally buddies with Bubba.

Reason on that magical four-word phrase here.

Help Reason celebrate its next 40 years. Donate Now!

Try Reason's award-winning print edition today! Your first issue is FREE if you are not completely satisfied.

|9.28.09 @ 3:23PM|#

Yes, there is a vast right wing conspiracy. It's called the Republican party.

There is a vast left wing conspiracy too.

There are a lot of vast conspiracies.

|9.28.09 @ 3:30PM|#

We're not a wing, and god knows we're not vast, but can we have a conspiracy too?

< zoidberg>Awwwww.....< /zoidberg>

|10.6.09 @ 5:49PM|#

Rather be on the "right" wing than the "wrong" wing. As for the Vastness---i think when people realize the stimulus bill was pure pork--mor "conspirators" will emerge.

Gilbert Martin|9.28.09 @ 3:35PM|#

"media becomes suddenly fascinated by the nefarious backgrounds/motivations/finances of the president's antagonists,"

Yeah the "serious" journalists are hot on the trail of the "real story" - which of course never includes anything about what the Obama administration is actually doing.

John Tagliaferro|9.28.09 @ 3:35PM|#

We're not a wing, and god knows we're not vast, but can we have a conspiracy too?

Ours has something to do with bankers and gold, but we are not allowed to take notes at the secret meetings so I keep forgetting.

Craig|9.28.09 @ 3:35PM|#

Speaking of conspiracy theories, how about running an article on the missing minutes from the Oklahoma City bombing tapes?

Or how about a debate on what Ken Burns calls "America's Best Idea" -- our national parks, not the Bill of Rights.

|9.28.09 @ 3:38PM|#

And I have learned a long time ago that the only people who count in any marriage are the two that are in it.

I bet hearing that gave Chelsea the warm fuzzies.

John Tagliaferro|9.28.09 @ 3:39PM|#

Speaking of conspiracy theories, how about running an article on the missing minutes from the Oklahoma City bombing tapes?

And why Elvis' middle name is spelled wrong on his headstone.

|9.28.09 @ 3:40PM|#

Goddammit Tagliafeero! Rule #1 you don't talk about the bankers and gold club!

DADIODADDY|9.28.09 @ 3:42PM|#

The only vast thing I remember from the Clinton administration was Hillary's backside. Or was it her thighs? Either way it was vast.

|9.28.09 @ 3:43PM|#

"And I have learned a long time ago that the only people who count in any marriage are the ~~two~~ ~~three~~ ~~four~~ five that are in it."

FTFY

That is a very nice picture of Monica Lewinsky that Time published on their cover - almost unrecognizable, almost beautiful, in an American wife kind of way.

Compared to the really ugly picture of Ed Kennedy they published recently, which looked more like his ghost as he would present himself to Jennifer Love Hewitt.

|9.28.09 @ 3:44PM|#

Or how about a debate on what Ken Burns calls "America's Best Idea"

There's already an essay from Gary North about that issue:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north762.html

|9.28.09 @ 3:48PM|#

I don't for a minute want to go back to the terrible old days of independent prosecutors investigating presidential semen stains, or first ladies being grilled on morning TV about the conditions of their marriage.

Are you kidding? Those days were gold!

The Democrats on the full-time defensive, with no spare time to futz around and meddle in the affairs of the average American? By God we could use that right about now!

I say bring on the semen! By the bucket full!

|9.28.09 @ 3:49PM|#

How can it be a conspiracy, if everybody knows about it?

Gilbert Martin|9.28.09 @ 3:51PM|#

"The only vast thing I remember from the Clinton administration was Hillary's backside. Or was it her thighs? Either way it was vast."

How about her mouth?

Her ability to screech is pretty vast as well.

|9.28.09 @ 3:51PM|#

It's like saying, "Royal Dutch Shell has been conspiring to bring oil to America and sell it!" in a furtive whisper.

Art-P.O.G.|9.28.09 @ 3:56PM|#

I've been wondering the same thing.

|9.28.09 @ 4:03PM|#

RC, you must check this out.

T|9.28.09 @ 4:05PM|#

How can it be a conspiracy, if everybody knows about it?

Nothing says it has to be a secret conspiracy.

|9.28.09 @ 4:09PM|#

I don't know about a Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy. Maybe a small Right-Wing Conspiracy?

Or something in between. Maybe it's a Half-Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy.

John Tagliaferro|9.28.09 @ 4:09PM|#

Goddammit Tagliafeero! Rule #1 you don't talk about the bankers and gold club!

Something else I keep forgetting. Better etch that one into the monocle.

Art-P.O.G.|9.28.09 @ 4:12PM|#

Nothing says it has to be a secret conspiracy.

It seems like there is a word with a built-in distinction. Or there should be a prefix. Or I'll build one.

|9.28.09 @ 4:13PM|#

It is generally accepted that conspire comes from the Latin roots con (with), and spirare (to breathe) - so 'to conspire' literally means 'to breathe together'.

Sounds kinda, you know, fruity. "Breathe together" is not a straight guy activity.

Art-P.O.G.|9.28.09 @ 4:13PM|#

I'm going with "exoconspiracy".

Tony|9.28.09 @ 4:13PM|#

Just because Clinton did in fact receive a presidential blowjob does not make the VRWC mythical.

The VRWC, I'm sure, prefers when it actually has something true to grab hold of. The point isn't that Clinton wasn't guilty of what the VRWC dug up (for once), but that the questions should never have been asked in the first place and this country should have been spared the embarrassing moral tantrum they threw for cynical partisan reasons. Of course it's only gotten worse. I agree with Clinton, though, that not as many people are listening.

Something else I keep forgetting. Better etch that one into the monocle.

I have it engraved on my walking stick, made from the finest Brazilian mahogany, of course. That way I'm sure to notice it and catch a reminder when I'm beating the help with it.

And open conspiracy is not a conspiracy, it's just a plan.

24AheadDotCom|9.28.09 @ 4:14PM|#

Meanwhile, one of Reason's Contributing Editors is acting like MikeStark; do a find for his name in this list of those who are politicizing the Census worker case. And, it's paid off for him and the Soros-funded pseudopaper he writes for: the Soros-funded CAP's ThinkProgress linked to that and one of his other stories. And, he's been one of the main sources that have smeared people as "Birthers".

Tman|9.28.09 @ 4:15PM|#

his country should have been spared the embarrassing moral tantrum they threw for cynical partisan reasons

No, Clinton should have kept his dick in his pants and stayed away from fooling around with women who weren't his wife, while he was F***ing president of the United States.

Oh, and when asked about said affair, he should also not have LIED ABOUT IT UNDER OATH.

Art-P.O.G.|9.28.09 @ 4:16PM|#

"Breathe together" is not a straight guy activity.

You're right. The breathing shouldn't get too heavy. NTTAWWT.

|9.28.09 @ 4:18PM|#

Nothing says it has to be a secret conspiracy.

It seems like there is a word with a built-in distinction.

Try "committee."

Art-P.O.G.|9.28.09 @ 4:19PM|#

I was asserting this earlier, but it's like there is a new meaning or shift in the connotations of the word 'conspiracy'. I'll try to get people to say 'exoconspiracy'.

Now to conspire to get LoneWacko to shut the fuck up.

|9.28.09 @ 4:19PM|#

I will say, it would be tough to be Monica Lewinsky in this way: every single person you meet is going to visualize you with Bill Clinton's cock in your mouth.

That would really, er, suck?

Art-P.O.G.|9.28.09 @ 4:20PM|#

Try "committee."

Oh, yeah. I haven't used that word in awhile.

Wicks Cherrycoke|9.28.09 @ 4:21PM|#

"The point isn't that Clinton wasn't guilty of what the VRWC dug up (for once), but that the questions should never have been asked in the first place and this country should have been spared the embarrassing moral tantrum they threw for cynical partisan reasons."

Of course we know that Democrats NEVER dig up moral issues involving Republicans. Oh wait...that's different, because that's "hypocracy."

|9.28.09 @ 4:21PM|#

I will say, it would be tough to be Monica Lewinsky in this way: every single person you meet is going to visualize you with Bill Clinton's cock in your mouth.

It's the cigar imagery that sticks with me. [shudder]

Art-P.O.G.|9.28.09 @ 4:22PM|#

That would really, er, suck?

I know, guys must think it's so easy to get beejays from her. Her dating life must blow.

|9.28.09 @ 4:22PM|#

Clinton's only crime was his horrible taste in women. Cheat upwards, Bill, not laterally or down.

Art-P.O.G.|9.28.09 @ 4:24PM|#

"Exoconspiratorial cabal" sounds cooler than "committee", though.

Matt Welch|9.28.09 @ 4:29PM|#

The link our 24ahead pal sent is indeed valuable, for those tracking the media pre-judgment of the Sparkman "Fed" murder case in Kentucky.

|9.28.09 @ 4:30PM|#

The cigar never made much sense to me. Wouldn't it be hard to light? Do you dry it out for a while? Are you just dipping the tapered end? What about those cheesy clots? Flick off or smear? What sort of smell comes off burning dried vaginal mucus? How much nicotine can you absorb through the labia and vaginal walls? Did she get a buzz? When do you smoke it? Right then? Later? "Excuse me while I puff on my scallop and Taleggio cigar."

|10.6.09 @ 5:51PM|#

The Cigar was a part of the vast conspiracy.

T|9.28.09 @ 4:33PM|#

Clinton's only crime was his horrible taste in women. Cheat upwards, Bill, not laterally or down.

No lie. Kissinger, a repulsive little homonculus if ever there was one, managed pretty well by all accounts and he was only SecState. Hell, even Chuck Robb managed to get Tai Collins and he was only a lousy governor. POTUS should get some smoking hot talent.

Art-P.O.G.|9.28.09 @ 4:35PM|#

I'm glad you can parse Kelly's idiosyncratic blocks of text. That must be a useful skill for a journalist.

JB|9.28.09 @ 4:37PM|#

Bubba: "How dare you question the great Obama! I am the Monica Lewinsky to his cock!"

Art-P.O.G.|9.28.09 @ 4:39PM|#

Kissinger, a repulsive little homonculus if ever there was one, managed pretty well by all accounts

The existentialists were right. The universe is absurd.

SugarFree,

Your 4:30 post gave me quite an insight into your mind and now I think I see the sort of lines of inquiry that fascinate you, I understand your creative gift. :)

|9.28.09 @ 4:42PM|#

Art,

Take every idea to the point of repulsion and your training will be complete.

Being high on cough medicine also helps.

|9.28.09 @ 4:43PM|#

Kissinger, a repulsive little homonculus if ever there was one

"Step into my magic Murderbag."

|9.28.09 @ 4:46PM|#

Clinton didn't always aim low--Elizabeth Gracen is on his list.

Art-P.O.G.|9.28.09 @ 4:46PM|#

SugarFree,

Those nuggets of advice are so questionable, they must be good.

|9.28.09 @ 4:52PM|#

Kissinger, a repulsive little homonculus if ever there was one, managed pretty well by all accounts and he was only SecState.

He, like the Rolling Stones, proved beyond a scientific doubt that many, far too many, women get their rocks off solely through proximity power or fame, or some of both. Physical measures are meaningless.

Which is why, when I become the Solar Emperor and the new front man for Spinal Tap, ruling over the pitiful kings of minor planets and bands, such as Mars and Coldplay, I shall become irresistible to all females. I will install Warty as my trusty ward. He needs all the help he can get and can take my cast-offs.

Nipplemancer|9.28.09 @ 4:57PM|#

SF - proper etiquette indicates that you should wipe it off discreetly while the lady is out of the room, and then refrain from smoking it until you can blow the acrid burned vaginal mucosa and tobacco smoke into the face of an unwitting friend. "Suck vag-smoke!"

Al musta been pissed

|9.28.09 @ 4:59PM|#

Thanks, Nipplemancer.

Emily Post = EPIC FAIL

"Suck vag-smoke!"

I've been looking to replace the "Smell my finger" gag.

Art-P.O.G.|9.28.09 @ 5:02PM|#

Nipplemancer,

I wish to subscribe to your etiquette/advice column.

T|9.28.09 @ 5:05PM|#

I wish to subscribe to your etiquette/advice column.

As do I.

Nipplemancer|9.28.09 @ 5:06PM|#

it is forthcoming. i'm still working on a title. Ask a Douche seemed to be taken by Paul Krugman. Go figure.

Rich|9.28.09 @ 5:09PM|#

But it's as virulent as it was.

You bet.

How about "glee club"?

|9.28.09 @ 5:10PM|#

OBama killed Vince Foster.

Rush Limpdick - King of the Rednecks said so.

|9.28.09 @ 5:11PM|#

Nipple trivia: Ed Gein had a belt made of nipples.

Did she get a buzz?

I confess: I, too, have wondered about this.

|9.28.09 @ 5:13PM|#

OBama killed Vince Foster.

Foster probably deserved it; undoubtedly, he secretly wanted it.

We should exile Obama to France for thirty years.

Nipplemancer|9.28.09 @ 5:19PM|#

i've wondered about whether or not monica got a buzz from the nicotine. it depends on two factors, whether or not she was a smoker and how saturated did the cigar get?
if we assume that she wasn't a smoker, the chances of her getting a buzz are high. if it was in there for a good couple of minutes and used like a dildo, she definitly got a buzz. the problem is if she had an orgasm, i don't think she'd notice the difference.
if she smoked, then absolutely not.

Art-P.O.G.|9.28.09 @ 5:27PM|#

The question is, did any reporter have the temerity to ask Lewinsky this question?

|9.28.09 @ 5:29PM|#

Do we know for a fact it was Bill that smoked the cigar?

Al? Monica? Hillary? Any comment? Chelsea?

We need to get an exhumation order for Socks. To be sure.

Nipplemancer|9.28.09 @ 5:30PM|#

inquiring minds want to know!

Art-P.O.G.|9.28.09 @ 5:31PM|#

I'm thinking Hannibal from The A-Team somehow ended up smoking that cigar.

Nipplemancer|9.28.09 @ 5:32PM|#

if we're lucky, sooner (hopefully) or later one of them will have a deathbed confession or a raunch tell-all book (i hope it's Tipper).

|9.28.09 @ 5:32PM|#

I don't for a minute want to go back to the terrible old days of independent prosecutors investigating presidential semen stains, or first ladies being grilled on morning TV about the conditions of their marriage.

Are you fucking kidding me? I would give my undescended testicle to go back to the days when our great war was a spiritual battle and our great depression was our lives; and the most scandalous thing going on in Washington was Bubba not denying Monica his essence.

*raunchy

|9.28.09 @ 5:35PM|#

Too bad these cars can't be exhumed:

Detroit Free Press reports that Washington's moral sacrifice of all clunker trade-ins to the shredder has produced perverse results.

Even as Washington is subsidizing Fisker luxury, the clunkers program - according to federal data - was destroying some of the finest luxury cars ever built. Among the list of "gas-guzzlers" that had their engines destroyed were a1997 Bentley Continental R (once valued at $300,000), a '97 Aston Martin DB7 Volante (that once stickered at $135,000), a 1999 Mercedes C43 AMG, a rare 1987 Buick GNX (only 547 were built), and 131 Chevy Corvettes.

Car enthusiasts will cringe at the thought that these precious used cars were crushed by order of Pelosi & Company. But they had to be destroyed. They had sinned against the planet.

http://www.freep.com/article/20090923/BUSINESS01/90923004/1322/Exotic-clunkers-also-fueled-recent-program

Art-P.O.G.|9.28.09 @ 5:37PM|#

Poor, poor Chelsea.

Nipplemancer|9.28.09 @ 5:39PM|#

Ode to Tipper Gore

|9.28.09 @ 5:43PM|#

the questions should never have been asked in the first place

Funny, I seem to remember years of hectoring from Democrats about the huge problem of sexual harassment, and how sexual relations between a boss and an employee was harassment per se and always grounds for dismissal of the perp. That position became non-operative PDQ in 1998, didn't it?

SugarFree: As for Clinton's taste in women, he was more of a gourmand than a gourmet. And if you've ever seen a picture of his mother when she was younger, she looked a lot like Monica....

|9.28.09 @ 5:49PM|#

If ever there was an automobile which deserved to be crushed (with its designers, shrieking helplessly, in it), that automobile was the Aston Martin Lagonda.

|9.28.09 @ 5:55PM|#

Like this one

|9.28.09 @ 5:56PM|#

~~Like~~ Especially

Just because Clinton did in fact receive a presidential blowjob does not make the VRWC mythical.

Sure, and the fact that reindeer do not fly does not make Santa Claus mythical. Or the fact that Hillary is a woman does not make the possibility that she's not mythical.

|9.28.09 @ 6:23PM|#

Please. It doesn't take a conspiracy to make a couple of corrupt attorneys with strange ideas of personal morality look bad. I mean, before Clinton, no one from either party would act surprised that a governor of Arkansas might be something less than pure.

|9.28.09 @ 6:28PM|#

Clinton's only crime was his horrible taste in women. Cheat upwards, Bill, not laterally or down.

Matter of taste. I'd do Monica. But then, I like big, busty babes -- I married one.

A rare SFW link:

Why Monica is a Republican.

|9.28.09 @ 6:35PM|#

We need to get an exhumation order for Socks. To be sure.

Socks isn't dead. Socks is in suspended animation waiting for an anti-aging breakthrough.

SaveYrClicks|9.28.09 @ 6:56PM|#

* The sleazy Dave Weigel says (washingtonindependent.com/61037/
bachmann-in-st-louis-defund-the-left-beware-one-world-currency): After the speech [at the How to Take Back America Conference in St. Louis, Rep. Michelle Bachmann] had only a few minutes to sign autographs and collect a stack of CDs and books from fans who'd followed her into the lobby. I caught up to her as she headed outside and asked if she had any response to the murder of a Kentucky census worker, having noticed that the Census, a constant target for Bachmann, did not figure into her speech. Bachmann recoiled a little at the question and turned to enter her limo. "Thank you so much!" she said.

Summary (posts follow):

Dave Weigel is a supposed journalist who contributes to Reason Magazine, the Washington Independent, and other sites. The parent company of the second outfit received funding from a Rockefeller foundation and from George Soros. For an example of his journalistic failings, he's repeatedly misled about the Obama citizenship issue. For an example of him lying about that issue, see this.

Part of the reason why he continues to mislead about that issue appears to be because he isn't intelligent enough to understand the difference between evidence and proof; part of it appears to be his strong support for Obama; and part of it appears to be that he knows that if he actually looks into the truth about that issue he'd be ostracized by other low-level members of the Beltway establishment.

For another example of his journalistic failings, in January he wrote a post about me on his personal blog. I attempted to respond by signing up and leaving a comment, but he never approved the comment. Here's what David Weigel doesn't want you to see.

I've repeatedly challenged him to simply pick up the phone, call Hawaii, and try to confirm his assumptions. I've even provided the questions to ask and the phone number to call. He's refused. Please ask yourself what sort of journalist would repeatedly refuse to do something as simple as picking up the phone, when simply getting an answer to those questions could put the whole matter to rest?
Last modified Jun 19, 2009

|9.28.09 @ 7:07PM|#

I would give my undescended testicle to go back to the days when our great war was a spiritual battle and our great depression was our lives

Sooo was Fight Club a socialist work of art or a libertarian work of art?

The book and the movie may produce different answers to that question.

Michael Ejercito|9.28.09 @ 7:43PM|#

So far, no one has used forgeries in a hit piece on President Obama...yet.

The point isn't that Clinton wasn't guilty of what the VRWC dug up (for once), but that the questions should never have been asked in the first place and this country should have been spared the embarrassing moral tantrum they threw for cynical partisan reasons.

It would not have mattered had President Clinton not lied in a civil deposition.

Of course we know that Democrats NEVER dig up moral issues involving Republicans. Oh wait...that's different, because that's "hypocracy."

They did so to Eliot Spitzer.

Funny, I seem to remember years of hectoring from Democrats about the huge problem of sexual harassment, and how sexual relations between a boss and an employee was harassment per se and always grounds for dismissal of the perp. That position became non-operative PDQ in 1998, didn't it?

Indeed.

Did not Jesse Ventura comment on this once?

MJ|9.28.09 @ 8:57PM|#

"...but that the questions should never have been asked in the first place and this country should have been spared the embarrassing moral tantrum they threw for cynical partisan reasons."

Perhaps the question should not have asked but it was largely because of the moral panic over sexual harassment the Democrats threw in their effort to take out Clarence Thomas. Clinton himself helped foster that panic by helping make the defendent's past history fair game in sexual harassment cases. Being hoist by your petard is not fun but has much karmic justice attched to it.

Michael Ejercito|9.28.09 @ 9:04PM|#

Perhaps the question should not have asked but it was largely because of the moral panic over sexual harassment the Democrats threw in their effort to take out Clarence Thomas. Clinton himself helped foster that panic by helping make the defendent's past history fair game in sexual harassment cases. Being hoist by your petard is not fun but has much karmic justice attched to it.

There is no justice like karmic justice.

MNG|9.28.09 @ 9:10PM|#

I don't remember being involved in the Clarence Thomas affair....Was he?

MNG|9.28.09 @ 9:14PM|#

I mean, how could Clinton have helped foster the moral panic which surrounded the charges against Thomas when Clinton was Gov. of Arkansas at the time.

|9.28.09 @ 9:27PM|#

MNG: I think this is what people are referring to:

The amazing fact is that Clinton got into trouble by lying under oath in response to questions that could only be asked of him because of a law that he had signed. As Jeffrey Rosen details in The Unwanted Gaze (2000), in 1994 Clinton signed a crime bill containing amendments to the rules of evidence that permitted prosecutors and plaintiffs in sexual assault cases to question defendants about their sexual history in order to find possible previous offenses. While the new rules were mainly intended to assist in rape cases, the definition of sexual assault was so broad - "contact, without consent, between any part of the defendant's body or an object and the genitals or anus of another person" - that they would inevitably be used in cases that fell far short of rape.

According to Rosen, legal experts warned Clinton and his feminist allies that the definition of assault was too broad, that the new rules would warrant an unprecedented intrusion into a defendant's privacy (as well as the privacy of women in the defendant's background), and likely result in the introduction of graphic sexual testimony. But for Clinton and the advocates of women's rights, such considerations could not be allowed to stand in the way.

Michael Ejercito|9.28.09 @ 9:33PM|#

According to Rosen, legal experts warned Clinton and his feminist allies that the definition of assault was too broad, that the new rules would warrant an unprecedented intrusion into a defendant's privacy (as well as the privacy of women in the defendant's background), and likely result in the introduction of graphic sexual testimony. But for Clinton and the advocates of women's rights, such considerations could not be allowed to stand in the way.

MNG|9.28.09 @ 9:36PM|#

"in 1994 Clinton signed a crime bill"

Er, this was THREE YEARS AFTER Thomas' hearings. So to say that in doing this "Clinton himself helped foster" the "moral panic over sexual harassment the Democrats threw in their effort to take out Clarence Thomas" is to bend time and space in a way not even Stephen Hawking could unravel...

24AheadDotCom|9.28.09 @ 10:46PM|#

What some of you may know is that I spent four months touring the U.S. from L.A. to ME and back.

What most of you probably don't know is that I did not post this entry, it just appeared on my site as I was driving through Arkansas and asking questions.

|9.28.09 @ 10:57PM|#

I read this whole post waiting for a "Can you believe this happened!?" Instead it never came.

You guys seriously thought this was a good use of everyone's time -- investigating the president for lying about an affair? After this thing was funded (pre-friendship) by right wing folks? It's an inarticulate phrase, but it's descriptive of the vehement hatred back then ... similar to some on the right presently.

smartass sob|9.28.09 @ 11:01PM|#

We should exile Obama to France for thirty years.

Hell, that would be like throwing Br' Rabbit into the briar patch.

*|9.28.09 @ 11:22PM|#

As for Clinton's taste in women, he was more of a gourmand than a gourmet. And if you've ever seen a picture of his mother when she was younger, she looked a lot like Monica....

So he really was a motherfucker. Thought so.

smartass sob|9.28.09 @ 11:29PM|#

Clinton didn't always aim low--Elizabeth Gracen is on his list.

Speaking of whom, here's something she had to say about the Left's beloved Bill.

JB|9.28.09 @ 11:31PM|#

And now, strippers is racist:
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20090928/D9B0GN380.html

|9.29.09 @ 12:02AM|#

You guys seriously thought this was a good use of everyone's time -- investigating the president for lying about an affair?

Anything that prevents our esteemed elected officials from ignoring the Constitution and continuing to find new ways to spend money they don't have is a good use of their time.

BakedPenguin|9.29.09 @ 12:11AM|#

What some of you may know is that I spent four months touring the U.S. ...
What most of you probably don't know is that [etc.]...

What you definitely know, Lonewacko, is that no one here gives a fuck about what you say or do. Go wash the cum stains off your dress and shut the fuck up, already.

|9.29.09 @ 1:28AM|#

When a person in power has an affair, it involves personal indiscretions that are unfortunate but of no concern to me. The problem for all of us exists when the commander in chief and ultimate arbiter of my tax expenditures places themselves in a position to be blackmailed. This could be very dangerous for all of us. Do we want the foreign and domestic policy of our sitting presidents to be influenced by the chance that the world and their family will learn of a sexual affair?

|9.29.09 @ 1:34AM|#

MNG: Right, the timeline doesn't work for the Clarence Thomas case. I'm saying people are mixing up the cases.

Ironic: What lots of people were upset about was a President lying under oath. That's rather more serious than a denial at a press conference or to a wife in private.

And Colon is also correct: it's perfect blackmail material, and so a serious dereliction of duty.

MJ|9.29.09 @ 7:28AM|#

MNG, does your hackery know no bounds? Probably not, you're on the left.

As PapayaSF pointed out I did mean that Clinton helped implement the practical consequences of the sexual harassment moral panic that the Democrats started to destroy Thomas.

Because of that, in the late eighties and early nineties sexual harassment was a terrible scourge of American women that must be stopped, Stopped, STOPPED at all costs. Then, Democrat President Clinton had a sexual harassment case brought against him, and all of a sudden it was a "private" matter and questions that should not asked. Showing the whole thing was just s cynical partisan ploy and not a matter of principled beilefs on the left's part.

|9.29.09 @ 10:17AM|#

Ironic says :"It's an inarticulate phrase, but it's descriptive of the vehement hatred back then ."

I don't know , I guess I just reserve the right to hate someone who has sex with an underling and thens tries cover it up (why lie about it? it's just sex with an underling, right?)by saying the lady is the one LYING, and accusing her of being part of a 'vast right wing conspiracy' to bring down a president. Scum, total scum.

|9.29.09 @ 11:33AM|#

Funny, I seem to remember years of hectoring from Democrats about the huge problem of sexual harassment, and how sexual relations between a boss and an employee was harassment per se and always grounds for dismissal of the perp. That position became non-operative PDQ in 1998, didn't it?

PapayaSF, you just had to go and ruin everything with facts, didn't you. People like you ruin it for people like tony who liked to say, "it's all about sex", or "so what, he got a blow job", or "it's none of anyone's business". I'm talking about really well informed people who will even tell you how well informed they are.

(though Tony's 4:13 comment just adds to my suspicion the handle is just a leftist punching bag someone has set up for their own or our amusement)

Reason Magazine

Get Reason E-mail Updates!

Site comments/questions:

Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:

Editorial & Production Offices:

advertisements