Your video, Michaela Watkins Explained Bullying to Monica Lewinsky, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

This achievement has earned you your "Pop Star" Level 4 Badge!

Oh Bob, comparing apples to turd sandwiches again I see.

Let's see the other video comparing the Republican's position in 98 to their position today....oops, I guess you forgot they were insistent that it ALL be public when it was about Clinton, including destroying uncharged individuals like Lewinsky, grand jury testimony, finances, taxes, etc. Back then it was unconscionable that any snippet of information Starr found be kept private, the public had a right to know everything they can about the president, today they argued the Barr report was the end all, no need to open the redacted Mueller report at all, forget letting anyone see it all even in closed session and absolutely not the public, ever....and the unredacted report should probably be destroyed before it leaks.

Just duh, Bob. You're grasping again.

Politico has a long piece on Boehner. It includes this little gem:

On Sunday, July 17, it appeared they had a deal. Boehner and Virginia Representative Eric Cantor—whom the speaker had reluctantly brought into the negotiations, knowing the majority leader’s distrust of Obama could poison the talks—worked out some final details that morning at the White House. When the president returned from church, Boehner says, he invited them both into the Oval Office and shook their hands. Some fine-tuning remained, but in Boehner’s mind the so-called grand bargain was done. The framework included reforms to Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security; $1.2 trillion in cuts to discretionary spending; and $800 billion in new revenue. “I was one happy son of a bitch,” Boehner tells me.

The next 48 hours changed everything. On Tuesday morning, the so-called Gang of Six—three senators from each party who had been discussing their own sweeping fiscal agreement—announced a briefing for their colleagues at the Capitol. They unveiled a separate framework, totally unaware of what Obama and Boehner had agreed to. This deal included significantly more revenue. Chambliss, by then a senator, was one of the GOP Gang members and had no idea—because Boehner had been negotiating with the president in private—that their announcement would kill the speaker’s deal with the White House. Obama saw that Republican senators were endorsing a deal that included far more revenue, and knew there was no way he could sell the grand bargain to his liberal base. When he came back with a counteroffer, seeking a higher revenue number, it validated Cantor’s warnings about not trusting the president. And by that point Boehner’s members had heard enough about the grand bargain to know they didn’t like it—with the $800 billion revenue figure, much less something higher.

So the deal fell apart, and the two sides peddled their competing versions of events: Boehner’s team said the White House moved the goal posts, while Obama’s allies said the speaker couldn’t sell his own members on the deal.

Most Clinton "scandals" were nothing...Benghazi comes to mind, as does Lewinski.
Trump has admitted to treating women far worse, and his relationship with the truth is far worse than Hillary's, and I don't trust her a whit.
Nice pre-defense of Trump, but there were far more than 16 attorneys looking at Clinton just recently and they found nothing 1/10 as bad as Trump sharing top secret Israeli info with the Russians.....so....

Lol, Hillary is scared she's gonna lose to Trump. All the intelligent liberals are scared. Obama won because the minority vote, but it's unlikely hillary will actually get them to come out. After all her hard work Monica Lewinskying the corporate member, she could lose to a ridiculous human being. I'm excited to see it. Dumb asses should have voted for Bernie.

Look @00Scud00, Lewinski's talk is about shame and cybermobbing. She experienced the latter because of her actions and as a result, when she talks about online -abuse, she views it through the prism of her own lifestory, one that is about shame. It is similar to Tyler Clementi, whom she talked about.
However, at the end of the day, her talk is about cyberbullying, online abuse and mob-behaviour.
What connects her and Sarkeesian is cyberbullying and misogyny. They both expierenced that without a doubt.
The big difference is, Lewinsky did something wrong, she enganged in adultery. It may be excusable because she was young and in a relationship with very uneven powerdynamics, it may be understandable because people do fall in love and cheat but it was wrong. The problem is that a matter that should concern only a handful of people became a media event because of the politics involved. That lead to slutshaming and embarrassing her not just online but by all media.
Her case is special because she was the first person to get such an response online and that is what she focuses on in her talk. It's not just about the media (be it print or TV), it's especially about the internet. That is why Clementi is in part so important to her.
Sarkeesian on the other side didn't do something wrong. She started to talk publically about the way the media, especially games, treat and view women from a (sane IMO) feministic point of view.
The end result is disastrous. She experienced a backlash that was not only the highest degree of misogyny, it was also a prime example of a group of people online lashing out at somebody. Cyberbullying and online abuse at its worst.
There is the connection between the two. Sarkeesian wasn't slutshamed, she just got called 'slut' and 'whore'. She didn't have private, sexual details of her life revealed online, it was just her adress and getting rape-threats.
The connection between the two women is online abuse.

Actually, Sarkeesian got it worse. She just did a job but Lewinsky sucked off a married man. Monica didn't deserve what she got, that level of humiliation and hatred. She made a stupid mistake, she made a human mistake. The price she paid was unbearably, unfairly high. I'm sorry for her.
Anita just talked about a topic she felt strongly about. People online threatened her with bodily harm. That's worse.

@dag mentioned Justine Sacco. Her case is completely different from those other two women. Somehow, Monica Lewinsky still talked about her. That's why her TED Talk is so good, she talks about a problem that exists mainly in the online world nowadays.
Cyberbullying. Mobmentality. Onlineabuse.

I must have missed that, please tell me at what point was Sarkeesian slut shamed for her critical views? How are the two even connected? Lewinsky's talk did cover the corrosive environment we find online and that is something they both share, but how they got there is different. Lewinsky and the other guy she mentioned both had their privacy violated and their personal lives exposed to the public, the media shamelessly exploited the situation for clicks and ratings while the Republicans saw something that might finally stick to the Teflon President (honestly I think Clinton should have cut the playing coy bullshit and simply owned up to it).
Sarkeesian voiced and opinion and some people agreed, some people sort of agreed, some disagreed, and yet others decided to be assholes about it. No secrets revealed, no private shame of hers was exposed for the sake of public titillation, she took a stance on an issue and got a taste of the uglier side of public life.
Also, please point out in my post where I said that she was asking for it or where I said anything about what she was wearing. Shoving words into people's mouths to demonize them in the hopes that it will silence them is a reflection on you, not me.

What?
So, are you, like, suggesting Sarkeesian asked for it? What? Was her skirt too short and her top too slutty?
The woman did her job, analyzing entertainment products and their relationship to women, and got death- and rapethreats. That's exactly what Lewinsky talks about minus the shaming aspect. Yes, her talk is about shaming but that's only the spread on the shit-sandwich she got and is reviewing now.
It's about shitty people being themselves online, about modern mob behaviour. Both women suffered from that and both got their share of misogyny and abuse. What they did to get it isn't the issue, it's what's done to them. They may not sit in the same boat but Sarkeesian is certainly sitting in the 15 years more advanced version of it.

I'm not sure that Sarkeesian and Lewinsky's situations are all that similar. Lewinsky was never looking for public attention to begin with, she was shamed (wrongfully in my opinion) for something that goes on between average people all the time, but because it involved a President that makes it national news.
Sarkeesian needs publicity if she want's her message to be heard and so she does whatever she has to to get our attention. Once you have it however you may find that it cuts both ways, your message may be well received by some while inflaming those who disagree with you.
I agree with some things Sarkeesian says and I disagree with other things, but for me it's about her words and her actions, and her ideas, not who she is personally.

As non-US, i have never understood what that Clinton-Lewinski thing was all about. Impeached for a bj? Take a real hard look at real life, ffs.

This is the kind of bullshit I expect from mainstream media. At least in the Lewinsky scandal there was some actual evidence made available to the public. Here they are just speculating on the personal life of a politican based on an alleged tape that no one has seen. And besides, the personal life of a politican is irrelevant. If it's affecting how he actually performed his job than focus on that. They're reporting unverified accusations against a person which aren't really any of the public's business in the first place. They only report it because it grabs more eyeballs than dissecting policy.

If Romney did not pay his taxes you can bet bottom dollar that the IRS would all up on him. He is not hiding anything. Its none of our business. The left just wants to get a hold of them to have field day lambasting Rommey. What about the house and senate? Why don't they show theirs? WE all know there is boatloads of corruption there. Surely this would shed some lite on the subject.

You can say all you want about Romney but there is no whores, Lewinsky, Marxists, Anarchists, or any other skeletons in his closet. All you have to his IRS to pick over.

Remember Timothy Geithner? When he was being selected The IRS issue bubbled up and he had to pay back taxes. If this was an issue it would have bubbled up back in the last election cycle.

Harry Reid lied. Once this settles there will be another whopper to distract true issue facing the election. Be fore this was his wife's horses.

What is facing America is JOBS. Who can deliver JOBS.

If you want to lose your job Vote Obama.
If you want to keep you job Vote Romney.


>> ^charliem:

>> ^bobknight33:
OBAMA only wishes he could be involved. But Obama is still a 1%er.>> ^charliem:
....Mitt Romney involved?


OBAMA isnt the one hiding more than 2 years of his tax returns....

>> ^bmacs27:

>> ^bareboards2:
@bmacs27 -- you mean the fact that these smart-ass cartoon makers with potty mouths write the most successful musical in years and sweep the Tonys last year, selling out every single show for months into the future, while Broadway professionals who have slaved at their craft for decades and have yet to have a hit? That subtext?

How about you kind lady? Could I trouble you for a quick Lewinsky?

Just don't Bro-down against Sondheim, it's suicide!

>> ^bareboards2:

@bmacs27 -- you mean the fact that these smart-ass cartoon makers with potty mouths write the most successful musical in years and sweep the Tonys last year, selling out every single show for months into the future, while Broadway professionals who have slaved at their craft for decades and have yet to have a hit? That subtext?


How about you kind lady? Could I trouble you for a quick Lewinsky?