Bill Clinton escaping the #MeToo standards and cashing in (again)

For some reason, despite the disgrace and career defenestration visited on other liberal icons like Charlie Rose and Harvey Weinstein, Bill Clinton is still able to cash in in a big way, and enjoy the company and implicit endorsement of major media companies and personalities. Yesterday, Jennifer Wright put into context the weird immunity granted to him, in the New York Post:

It’s 2018. One of the world’s most powerful married men had a 22-year-old intern perform oral sex on him in his office. He’s been accused of sexual assault by three other women. One claims, as is the case with so many of the men who have fallen from positions of power as a result, that he exposed himself to her (which always makes me, at least, pause and wonder why on earth so many men seem to want to do this). We know, too, that he lied about his tryst with the intern.

So why is Bill Clinton still presiding over glamorous parties? (snip) he’s almost certainly guilty of actions that would be categorized as harassment in 2018. The fact that the Lewinsky affair happened as long ago as 1995 is no matter.

Charlie Rose is accused of harassment by several employees dating back to the late 1990s — and he lost his job in November.

People seem curiously willing to hold Clinton to a different standard than other men accused of sexual harassment. Many don’t seem especially bothered by his actions at all and lay the blame for the scandal squarely on Lewinsky. In a 2014 Economist/YouGov poll, 58 percent of those surveyed had a favorable opinion of Bill Clinton. Meanwhile, 48 percent had an unfavorable opinion of Lewinsky.

Bill Clinton is once again cashing in on a scale that dwarfs the income possibilities of ordinary Americans.  Isabel Vincent laid it out yesterday, also in the New York Post:

Bill Clinton will spend his summer rolling in dough.

Next month the former president is scheduled to crisscross the US and Canada in a promotional tour for his new novel, in some cases charging $1,500 a ticket for on-stage events, dubbed “A Conversation with President Bill Clinton.”

Clinton, already a best-selling author for his 2004 autobiography “My Life,” began raking in the cash for the fictional thriller that he wrote with mega-bestselling novelist James Patterson, before the book was finished. He and his co-author reportedly signed a seven-figure deal with Showtime last year for the rights to turn “The President is Missing” into a TV series.

Showtime is a subsidiary of Viacom, as is CBS, which fired Charlie Rose. Why the disparate standards? Are politicians (or at least Democrat presidents)  granted some sort of droit du seigneur over vulnerable and comely young interns and assistants that doesn’t apply to Charlie Rose, Matt Lauer, and other media grandees?

I wonder what Barack Obama has to say?

Oh, wait a minute: he already said it: “At some point, you’ve made enough money.”

PS: James Patterson, I am done with you. I will never buy or read another book written by you.

For some reason, despite the disgrace and career defenestration visited on other liberal icons like Charlie Rose and Harvey Weinstein, Bill Clinton is still able to cash in in a big way, and enjoy the company and implicit endorsement of major media companies and personalities. Yesterday, Jennifer Wright put into context the weird immunity granted to him, in the New York Post:

It’s 2018. One of the world’s most powerful married men had a 22-year-old intern perform oral sex on him in his office. He’s been accused of sexual assault by three other women. One claims, as is the case with so many of the men who have fallen from positions of power as a result, that he exposed himself to her (which always makes me, at least, pause and wonder why on earth so many men seem to want to do this). We know, too, that he lied about his tryst with the intern.

So why is Bill Clinton still presiding over glamorous parties? (snip) he’s almost certainly guilty of actions that would be categorized as harassment in 2018. The fact that the Lewinsky affair happened as long ago as 1995 is no matter.

Charlie Rose is accused of harassment by several employees dating back to the late 1990s — and he lost his job in November.

People seem curiously willing to hold Clinton to a different standard than other men accused of sexual harassment. Many don’t seem especially bothered by his actions at all and lay the blame for the scandal squarely on Lewinsky. In a 2014 Economist/YouGov poll, 58 percent of those surveyed had a favorable opinion of Bill Clinton. Meanwhile, 48 percent had an unfavorable opinion of Lewinsky.

Bill Clinton is once again cashing in on a scale that dwarfs the income possibilities of ordinary Americans.  Isabel Vincent laid it out yesterday, also in the New York Post:

Bill Clinton will spend his summer rolling in dough.

Next month the former president is scheduled to crisscross the US and Canada in a promotional tour for his new novel, in some cases charging $1,500 a ticket for on-stage events, dubbed “A Conversation with President Bill Clinton.”

Clinton, already a best-selling author for his 2004 autobiography “My Life,” began raking in the cash for the fictional thriller that he wrote with mega-bestselling novelist James Patterson, before the book was finished. He and his co-author reportedly signed a seven-figure deal with Showtime last year for the rights to turn “The President is Missing” into a TV series.

Showtime is a subsidiary of Viacom, as is CBS, which fired Charlie Rose. Why the disparate standards? Are politicians (or at least Democrat presidents)  granted some sort of droit du seigneur over vulnerable and comely young interns and assistants that doesn’t apply to Charlie Rose, Matt Lauer, and other media grandees?

I wonder what Barack Obama has to say?

Oh, wait a minute: he already said it: “At some point, you’ve made enough money.”

PS: James Patterson, I am done with you. I will never buy or read another book written by you.