Loading...
Title : "Of course, Democrats aren’t going to travel back in time to force Bill Clinton to resign in the late 1990s."
link : "Of course, Democrats aren’t going to travel back in time to force Bill Clinton to resign in the late 1990s."
"Of course, Democrats aren’t going to travel back in time to force Bill Clinton to resign in the late 1990s."
"But it also now seems clear that Clinton won’t be able to avoid answering these questions in future public appearances, which may well make him less likely to want to make public appearances in the future. There is also a strong likelihood that Clinton, who has been a mainstay of Democratic National Conventions for decades, won’t be speaking in 2020 or deployed as a campaign surrogate this fall for the first time in a generation. Yet it’s also clear that another cohort of Democrats — especially those on the older, maler side — are uncomfortable with the direction Gillibrand is going. That’s in part a disagreement about political tactics, with some seeing it as foolish for Democrats to try to hold themselves to a high standard of conduct when Republicans hold Trump to no standard at all. But it’s probably better to think of it as primarily a disagreement about substance and the still-ambiguous legacy of #MeToo. In one view, the story is essentially that hard-working investigative journalists revealed a handful of cases of spectacularly egregious malfeasance by a handful of prominent men — Roger Ailes and Harvey Weinstein, most obviously — and that’s all to the good..... In [that] former view, nothing in the Lewinsky story is particularly damning (though if you believe Broaddrick, that’s another matter)...."Writes Matthew Yglesias (at Vox). The other view, the Kirsten Gillibrand view, wants the #MeToo movement to work "a sea change in attitudes, standards of behavior, and evaluation of public figures." In that view, whether you believe Broaddrick or not, "Clinton is exactly the type of person whose conduct deserves a new, much harsher look."
Loading...
"But it also now seems clear that Clinton won’t be able to avoid answering these questions in future public appearances, which may well make him less likely to want to make public appearances in the future. There is also a strong likelihood that Clinton, who has been a mainstay of Democratic National Conventions for decades, won’t be speaking in 2020 or deployed as a campaign surrogate this fall for the first time in a generation. Yet it’s also clear that another cohort of Democrats — especially those on the older, maler side — are uncomfortable with the direction Gillibrand is going. That’s in part a disagreement about political tactics, with some seeing it as foolish for Democrats to try to hold themselves to a high standard of conduct when Republicans hold Trump to no standard at all. But it’s probably better to think of it as primarily a disagreement about substance and the still-ambiguous legacy of #MeToo. In one view, the story is essentially that hard-working investigative journalists revealed a handful of cases of spectacularly egregious malfeasance by a handful of prominent men — Roger Ailes and Harvey Weinstein, most obviously — and that’s all to the good..... In [that] former view, nothing in the Lewinsky story is particularly damning (though if you believe Broaddrick, that’s another matter)...."
Writes Matthew Yglesias (at Vox). The other view, the Kirsten Gillibrand view, wants the #MeToo movement to work "a sea change in attitudes, standards of behavior, and evaluation of public figures." In that view, whether you believe Broaddrick or not, "Clinton is exactly the type of person whose conduct deserves a new, much harsher look."
Writes Matthew Yglesias (at Vox). The other view, the Kirsten Gillibrand view, wants the #MeToo movement to work "a sea change in attitudes, standards of behavior, and evaluation of public figures." In that view, whether you believe Broaddrick or not, "Clinton is exactly the type of person whose conduct deserves a new, much harsher look."
Thus articles "Of course, Democrats aren’t going to travel back in time to force Bill Clinton to resign in the late 1990s."
that is all articles "Of course, Democrats aren’t going to travel back in time to force Bill Clinton to resign in the late 1990s." This time, hopefully can provide benefits to all of you. Okay, see you in another article posting.
You now read the article "Of course, Democrats aren’t going to travel back in time to force Bill Clinton to resign in the late 1990s." with the link address https://welcometoamerican.blogspot.com/2018/06/of-course-democrats-arent-going-to.html
0 Response to ""Of course, Democrats aren’t going to travel back in time to force Bill Clinton to resign in the late 1990s.""
Post a Comment