BREAKING: The teachable moment of TonedeafGate!


Persecution booed:
Needless to say, it was a self-selected audience.

On Tuesday, Bill Clinton took part in a TimesTalks event (actual name) about his new novel. Presumably, the people in attendance were mostly Clinton supporters.

That said, we were glad to read the New York Times' account of the event. When Clinton was questioned about TonedeafGate, the furious audience booed:
GOLDMACHER (6/6/18): In a blue suit and blue tie, Mr. Clinton looked relaxed onstage with a wireless microphone in his hand, other than the moments he was asked about Ms. Lewinsky. The crowd booed questions on the topic.

Asked if he would apologize privately to Ms. Lewinsky today if she were in the room, Mr. Clinton replied, “If she were here now and I would speak to her, it wouldn’t be a private conversation.”

And asked if—given the #MeToo movement spurred in the last year by sexual misconduct by powerful men in politics, business and the media—he had reconsidered his interactions with Ms. Lewinsky as examples of sexual harassment or exploitation of power dynamics, he demurred again.

“I’ve said all I have to say,” Mr. Clinton said, adding, “I’m not going there.”

The New York City audience cheered.
Question: Did Goldmacher describe it as "the New York City audience" to let you know that people hate Clinton everywhere else? Discuss. Compare and contrast.

By now, the children have all agreed that Clinton's original comments were "tone deaf." Currently, they're all writing the exact same column about this latest appalling event. The claim that Clinton's (sliced and diced) remarks were "tone deaf" is one of their mandated points.

Clinton's remarks were tone deaf! Increasingly, this is the assessment we liberals use against those who don't say exactly what we want to hear on the topics which help us assert our superior tribal morality.

According to Goldmacher, the TimesTalk crowd booed, then threatened to riot, when TimesTalk hostess Pamela Paul insisted on going there. And the big crowd cheered, their riot forestalled, when Clinton said he was through discussing the topic.

Potential rioting to the side, it seems to us that MelvinGate provides a teachable moment. As we liberals embrace the ideology of rigid public morality, it seems to us that this latest event lets us explore our admittedly brilliant thinking by asking such questions as these:
Questions emerging from TonedeafGate:
Should Bill Clinton ever have become involved with Monica Lewinsky? If not, why?

If he could have waved a magic wand ensuring secrecy, should he have become involved? If not, why?
Aside from the gruesome events which ensued when CoulterMob popped out of the bushes, what was morally wrong with this relationship? Is it the fact that Clinton was married? Is it the fact that he was older? Does it have something to do with their rather attenuated work relationship, in which Clinton was technically Lewinsky's boss?

Is it the fact that you heard, about a million times, that she was a "21-year-old intern," and you swooningly believed it? We think these are wonderful questions to ask.

Our current tribal "morality" is so ideologically rigid that it tends to shield us from such questions. MelvinGate gives us the chance to examine our tribal ideas.

In the last day or two, the incident has made us think of Chekhov's brilliant story, The Lady with the Lapdog. The leading authority on the story thumbnails it like this:
"The Lady with the Dog" is a short story by Anton Chekhov. First published in 1899, it describes an adulterous affair between Dmitri Dmitritch Gurov, an unhappily married Moscow banker, and Anna Sergeyevna Von Diderits, a young married woman, an affair which begins while both are vacationing alone in the Crimean sea resort of Yalta.

The story comprises four parts: part I describes the initial meeting in Yalta, part II the consummation of the affair and the remaining time in Yalta, part III Gurov's return to Moscow and his visit to Anna's town, and part IV Anna's visits to Moscow. This is one of Chekhov's most famous pieces of short fiction. Vladimir Nabokov, for instance, considers it as one of the greatest short stories ever written.
Nabokov had read a million more stories than we have. But we think The Lady with the Lapdog is an impossibly beautiful exploration of human longing and surprising human potential.

(Important warning: Nabokov wrote Lolita. On the other hand, Cornel West is said to love the story. So what's a progressive to do?)

Should Dmitri Dmitritch ever have started his affair, which became a love affair, with Anna Sergeyevna? He was married, and she was much younger. Should either one have engaged in this affair? Why or why not?

Anna Sergeyevna was married, but Lewinsky was not. Is that where the difference resides?

Our view? Modern pseudoliberal sexual politics tends to be childish, silly, rigidly scripted, desperate. Chekhov seemed to have a somewhat broader view. With a nod to some of the things Lewinsky said to Judge Starr, who wrote them all down, we recommend Chekhov's story, in which two people are surprised by feelings they'd never encountered before.

Granted, Chekhov's story was fiction. That said, do we all work from tribal script now? Are we all insistently rigid?


  1. "Important warning: Chekhov wrote Lolita."

    Bob, dear, what is happening to you?

    1. He has given up proofreading for Lent.

    2. Yeah, Bob, that's right, Vladimir Nabokov wrote Lolita. But why do "progressives" need your warning, and why do they need Cornel West to tell them that it's great prose? That whole thing you typed there in parenthesis is quite puzzling, y'know...

  2. Heard Amy Goodman on "Democracy Now" yesterday refer to Lewinski as the "21 year-old intern". Seems to be completely ingrained in our culture at this point.

    1. 22 year-old low-level federal employee doesn't have the same ring.

      If this were Trump having the affair, Lewinsky would have been given a cabinet position or ambassadorship or be named Director of Communications and make $168K per year. None of this penny ante stuff.

    2. She was still an intern when they had their first encounter.

    3. And she was 24 when it ended. It began at her bequest as well.

      Technicalities technicalities, yes.

    4. bequest, request; Chekhov, Nabokov.
      Let's call the whole thing off.

    5. "Let's call the whole thing off." Tell that to Somerby.

    6. Monica Lewinsky was born in 1973 and turned twenty-two years of age on July 23, 1995.

      Lewinsky began work at the White House in 1995 at age twenty-one as an unpaid intern. (Differing newspaper and magazine sources claim she began her internship either in June or July of that year.) On November 13, 1995 Lewinsky accepted the offer to begin working in a White House job with pay on November 26, 1995.

      Lewinsky's first physical interaction with Bill Clinton took place on November 15, 1995 during a government shut down when only essential personnel and interns were working in the White House.

      From the Starr Report:

      [QUOTE] II. 1995: Initial Sexual Encounters:

      Lewinsky went to work at the White House in July, 1995 as an intern prior to her birthday that month and was an intern through November 25, 1995. On November 13, 1995 she accepted the offer of a paid position at the White House and began that work on November 26, 1995.

      Monica Lewinsky worked at the White House, first as an intern and then as an employee, from July 1995 to April 1996. With the assistance of family friend Walter Kaye, a prominent contributor to political causes, she obtained an internship starting in early July, when she was 21 years old.(131) She was assigned to work on correspondence in the office of Chief of Staff Leon Panetta in the Old Executive Office Building.(132)

      As her internship was winding down, Ms. Lewinsky applied for a paying job on the White House staff. She interviewed with Timothy Keating, Special Assistant to the President and Staff Director for Legislative Affairs.(133) Ms. Lewinsky accepted a position dealing with correspondence in the Office of Legislative Affairs on November 13, 1995, but did not start the job (and, thus, continued her internship) until November 26.(134) She remained a White House employee until April 1996, when -- in her view, because of her intimate relationship with the President -- she was dismissed from the White House and transferred to the Pentagon.(135)...

      In the autumn of 1995, an impasse over the budget forced the federal government to shut down for one week, from Tuesday, November 14, to Monday, November 20.(140) Only essential federal employees were permitted to work during the furlough, and the White House staff of 430 shrank to about 90 people for the week. White House interns could continue working because of their unpaid status, and they took on a wide range of additional duties.(141)

      During the shutdown, Ms. Lewinsky worked in Chief of Staff Panetta's West Wing office, where she answered phones and ran errands.(142) The President came to Mr. Panetta's office frequently because of the shutdown, and he sometimes talked with Ms. Lewinsky.(143) She characterized these encounters as "continued flirtation."(144) According to Ms. Lewinsky, a Senior Adviser to the Chief of Staff, Barry Toiv, remarked to her that she was getting a great deal of "face time" with the President.(145)


    7. continued...

      [QUOTE] C. November 15 Sexual Encounter

      Ms. Lewinsky testified that Wednesday, November 15, 1995 -- the second day of the government shutdown -- marked the beginning of her sexual relationship with the President.(146) On that date, she entered the White House at 1:30 p.m., left sometime thereafter (White House records do not show the time), reentered at 5:07 p.m., and departed at 12:18 a.m. on November 16.(147)...

      En route to the restroom at about 8 p.m., she passed George Stephanopoulos's office. The President was inside alone, and he beckoned her to enter.(151) She told him that she had a crush on him. He laughed, then asked if she would like to see his private office.(152) Through a connecting door in Mr. Stephanopoulos's office, they went through the President's private dining room toward the study off the Oval Office.

      Ms. Lewinsky testified: "We talked briefly and sort of acknowledged that there had been a chemistry that was there before and that we were both attracted to each other and then he asked me if he could kiss me." Ms. Lewinsky said yes. In the windowless hallway adjacent to the study, they kissed.(153) Before returning to her desk, Ms. Lewinsky wrote down her name and telephone number for the President.(154)

      At about 10 p.m., in Ms. Lewinsky's recollection, she was alone in the Chief of Staff's office and the President approached.(155) He invited her to rendezvous again in Mr. Stephanopoulos's office in a few minutes, and she agreed.(156) (Asked if she knew why the President wanted to meet with her, Ms. Lewinsky testified: "I had an idea."(157)) They met in Mr. Stephanopoulos's office and went again to the area of the private study.(158) This time the lights in the study were off.(159)

      According to Ms. Lewinsky, she and the President kissed. She unbuttoned her jacket; either she unhooked her bra or he lifted her bra up; and he touched her breasts with his hands and mouth.(160) Ms. Lewinsky testified: "I believe he took a phone call . . . and so we moved from the hallway into the back office . . . . [H]e put his hand down my pants and stimulated me manually in the genital area."(161) While the President continued talking on the phone (Ms. Lewinsky understood that the caller was a Member of Congress or a Senator), she performed oral sex on him.(162) He finished his call, and, a moment later, told Ms. Lewinsky to stop.

      In her recollection: "I told him that I wanted . . . to complete that. And he said . . . that he needed to wait until he trusted me more. And then I think he made a joke . . . that he hadn't had that in a long time."(163) [END QUOTE]

    8. “On November 13, 1995 Lewinsky accepted the offer to begin working in a White House job with pay on November 26, 1995.”

      “Lewinsky's first physical interaction with Bill Clinton took place on November 15, 1995…”

      So what that means is that Lewinsky was actually still technically an intern when she spent “face time” with Clinton. Which means Bob has been wrong lo these many years.

      Then again, any report with a byline of Starr should give one pause. Whatever. Whilst I tend to agree that this was consensual behavior, my view is that Clinton is guilty of douchebaggery. I think his political legacy is much more important. Which is douchebaggery.


    9. Thanks in part to Leroy, CMike and their cohort in the pseudo-prog bubble, we have the upright, scrupulously-honest GOP running things:

      And the beat goes on.

    10. Pseudo-prog? I'm an anarchist, Clown.


      Noam Chomsky:

      "Well, anarchism is, in my view, basically a kind of tendency in human thought which shows up in different forms in different circumstances, and has some leading characteristics. Primarily it is a tendency that is suspicious and skeptical of domination, authority, and hierarchy. It seeks structures of hierarchy and domination in human life over the whole range, extending from, say, patriarchal families to, say, imperial systems, and it asks whether those systems are justified. It assumes that the burden of proof for anyone in a position of power and authority lies on them. Their authority is not self-justifying. They have to give a reason for it, a justification. And if they can’t justify that authority and power and control, which is the usual case, then the authority ought to be dismantled and replaced by something more free and just. And, as I understand it, anarchy is just that tendency. It takes different forms at different times."


    11. iBaClown

      If you're still telling yourself that Hillary Clinton was the most electable of Democrats in 2016 but lost against the major party candidate with the lowest election day approval ratings since polling began because of what you're identifying as a second cohort of deplorable voters, then you haven't learned anything since November, 2016.

      Of course, being incapable of learning anything since 1993 was all ready the signature dysfunction of all of you cult members who make up the rank and file of the corporate-wing of the Democratic party LINK. Here's the really bad news for all you suckers identifying yourselves as the non-GOP cohort of the Resistance, whereas you're confused about what's what, the Democratic party leadership isn't at all confused about what it's up to nor are any of those GOP Resisters with whom you've chosen to stand.

    12. iBaClown,

      That said, I see this passage at the link you posted:

      [QUOTE] ...Additionally, Henry assisted Sanchez in paying kickbacks to patients who enrolled in the chronic care management program. Sanchez paid the kickbacks by systematically waiving copays--copays which Medicare required Sanchez to collect. [END QUOTE]

      I had always wondered why doctors' offices were such hard asses about collecting Medicare co-pays. Now I know:


      [QUOTE] Waiving Copays and Deductibles
      Providers sometimes waive patients' cost-sharing amounts (e.g., copays or deductibles) as an accommodation to the patient, professional courtesy, employee benefit, and/or a marketing ploy; however, doing so may violate fraud and abuse laws and/or payor contracts. From a payor's perspective, waiving cost-sharing amounts creates two problems. First, payors often contract with providers to pay based in part on the provider's usual charges. The Office of Inspector General ("OIG") has argued that a provider who routinely waives copays is misrepresenting its actual charges. Second, and more importantly, payors require copays to discourage overutilization and reduce costs. Waiving copays and deductibles removes the disincentive for utilization, thereby potentially increasing payor costs. Accordingly, federal and state laws as well as payor contracts generally prohibit waiving cost-sharing absent genuine financial hardship....

      2. Anti-Kickback Statute. The federal Anti-Kickback Statute ("AKS") prohibits knowingly and willfully offering, paying, soliciting or receiving remuneration to any person to induce such person to order or receive any items or service for which payment may be made under a federal healthcare program unless the arrangement fits within a regulatory safe harbor....

      --Advertisements which state, "Medicare Accepted as Payment in Full", "Insurance Accepted as Payment in Full," or "No Out-of-Pocket Expenses."

      --Advertisements which promise that "discounts" will be given to Medicare beneficiaries....
      [END QUOTE]

    13. Leroy - you mean anachronism.

      CMike - it's too late to apologize.

    14. iBaClown,

      You really are a ball of confusion, aren't you?

    15. @Leroy: I do think it means that Bob has been wrong all these years. And if he's wrong about that, what else might he be wrong about?

    16. If you're still telling yourself that Hillary Clinton was the most electable of Democrats in 2016

      Where do you come up with this shit, CMike? Hillary Clinton was the Democratic candidate in 2016 because she got the most votes and won the nomination with an overwhelming majority of the delegates. I know it must burn your self-righteous ass to have to think about the fact that people favored her, but thems the facts. Now eat shit and die.

    17. And the beat goes on:

  3. This is an easy situation to assess, morally. The Clinton-Lewinsky scandal is only brought up to throw red meat to the Republican base. It serves no other purpose except to rally the conservative troops.

    As liberals, we should be ignoring this attempt by the Republicans to distract from the president's scandals. Every time we talk about this, we play into Trump's hands.

    So lets be good liberals and drop this subject now. Clinton co-authored a book. He is a creative person with interests beyond politics and he has given us a mystery (with Patterson) set in Washington with inside knowledge of the presidency. That should be interesting to mystery fans and it is should be the sole focus of any of these interviewers on what is only a book tour. Clinton should have refused to talk about anything but the book. But he is perhaps still too trusting in his interactions with other people.

    I don't understand why Somerby is playing along with the conservatives on this, pretending there is something to talk about and directing questions at us that will only further Trump's aims. He couldn't be doing a better job if he were a member of Trump's team, schooled by Bannon and Guiliani.

    Today we have the news that Melania conspired with Michael Cohen to pressure Stormy Daniels into appearing on Hannity's show and denying her claims in her lawsuit. Speculation is that her disappearance was related to the new lawsuit just filed by Daniels and Avenatti, in which she will probably be called as a witness. This is what people should be talking about. Or Pruitt. Or the new tariffs being imposed by Mexico on American goods, or Canada's pique over Trump's remark about the War of 1812, or the election results. So much that we should focus on, yet Somerby picks this nonsense to ask us questions about. Why? He never discusses the content of scandals -- just coverage issues. Why talk about the morality of Clinton's behavior now? Because Team Trump asked him to?

    1. Somerby has claimed countless times that "liberals" love to focus on scandals, because "we" can't win elections. "We" love to see "The Others" (i.e. republicans) arrested, he claims.

    2. It's liberals who are now also obsessing over him.

      So-called liberals. Does anyone else remember a time when porn was considered to be demeaning to women? Now it's considered to be heroic.

    3. Calling Stormy Daniels heroic for her lawsuit doesn't mean porn is heroic -- that was just her job and it isn't what anyone admires her for. She is standing up for her rights against very powerful opposition and that is heroic. Porn -- not so much.

    4. 5;01,
      I remember a time when a private business that is financially successful was called "capitalism".

    5. "The Clinton-Lewinsky scandal is only brought up to throw red meat to the Republican base."

      And to pseudo-progs and anachronists. I know, it's hard to tell the difference.

    6. Not sure if anachronist is the term you were looking for, Clown.

      Chomsky’s view of anarchism (which of course may not fit into the fashion of the day):

      “Primarily it is a tendency that is suspicious and skeptical of domination, authority, and hierarchy.”

      I’d be surprised if that doesn’t describe you, in the here-and-now. If it doesn’t, oh well. It certainly describes me. And the notion that the Democratic party needs defense of any kind is, frankly, insulting. There should be robust criticism of their tactics, especially since their senior leadership has been rightfully described as a gerontocracy.

      There are a handful of progressive Democrats in both Houses, but they’re an extreme minority. The DNC has supported the status quo for the current leadership, and has endorsed the same over several progressive candidates in real-time. Bernie Sanders can certainly be held up as an example of this dynamic. The DNC’s behavior against him was just frosting on the-fix-is-in cake. But: Thanks, Electoral College! You gave us Trump, you effing morons! Actually, that was the RNC’s job, and they delivered.

      Barring a viable third party, the Democratic hierarchy is overdue for a change. The entire (and I mean entire) body politic is compromised by money. Frankly, state races are perhaps even more important, but that’s another story. Just this once, I agree with Obama: We should be looking forward, not to the past. The Democratic leadership seems unable to do that. There’s your anachronism.

      Anyway,you trolled me good. Have a nice weekend.


  4. "this is the assessment we liberals use against those who don't say exactly what we want to hear on the topics which help us assert our superior tribal morality."

    Where is the example of "us" asserting our "superior tribal morality"? The "tribe" in attendance at the event supported Clinton. They apparently didn't find him "tone deaf." "The children" who called Clinton "tone deaf" appear to be in the media, as opposed to that audience. Another Somerby conflation going on.

    As far as "moral" concerns:
    "what was morally wrong with this relationship? Is it the fact that Clinton was married? Is it the fact that he was older? Does it have something to do with their rather attenuated work relationship, in which Clinton was technically Lewinsky's boss?"

    All of those things are a legitimate concern for some people, whether liberal or conservative. Liberals (not in the media), as you may recall, by and large supported Clinton. While a fair number may have felt his behavior was stupid AND wrong, they did not feel he should have been impeached or subjected to the attacks from Starr and the Republicans over the Lewinsky matter.

    1. Where is it?

      Do you ever watch MSNBC?

    2. Anon 5:03:
      Did you read the 3:33's comment? MSNBC is the media, not the "liberal tribe." If you'd spent any time reading Somerby's blog, you would know that he has pronounced them pseudoliberal.

  5. Replies
    1. If you find him, say hi to Gary Sandy.

  6. I think Lewinsky now sees herself as being a "swooning intern".

    Had there not been the trauma of public exposure and an investigation, she might well feel differently, and then again, she might not.

    Some things depend on how they turn out. It's possible to say that a married couple should keep the vows they make to each other and to also feel that an affair that turns into some sort of commitment of mind and spirit is different and from a dalliance and requires more subtlety and nuance and a bit of tenderness when considering the behavior of the participants.

    Of course, that doesn't do much for a heartbroken spouse or for frightened and confused offspring.

    I think what's required is some grace toward each other and a hell of a lot of grace from God.

    1. Not sure how you go from being a "swooning intern" to giving oral sex to your boss, but ok.

    2. How DARE you!

      Don't you know that she is now a victim?

  7. The election of Trump shows the "tribal moral superiority" of Republicans to have been a sham. They were the ones bleating about Clinton's unfitness for office due to his immorality and perversion. Then they, without flinching apparently, turn around and vote overwhelmingly for Trump, arguably more immoral than Clinton ever dreamed of being.

    The hypocrisy of the right on matters of sex has never been more clearly on display. Liberals were much more willing to forgive Clinton than conservatives. Exposing the hypocrisy of the Dimmesdales of the right, a la Roy Moore, and not the exposing of the sex for its own sake, has always been the focus.

    1. Be careful there. You might one day find useful the notion that lying under oath and suborning perjury are impeachable offenses.

    2. I'm not referring to Clinton's impeachment. I'm talking specifically about the sexual affair, which is, after all, exactly what Somerby is discussing.

    3. The Left is proving themselves hypocrites as well. If Stormy Daniels is such a heroic and valiant character then all of the MSNBC women would be getting into porn. How dare Guiliani criticize a porn star!

    4. When you’re discussing “forgiveness” and its relevance in a political matter, it’s important to understand just what’s perceived as being the offense.

    5. @cecelia: forget about politics. I'm not talking about forgiveness in a political sense, just about the sexual affair. The right were morally outraged at the Lewinsky affair. They found the sexual affair repugnant on its face, regardless of what legal fictions were invented to punish Clinton for it. That members of their own tribe were guilty of similar things was ignored. That is the hypocrisy I'm talking about.

    6. Well, I can’t argue. Hypocrisy R us.

      All of us.

      FYI “forgiveness” is always easier when you have a stake in the game. (I’m looking at the woman in the mirror here as well as at you)

      To be honest there wouldn’t have been enough Secret Service in the world to have kept me from blowing that son-of-a-bitch’s head off if it were my daughter he had coming over to use as an ashtray.

      As someone said, that’s the kind of affair that gives affairs a bad name.

    7. If I were Monica, I would have blown my father's head off if he had come over to interfere in my ADULT love life. A 22 year old can give consent and is in charge of her own behavior, whether it is with another pimply faced 22 year old or the president of the US. She chooses.

      I find your comment interesting given that you have adopted the nym "Cecelia" implying that you are female. Few women would take the position you just did, so I suspect you are (1) conservative and over here to stir things up, and (2) male and over here to stir things up.

      Easy to forget your adopted persona in the heat of the moment, I guess. Women are also less likely to refer to someone as "son-of-a-bitch" too. There are other preferred terms.

      Once a researcher friend was speculating that women don't seem to have a lot of nuanced terms for women who behave badly. For example, he said, what would you call a bitch who behaved badly at work? I replied, "Role model."

      Your reference to "using her as an ashtray" suggests you don't know what they actually did together. You should read Lewinsky's deposition. It is interesting and might change your impression of her. I doubt anything is going to change your impression of Clinton, now that you have revealed yourself.

    8. Anon6:13pm, oh well.

  8. I don't think it's that complicated. Bill Clinton got away with behavior that would be more severely punished in today's climate. People aren't willing to ignore past sexual misdeeds, as Bill Cosby, Harvey Weinstein and a host of other powerful men are finding out. Luckily for Clinton, his only punishment is moderate embarrassment during interviews.

    1. Well, he was impeached and had his law license suspended in Arkansas, was prohibited from arguing any cases before SCOTUS, and was fined.

    2. David, you don't punish consenting adults for sexual behavior. We live in a free country, not Russia. What Bill Cosby and Harvey Weinstein did was illegal. It was rape and sexual assault. Clinton did nothing illegal.

    3. Cecelia, Clinton didn't lose his license and he wasn't impeached for having sex. He was persecuted by a Republican House for trumped up charges that were not supported in the Senate. He forfeited his license over testimony in the Paula Jones case, not for anything he did with Lewinsky. Mm will be around later to tell you what actually happened with his license, etc.

    4. If you read the portion of the Starr Report that CMike posted, Clinton asked permission to kiss Lewinsky. She said yes. That makes it very different than Cosby or Weinstein or Trump (by his own admission). It sounds downright respectful. Unless you believe Lewinsky lied (which would tend to discredit all of her testimony), Clinton wasn't much of a womanizer. Note that Lewinsky made the first advances.

    5. I never said that he was impeached for having sex, I said Clinton’s law license was suspended in Arkansas. Yes, he did pay a fine.

      Yes, these things did involve his statements both publicly and under oath about his relationship with Lewinsky.

    6. So what? He isn't running for anything. This is just distraction from Trump's latest scandal. Why did we get sucked into this?

    7. We got sucked into this because Somerby insists on talking about it and re-hashing it.

    8. "We got sucked into this because Somerby insists on talking about it and re-hashing it."

      This blog hardly exists.

      "We" are talking about these things because the New York Times, among others, are talking about them.

      But for some it's always Somerby's fault.

    9. '"We" are talking about these things because the New York Times, among others, are talking about them."

      Barely, and you, not at all - as usual.

  9. Somerby's view of "liberal" hypocrisy is interesting. Behavior such as Bill Clinton's would not be tolerated today in the wake of the MeToo movement. The MeToo movement, aside from its condemnation of sexual misconduct, is about respecting women, ostensibly a liberal value. Yet Somerby sees liberal hypocrisy in its present-day questioning or re-visiting of Clinton's behavior, and its calling out of misbehavior in others. Wouldn't Clinton's behavior represent a disrespecting of women, and therefore isn't it possible that the present view is logical and pro-woman and Somerby's is...blinded by partisanship? Hypocritical? Old-fashioned?

    1. And I'm not just talking about Monica Lewinsky, but the other allegations as well.

    2. Wouldn't Clinton's behavior represent a disrespecting of women,...

      No, but David Bossie, Roger Stone, Racist lunatic Larry Klayman, the Richard Mellon Scaife Family all thank you for your concern.

    3. Consensual relationships are not tolerated today? When did we pass that law?

    4. "Consensual relationships are not tolerated today? When did we pass that law?"

      It's Biblical law, which is difficult to parse, but still holds sway.


  10. Call Dr.Dave For Urgent Love Spell +55 (11) 97732-4658
    I'm Olivia Megan from United State,I'm happy that my husband is back into my life after 2 years of divorce, Dr.Davi brought my husband back today and i am so excited. I got Dr.Davi email online when a lady was testifying about the strong spell caster who restored her marriage then I said to myself since he helped her, he can also help me,so i emailed him and told him the pain that I was going through,and he told me what to do and i did it,Then he did an urgent Love spell for me. 48 hours later, my husband came back home and with lots of love and joy,and he apologized for his mistake,and for the pain he caused me. Then from that day,our marriage was now stronger than how it were before, All thanks to Dr.Davi. Our family is complete again. If you are going through Divorce/Broke-up since Dr.Davi helped me, he can also help him at:,Thank you Dr Davi for saving my broken Marriage and brought my husband back to me.
    Email him: Call him now +55 (11) 97732-4658  

  11. President Clinton has always treated women with respect.
    he has employed many professional women while he was Governor and President. To compare him with other men's sexual harassment is ludicrous.

  12. Greetings to every one that is reading this testimony. I have been rejected by my husband after three(3) years of marriage just because another woman had a spell on him and he left me and the kid to suffer. one day when i was reading through the web, i saw a post on how this spell caster on this address , have help a woman to get back her husband and i gave him a reply to his address and he told me that a woman had a spell on my husband and he told me that he will help me and after 2 days that i will have my husband back. i believed him and today i am glad to let you all know that this spell caster have the power to bring lovers back. because i am now happy with my husband. Thanks for Dr,gbojie . His email: OR.His WhatsApp Number:+2349066410185 or check out his website:

  13. Save Your Relationship and Get Your Ex Boyfriend/Girlfriend Back!contact: is certainly the best spell caster online and his result is 100% guarantee.
    My Name Olivia Stephen form Tx,USA. After 12years of marriage, me and my husband has been into one quarrel or the other until he finally left me and moved to California to be with another woman. I felt my life was over and my kids thought they would never see their father again. i tried to be strong just for the kids but i could not control the pains that torments my heart, my heart was filled with sorrows and pains because i was really in love with my husband. Every day and night i think of him and always wish he would come back to me, I was really upset and i needed help, so i searched for help online and I came across a website that suggested that Dr Unity can help get ex back fast. So, I felt I should give him a try. I contacted him and he told me what to do and i did it then he did a Love spell for me. 28 hours later, my husband really called me and told me that he miss me and the kids so much, So Amazing!! So that was how he came back that same day,with lots of love and joy,and he apologized for his mistake,and for the pain he caused me and the kids. Then from that day,our Marriage was now stronger than how it were before, All thanks to Dr Unity. he is so powerful and i decided to share my story on the internet that Dr.Unity real and powerful spell caster who i will always pray to live long to help his children in the time of trouble, if you are here and you need your Ex back or your husband moved to another woman, do not cry anymore, contact this powerful spell caster now. Here’s his contact
    Call/WhatsApp: +2348071622464 ,
    Email: ,
    Website: .

  14. It just occur to me that i have not done the right thing since when my husband came back to me, I am on this blog to give thanks to whom it deserve. Some couples of weeks ago my life was in a terrible shape because my husband left me and i never believe that i was going to get him back. But through the help of this powerful spell caster called Dr.Ogbefun my life is now in a joyful mood, I must recommend the services of Dr.Ogbefun to any one out there that they should contact Dr.Ogbefun through these details below: ( ) or call +2348077383469 because through Dr.Ogbefun assistance my marriage was restored.

  15. Restore your broken home and relationship with the help of this great Man Dr Goodluck of ( )

    My self and my girlfriend have been getting into little arguments which then later escalate. a lot of which are my fault but i never thought i would lose her because we are in love. she told me weeks back that she loves me but she is done. that the fights keep hurting her too much. i can’t believe i hurt her like that and would love nothing more than another chance to prove to her and myself that i will cut out my insecurities that I’ve brought into this relationship. It wasn’t until i lost her that my eyes really opened in what i was doing. i asked for another chance and she said she cannot do that right now. i asked if she is done with my forever and she said she doesn’t know what will happen down the road but right now she needs space. I’m lost, confused, heart broken. i feel like it’s all my fault and i don’t want to lose her, all she told me was that the relationship is over, she blocked me on whatsapp. i went no contact. she unblock me. i still maintain no contact she blocked me again. 1 week of no contact. will she come back? we were very close. she may not be the best looking girl. but i love her. now i begged her to consider me but she’s did listen, she left and i was frustrated, i began searching for help and answers, then i heard about a man that can cast a spell to remind her of all the things we have been through together and show her how much she love me, at first I was scared then i decided to give it a try,and i still cant believe it that just 17hours after this great man Dr Goodluck of casted the spell my Ex called and beg for also hurting me and promise never to leave me again it was a dream come through and i promise myself never to ever hurt her again and all thanks to you Daddy at for all you help i swear you are a great blessing on earth. anyone facing any kind of relationship problem, cure to sickness, lottery spell ETC i just cant say contact this great man and he will help you solve your problem of any kind i am a living testimony of his powers, do not hesitate to email
    Call or Whats-app him: +2348138654465