Hillary Clinton speaks out against Harvey Weinstein, says she is "shocked and appalled"


But if you do understand that she is not responsible for the state of the Democratic party or American politics, why are you directing so much hate towards her specifically?


If I was a Republican, and was in Congress, I’d open up hearings on the “sexual abuse epidemic” in Hollywood. Such hearings would, of course, need to lead to an investigation of the payoffs to women (and men) used to silence them, and perhaps to an investigation of the financial accounting used by the major TV and film studios.


I think “hate” might be a bit of a strong word; I think she would have been a good President, but she ran a historically bad campaign that made the election close enough to steal, and I want that door closed so the Clinton inner circle doesn’t have any responsibility for the state/future of the Democratic party. If we could pack up the Clintons, Podesta, Emanuel, (please, please someone take him) et al and send them off to a desert island somewhere to give paid speeches to each other, I’d be happy.

Again, I can’t speak to anyone else’s motives for not liking her or her cronies, but I’m definitely not one of those people who feels the need to inject her into a story that isn’t about her just to complain about her, but the story is kind of about her and her relationship to an undisputed garbage person.


Oh, you’re just tickled pink that not all sexual predators are Republican or working for Fox News because now you can pretend it’s exclusively a “leftist” problem.


“Hate” is a strong word, but “garbage person” isn’t? And you think her campaign is the only reason she lost? There were quite a few forces that conspired to put Trump in the White House, and pinning all of it onto the Clintons is highly suspect to me.

I beg to differ, as you keep doing exactly that, and referring to her using pejoratives.

Obama ran and worked with the same people, and for all of his campaign promises was unable to do anything we wanted. And I sincerely believe he tried. But no one blames him for being part of the system that failed us.


No, certainly not the only reason she lost. She lost because a large part of our country are terrible people who eagerly voted for an even more terrible person, because of foreign interference, and because she ran a terrible campaign. Please don’t confuse recognizing that her campaign was terrible and that it was A reason she lost with pinning the entirety of the loss on it. That’s not what I’m doing, so it isn’t fair to suggest that I am.

And, as I pointed out, the story is about Clinton, so I’m not sure it’s fair to accuse me of injecting her into the story apropos of nothing.

But you bring up a good point about Obama. I happen to think that his selection of Emanuel (an extremely garbage person who I actually do hate) as CoS was an original sin of his administration that cost it a lot of opportunities to better advance progressive goals.


I’m not sure of what else to think when I read this:

Or why you believe that that the removing the “Clinton Circle” will change SOP in American politics.


Whatever doubt any of my previous statements may have left, let me be clear: I believe her campaign was not THE reason she lost, but it is A reason she lost. It seems like you’d rather I was making the other argument to argue against it, but that’s not what I believe. It is silly and dangerous to ignore the other factors that went into her loss, and I definitely don’t want anyone to do that.

I believe removing the Clinton inner circle will allow other progressive politicians to have a better chance of advancing in American politics. I’m not saying that this will result in Democratic victories across the board or usher in a utopia, but I think in the long run it is the better way to advance progressive goals and lessen (but not eliminate, of course) the chances of another historically bad campaign like we saw in 2016.


Nope, wouldn’t rather, only explaining how your position appeared to me.

Fair enough. Suffice it to say that I think it’s much more complicated than that, so we will have to agree to disagee.


Of course it’s more complicated than that. Everything is complicated. But I genuinely believe that the less influence the Clintons, Podestas, and Emanuels have on the future of the Democratic party, the better.

Take care & thanks for discussing this with me.


Here’s hoping we can all survive the next four years, and that the future brings us a saner approach to politics.


Maybe we’re misunderstanding what s/he means by “garbage person”:



Man, you didn’t even grab the goal post on the right field for that one.


Definitely not the case! Everyone knew Harve had an explosive temper. Everyone also knew he’d go to bat for interesting movies that others wouldn’t take a chance on and that his influence could make or break a career.

I would love to think that if more people had known he’s a sexual predator and not “just” a yelling bully, this would have come out years ago. But given the difficulties for a sex-crime victim who speaks and the difficulties for women who want to be serious actors and the sort of wink-wink, nudge-nudge attitude about the “casting couch” tradition, I just don’t believe it.


I guess this is as a good a thread as any to put this:


Yes, yes, "Shocked and appalled."
We get it.
Kind of like "Shock and awe."
Relevance in an irrelevant world.
You were friends.
Except when you weren’t.
Sad. So sad.

To every politician’s need to comment, I’d like to offer my “thoughts and prayers” for a speedy recovery from your momentary lapse into conscience.


So just to be clear: are you riffing on Hillary because she did publicly condemn Weinstein for his actions or because she didn’t do so swiftly or harshly enough?


So you’re here, saying that there above, but don’t care what other people think of HRC… Okay. Sounds fun.

I have no idea what you’re talking about. I posted a picture of HRC with WH, and for some reason this is an issue for you.

I said I don’t care one way or another about HRC. You – i.e., other people – are free to think whatever you want about her. Doesn’t bother me.


I’m saying, specifically, that she’s simply being hypocritical …
His money was good enough as a donor, until it wasn’t.

Weinstein had a known history, but to claim ignorance of your more powerful donor base until they get themselves caught is simply disingenuous.

I’m not making an argument for guilt-by-association.

I am saying that pretending to not know about a known problem, and then act as if one must fall in line with the preferred narrative (now that it is inconvenient) is the kind of wagon-circling privilege that HRC can’t make. The victims themselves can make that argument, but she can’t.

Hillary is not a victim here. Her commiseration with the victims is what is appalling.

Now, if Hillary made an argument claiming that she knew nothing at all about Weinstein’s background, that would be an argument from ignorance … and would not lend anything to her reputation for competence as a inside deal-maker.

Instead, she argues from a position of moral outrage, when in fact her previous personal family experience should have warned her about the political risk of fallout from inappropriate sexual behavior.

Politics is as much establishing a compromise with one’s own ethical behavior, as it is about rubbing shoulders with people who share few moral qualms.

But the point is that the grounding for the compromises is a sense of ethics: either how to justify one’s own behavior ethically, or how to chart a course when all choices seem morally dubious.

The moral dubiousness of our current political quagmire should make any principled politician’s behavior positively stand out.

The problem is that this statement by HRC seems more akin with “me-too-ism.” That’s not only disrespectful of people victimized, it is yet par-for-the-course for most politicians on the left or right.

So it boils down to this: it’s either a mediocre form of CYA, or a mediocre form of hand-wringing. Which makes her statement seem irrelevant rather than supportive.


She could have said something like the following:
“We have taken steps to ensure that people who may have abused their power in ways such as those alleged against Mr. Weinstein are recognized in the financial audit process of donations to our organization. We believe this is an effective method of countering political corruption from people who might otherwise infiltrate the process of building true and meaningful changes into our political system. I have personally taken steps to rigorously review our ethics policies, and will continue to strive for moral accountability of ourselves and the people with whom we build partnerships. My personal feelings of outrage about this matter can never completely do justice for victims of sexual assault. I continue to support justice for all victims of sexual assault, regardless of circumstance… etc”