into cutting her down again. damn

co-workers at the NY Times, have a contract to write a book about Trump. Next we will probably learn that Mark Halperin (like Glenn a serial sexual harasser) has a book deal to write about the Clintons.

Did the women in the building get stun guns to stop him at 3 feet?

What happens now when he harasses another woman? Seriously.

harasser his job back..OK.

there will be a story about Hillary that is broadcast far and wide in an effort to distract from Trump's failures. Then, after hurling insults and publishing false stories about her, the media wonders why Hillary won't just go away and disappear.

and find some little things that the republikkkans might get all hissy about and post it.. thus causing the law of reprisal to occur in reverse and something REALLY REALLY filthy will come out about a repub.

Hum.. think that would work??

reverse psychology of sorts?

I expect that there will be a lot more articles about every single political candidate who ever ran for office.

If not, I'm going to assume that the NYT still has it in for Hillary.

The Senators on both sides foresaw exposure if they took Anita Hill seriously. That was the time to draw a line. We didn't here we are discovering more and more about the depth of layers of protection of powerful or highly valued men at the expense of women they have victimized or exploited.

I just always limited my aversion to that Senate t thinking that all those men simply did not consider sexual harassment a crime not that it made many of them vulnerable to similar charges.

go unanswered. Good going.

Not to mention, Hillary's tweets do not even contradict what was said in the article! I agree that there have been times that Clinton has been mistreated, but this is not one of them. At most, you might ask why this story is news at this point. One possibility - like some of the Franken articles - is to raise the question of whether sometimes, it is reasonable to stop the behavior, but not fire the employee. If he did not do the same thing working for Correct the Record, you would have a story of someone with impeccable feminist reputation balancing everything about the person and - while responding to the sexual harassment - giving him a second chance.


Instead, what it might be is something more prosaic. Before the METOO movement and zero tolerance -- apparently even for the boss, not just the miscreant, it would be a pragmatic decision that he was more valuable to the campaign than the cost of being seen retaining him if the story came out. If you look at who he was and what he was thought to bring to the campaign, he would not have been easy to replace. Here is what I responded elsewhere:

This may be an example of when there was not a "zero tolerance" policy, but a strong policy that took sexual harassment seriously. Here, it seems that they might have thought that what this man brought to the campaign was sufficient to keep him on staff after a suspension and mandatory counseling. Clearly she believed that that action would make him never act inappropriately while working for her again. She might have thought this win/win. She kept a valuable employee, ended his known transgression and even possibly getting him to permanently clean up his act.

Ironically, what he brought to the campaign was that he was a respected person, writing in places like Soujouners magazine (sojo.net), which was associated with people like Jim Wallis. Following 2004, many people, like Wallis, argued that the Democrats could make progress gaining evangelical votes IF they were more open about their own religious values and how they informed the values they brought to governing. The object lesson of Wallis and others was that though Kerry had high moral standards and was a relatively observant Catholic, he never spoke of that in 2004. This was taken seriously by many Democrats at the time.

I was an active member of DU JK and would argue that his incredible speech on faith and governing at Pepperdine University ( http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/18/AR2006091801046.html ) was influenced by exactly that argument. For my fellow DU JK friends from MA, it astonished them that their somewhat reserved Senator would speak so openly on what he through his career would have considered deeply private beliefs. In addition, supporting NH candidates, he gave a speech that Democratic values were consistent with religious believes - like helping the needy.

Hillary Clinton clearly took that seriously or had independently came to the same solution. She was active in her church's youth group as a girl and she was inspired by hearing MLK speak.(Here's a CNN article - http://www.cnn.com/2014/04/25/politics/clinton-methodist-minister/index.html ) In 2008, all of this was a big part of the narrative her campaign put out. Burns Strider was very likely the point person in her campaign on that issue, which I assume she thought would be more important in the general election, which she was working towards.

Here is a NYT article from May 2008 on what he brought to the campaign. In addition, Burt Strider was likely one of the people behind the many stories about Clinton's strong Methodist religion.http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/03/us/politics/03strider.html

In fact, 2016 tells us that the PERSONAL religion/morals/integrity of the candidate is NOT what motivates the evangelical voters. Even if the Democratic candidate would have never committed a single sin in their life, they still would have voted for Trump.

However, in the context of 2008, where she likely thought that gaining some of the evangelicals, based on healthcare and other issues, she might have seen Strider as a strong voice helping her on this. Also note that it was NOT that her campaign ignored and allowed these things to continue. What they did not do was have a zero tolerance policy that would have dictated that firing him was the only acceptable solution.

Actually, she followed the protocol that was in place. A law firm on retainer conducted an investigation and made recommendations based on pre-existing contractual and legal terms. The campaign followed those
recommendations. How is that "shielding" someone?

No one resigned in protest, and the victim seems to have been satisfied with the outcome. HRC never employed the harasser after 2008, and the two named senior advisors who would have preferred a firing supported Hillary in 2016 and served as campaign surrogates.

Moreover, the NYT article got two very basic, easily-checked facts wrong. Correct the Record hired the accused seven, not five years after the 2008 event. And he was hired to be an advisor, not to lead the organization. It doesn't say much for the Times that they couldn't even get that part right.

Facts be damned when Haberman & Chozick have a Hillary ax to grind. Bob Somerby has been writing about their failings for years

http://dailyhowler.blogspot.com/2016/11/the-way-amy-chozick-handles-her-facts.html

straight, lapucelle.

I had a feeling Hillary would respond to this Hachette job from haberman.

As for Chozick, everyone knows she's an idiot.

https://www.mediaite.com/print/clinton-press-secretary-called-ny-times-reporter-an-idiot-in-hacked-email/

http://dailyhowler.blogspot.com/search?q=chozick

MAHALO!!!!!!!!

Pretty transparent and opportunistic timing for releasing this old, irrelevant, sensationalized old chestnut. Does the NYT intend to
dredge the bottom of their anti Hillary sewer every time the Repugs are having an especially detrimental news day?

is what got Trump elected in the first place.

Didn’t surprise me though. Some of the responses were so typical. And not one of those motherfuckers will back up or apologize either.

Has he apologized to the abused lady?

Rage just drips from your posts - even though she no longer out there offending people with the outrage of thinking that she's more qualified than any man to be POTUS.

Was it that she actually won?

Was it her essay that women fantasize about being raped by three men, or having been called guilty of committing "environmental racism" by Paul Wellstone?

I mean, posting the same tweet twice in one thread isn't about trying to change the topic of the OP, right? That certainly doesn't reveal a need to for validation of your anger by trying to redirect the discussion, bringing in some information that doesn't seem to reflect well on the object of your anger.

See what I did there?



At least she acknowledged and did something about it.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/women-detail-sexual-harassment-clinton-sanders-campaigns-article-1.3641170

Last edited Sat Jan 27, 2018, 06:51 PM - Edit history (1)

"excuses." Or more.

Really makes you wonder, you know?

Irrational hatred is always the strongest.

I suspect I know who it is but want to make sure.

environment,

"The conversation with the lawyer made her uncomfortable. “It felt like I was being blamed,” she said. She suspects that Sanders plans to run for president again in 2020 and “they’re afraid of me being a roadblock to that.” Blessing did not return a request for comment."

So far there are no accounts of Clinton's lawyer calling the victim to badger her.

"Arturo is a good friend of ours," Sanders said. "He helped me during the campaign, and he and I just chatted tonight, so we’ll see where we go with that."


www.latimes.com/politics/essential/la-pol-ca-essential-politics-updates-will-bernie-sanders-endorse-his-former-1487700721-htmlstory.html


www.latinorebels.com/2017/04/01/californias-34th-congressional-district-election-gets-ugly-and-public-with-allegations-of-sexual-harassment/

And that was recently. Smh

That must be it.

Like Arturo Carmona

rep tried, wow. Who is still hanging out with this guy?

"Carmona had “covered up” an accusation of sexual harassment made against a volunteer surrogate in Nevada. Carmona didn’t take the allegations seriously, Mendieta wrote in a Medium post."

Last edited Sat Jan 27, 2018, 08:51 PM - Edit history (1)

Link to tweet

Given the deep well of sexism and misogyny that runs throughout the U. S., Hillary will always be a target for the women-haters. She is a lightning rod for their rage at women's audacious expectation to be treated equally.

I bet 90% of what they think they "know" about Hillary is absolute bullshit

Except I think the number is closer to 100%

caused me to throw my full support behind her after the 2016 primary.

She really, really cares about people, and she'll actually call them, go to see them, and keep in touch over the years to make sure they are doing OK. With her, it's always more than just a photo op - she genuinely cares and relates to each person.

There really aren't many politicians like this, and this caring is one of Clinton's most admirable traits. Along with keen intelligence, keeping herself well informed, and a deep mastery over both foreign and domestic foreign policy.

Why the hell isn't she in the White House right now??? Instead we have an incompetent orange cheetoh who can barely remember what where he is, and who changes his opinions based on what the last person who spoke to him said. I mean, it's like not even having a president.

How could we have done this? And how can evangelicals and the rest of his supporters still support him? He is odious, immoral, scandal ridden and treasonous.

Aargh!

It’s been documented statistically their election coverage of her was MUCH less favorable to her than the pumpkin

one example

Last edited Sat Jan 27, 2018, 03:35 PM - Edit history (1)

I understand that an older woman that doesn't apologize for not being universally liked gets under some people's skin, but even after she isn't out there having the nerve to think she's better qualified than a man - well, that's not her.

That's on you.

But at least her staff didn't make the victim feel like she was being blamed, and they had an actual policy for dealing with these things.

Unlike other candidates. And I'm sure that reports of these kinds of things happening in other campaigns will met with the same kind of anger should they run for POTUS that Hillary gets even when she isn't running.

Right?

since there is no concern for two of Sanders' victims being treated dismissively and their duties reassigned. It truly is just the opportunity for a Hillary bash that is the motivator here. Sad.

unlike other campaigns who made the victim feel blamed for it...

had their lawyers call to feel out whether they were going to sue or not.

Apparently the Sanders' lawyer called this victim to see if she might sue. Nice policy.

"conversation with the lawyer made her uncomfortable. “It felt like I was being blamed,” she said. She suspects that Sanders plans to run for president again in 2020 and “they’re afraid of me being a roadblock to that.” Blessing did not return a request for comment."

Once again, I am betting I know who it is but I want to be sure.

Otherwise she wouldn't have been able to attend. That's not a party you just wander into. Anyone there would have been formally invited.

Clearly the victim was harmed by Clinton!

here? According to the article, TWO staffers were transferred. The words "cover up" were used. Lawyers called the victims to see if they might sue.

Yikes.

the candidate, Hillary Clinton. Something went right along the way. Hillary knows half the world from her time as a public figure, and some even come to her birthday parties.

"Arturo is a good friend of ours," Sanders said. "He helped me during the campaign, and he and I just chatted tonight, so we’ll see where we go with that."


http://www.latimes.com/politics/essential/la-pol-ca-essential-politics-updates-will-bernie-sanders-endorse-his-former-1487700721-htmlstory.html

That's a totally different case.

I realize you know that and that it's why you didn't provide a link. Just pointing it out for those that might not know.

Tsk tsk

For you. God forbid the campaign ever do something about it.

And BTW, I have to thank you for all your posts slamming Hillary for what happened, because I would never have discovered how ugly the situation with Arturo Carona was.

http://www.latinorebels.com/2017/04/01/californias-34th-congressional-district-election-gets-ugly-and-public-with-allegations-of-sexual-harassment/

the links aren't linkable, though.

Fixed!

Last edited Sat Jan 27, 2018, 07:19 PM - Edit history (1)

you have to try to be consistent - or you'll be accused of hypocrisy.

Oh, wait. It's Hillary!



Edit:

As an avid Hillary supporter from start to finish, I may have shorthanded this comment. I'm merely noting that the media and others attacking Hillary is an ongoing "cottage industry" which is entering its fourth decade.

I don't bash Democrats.

It looks like a bash, but I'm pretty sure you mean it as irony. Maybe add a sarcasm smiley?

I spent a couple years being bashed for supporting Hillary.

Irony is right.

for Hillary. That false equivalence shit is way past what any decent person could subscribe to. Those detractors aren't just lacking in class, they are lacking in humanity, decency, and morals.

Oh, sorry -- isn't that what all the WH & MSM fuss is supposed to make us think?



============

Hillary has to defend something from 2008?

Because she's a woman.
This is a clear weak attempt to discredit her and the long overdue movement to hold men accountable for this type of behavior.
Trying to extend the offense to her is a blatant attempt to discredit the woman and the movement forward for women everywhere that she represents...

No men get to hijack her work...THIS is just a perfect example of the sexist perpetual cycle of tearing powerful, successful, and dedicated women down.