Breaking News! NYTimes says!
Helping your husband discredit his mistresses as part of an cynical political strategy isn't playing well with women!
"But at an Upper East Side dinner party a few months back, Ms. Dunham expressed more conflicted feelings. She told the guests, at the Park Avenue apartment of Richard Plepler, the chief executive of HBO, that she was disturbed by how, in the 1990s, the Clintons and their allies discredited women who said they had had sexual encounters with or been sexually assaulted by former President Bill Clinton.
The conversation, relayed by several people with knowledge of the discussion who would speak about it only anonymously, captures the deeper debate unfolding among liberal-leaning women about how to reconcile Mrs. Clintons leadership on womens issues with her past involvement in her husbands efforts to fend off accusations of sexual misconduct."
HRC defenders will swarm in to say either "it's not relevant" or "you are obviously a misogynist for bringing it up".
Not one of them was speaking the truth even the one he paid off the 850k settlement?. All lying bimbos and floosies?
And I don't think this stuff is going to gain any traction.
Most Bernie supporters don't give a damn about fancy Dinner parties on the upper east side.
as the article states,
'her spokeswoman, Cindi Berger, said that Ms. Dunham is fully supportive of Hillary Clinton and her track record for protecting women, and that the description of her comments at the dinner party was a total mischaracterization.
It was off message.
It doesn't change the fact that many women don't like the way that the Clintons have treated Clinton's mistresses.
It's amazing to me that the supposed left is all for calling people sluts and tramps when it suits them.
I didn't give a damn when I thought they were angry at Hillary and I still don't give a damn that they are not angry at Hillary.
It is still an elitist upper income dinner party on the upper east side.
The working class doesn't give a crap what they think either way.
Note it doesn't say "elite upper income" women.
And as Vanity Fair just said:
"Sanders ... enjoys unexpectedly high support among the young, female voters that Clinton was counting on..."
Not, "young, female" "elite upper income" women. Just women.
Again from the NYT:
"But the resurfacing of the scandals of the 1990s has brought about a rethinking among some feminists about how prominent women stood by Mr. Clinton and disparaged his accusers ...
Even some Democrats who participated in the effort to discredit the women acknowledge privately that today, when Mrs. Clinton and other women have pleaded with the authorities on college campuses and in workplaces to take any allegation of sexual assault and sexual harassment seriously, such a campaign to attack the womens character would be unacceptable.
Back then, Mr. Clintons aides, having watched Gary Harts presidential hopes unravel over his relationship with Donna Rice in the 1988 Democratic primary race, were determined to squash any accusations against Mr. Clinton early and aggressively, former campaign aides explained. Mrs. Clinton had supported the effort to push back against the womens stories.
Much of her involvement played out behind the scenes, and was driven, in part, by her sense that right-wing forces were using the women and salacious stories to damage her husbands political ambitions. Her reflex was to protect him and his future, and, early on, she turned to a longtime Clinton loyalist, Ms. Wright, to defend him against the allegations, according to multiple accounts at the time, documented in books and oral histories.
When Gennifer Flowers later surfaced, claiming that she had a long affair with Mr. Clinton, Mrs. Clinton undertook an aggressive, explicit direction of the campaign to discredit Ms. Flowers, according to an exhaustive biography of Mrs. Clinton, A Woman in Charge, by Carl Bernstein.
Mrs. Clinton referred to Monica Lewinsky, the White House intern who had an affair with the 42nd president, as a narcissistic loony toon, according to one of her closest confidantes, Diane D. Blair, whose diaries were released to the University of Arkansas after her death in 2000. Ms. Lewinsky later called the comment an example of Mrs. Clintons impulse to blame the woman.
That sort of behaviour is seen as both real and unacceptable by women. Many women have seen people like Bill Cosby attack victims for years with no repercussions, and don't think the people that help him deserve credit for "loyalty" to Cosby. Women, that i have spoken to, friends and colleagues, and people on DU and other forums, don't think that Clinton should he hated for cheating on his wife - all relationships are unknowable from the outside essentially - but that attacking and trying to discredit women, for political gain, especially women who claim assault or being manipulated to maintain silence, that sort of behaviour is not something to take lightly.
And again, those opinions aren't coming from the "wealthy elite".
Nor does this story say that those opinions are only of the wealthy elite.
Even more broadly the under fifty crowd is rather pro-Sanders. I think that is good. Young women are getting more in Bernie's camp but I don't think this has a thing to do with any tawdry old sex scandals.
This is about bread and butter issues and that is where Bernie is winning.
in the Universe to tweet to Juanita Broderick, etc for a response.
I mean, it's not exactly rocket science.