<i> Gerson claims Clinton was exploiting Lewinsky, and it’s true he was her superior. But Lewinsky didn’t report to Clinton, and it’s unclear what career benefit he could have offered her. (A letter of recommendation would have raised some eyebrows.) </i>

Um, if I'm not mistaken, Bill Clinton was the President of the United States at the time. I'm pretty sure he could have pulled some strings and gotten Monica pretty much anything she wanted. And count me among the non-social conservatives who thinks that a 49-year-old having an affair with a 22-year-old is significantly worse than McCain/Iseman (if it happened). It was very clearly an abuse of power.

Whether it's racism, sexism, red-baiting, or impeachment adventures, conservatives never can face their own past. Every few years they "update" their arguments to suit their current anxieties and pet-peeves, even if their new-and-improved arguments completely violate the spirit of their old positions.

these are the sorts of "issues" that have nothing at all to do with politics; yet, inexplicably, we all line up with their team.  it's a fun mental exercise to replace clinton with bush in the lewinsky tale and try imagine how you and everyone else would have reacted.  

in a way, i think, this is chait's point.  in another way, i think he's looking through his own partisan prism.

as for mccain v. clinton, each case has it's own sordid advantages:

clinton:

a) 22 is a whole lot different than 32.  clinton's age v. mccain's may change the ick factor but is not morally relevant.

b) an employee is inherently more vulnerable to her boss than a lobbyist is to her lobbyee.  come on.

mccain:

c) the public interest is at stake.

i think c) outweighs a) + b) but maybe that's just my prism...

I gotta agree with emh on this one.  Monica didn't report to Bill Clinton?  

Uh, yeah, right. A word from Bill to her supervisor and Monica would have been out in the street pretty quick.

If McCain was in bed with this lobbyist, and if her clients benefited from her intimate relationship with the Senator, has the public trust been violated?  Is this really a private matter, when legislation affecting her clients may have been affected by her influence over the gentleman from Arizona?

Assuming the above is true, Clinton's affair with Ms Lewinsky isn't one-tenth as serious as McCain's alleged dalliance.

emh77 sees this from a personal morality perspective, and neglects the real consequences - as did so many of those who pushed for President Clinton's impeachment.  Clinton certainly abused his power in his personal relationship with Lewinsky, but McCain may have abused his power in his public duties as a Senator.

Neil

bradigan hits the nail on the head

bradigan is right about the age thing. 22 is fresh out of college. 32 is around the block more than a few times. you can't be a congressman until 25 and a Senator until you are 30, and this was written when most people were dead before they were 10. (but obviously not the people who wrote it)

beyond that, it isn't even proven he had sex with her, so lets drop the comparisons. Proof first, then compare.

Oh Jonathan. You're looking for some kind of philosophical golden measure. Here you go. Rather than chronological which you seem to want to disallow how about intellectual proximity? Thus the onus based upon position and mental age capacities would reasonably lead one to conclude that Clinton enjoyed the higher degree of responsibility. There is a huge symbolic disparity as well. Leveraging this was his gravest sin. He was smart enough to know better and that makes a difference as well. Now Lewinsky will forever be known as Billy boys blowjob and humidor. It doesn't relieve her from her part in the whole sordid little thing but.......If there were any improprieties visa vi McCain-Iseman they more resemble a business decision on two consenting adults part rather than the perversion of power that you advocate.............Personally I'm of the opinion that integrity of word, to include marraige vow, is a measure by which to judge character and fitness when considering any relationship be it friend, business partner or president. Of course everything is within context but nonetheless. It does give one a look at priority. Words do mean things. Would McCain behaving as such have a bearing upon what I thought of his fitness? I would have to put that in with whatever else I knew and saw. Just like anybody else I might know. Be it family friend or foe.

Indeed.  Clinton failed as a man.  McCain (may have) failed as a Senator.  The former is tangentially related to the ability to hold public office, and the latter is directly related.

Oh dear - I said this at the time about Monica as well. I was  much more rapicious, trouble-making, fearless, clear-eyed at 22 than I have ever been. Getting old perverted guys in some sort of trouble counted as fun, even if our Monica started taking it too seriously.  

All the tsk tsking about the poor little innocent thing cracked me (and the group of women I grew up with) up to no end.

I agree with Chait on every point. It is always amazing to see, depending upon which party the latest foolish horn dog belongs to, how the party's apologists respond.

Hell, if McCain had dreams of reviving his moribund old carrot with this perky opportunist, then go at it Old Man, have at it.

But, admit that you are what you are: A dog, an old dog, but a dog for sure. I don't mind having a dog for president. Hell, we have had some good dogs in that office but a holier than thou dog, I can do without.

But isn't the real point that he was shtupping a lobbyist and giving her favors in return?  Why is nobody making this the story.  I could care less what McCain does in his private life, though I think that a man who left his wife when she had cancer--and goes on to sleep with other women in his second marriage--disqualifies him as a conservative sweetheart.  Then again, the conservatives will look for any excuse--and would unlikely have voted the Democratic ticket.  The story should never have been about the story.  He's unethical, and I hope women start coming out of the woodwork.

At this point, probably best for TNR to do an Emily Litello rather than try yet another Maxwell Smart "Would you believe..." spin.

Again, there's no scandal here; the story was botched; it's hugely beneficial to McCain; and TNR is risking-- yet again-- another hit to its reputation for quality journalism.

GIve it up, guys. Before you make a bad situation even worse.

Oh Wandrey, you saucy little vamp you. I've known you. I'm certain we deserved each other. And now all of those battles later you still give male vanity the benefit of the doubt. Bless your little heart. Who said women aren't superior creatures?

fwiw I couldn't care less about Monicagate and I don't care which MILF or LILF McCain likes to F. When and if you can show some hard evidence of a quid for her quo, THEN we can talk about "scandal." Start by addressing Dem superlawyer Bob Bennett's rebuttal to this BS charge.

What the fuck is holier than thou about keeping your vow? Now if going on a chastity and fidelity hunt is the offshoot of such priority then you have something, Jaunty.

"beyond that, it isn't even proven he had sex with her, so lets drop the comparisons. Proof first, then compare."

I thought he "did not have sex with that woman ........ depending on what the meaning of is, is."

I'm going to try to say this once.

Monica Lewinsky was NOT AN INTERN during the period of her affair.

I know, you probably don't believe it, but it's true.

She was a white house intern, and then later, she became a white house employee.

Also, I doubt she was 22, I think she was 24 (although unlike the intern thing, I'm not 100% positive).

Perhaps you find this nitpicking, and that's fine. But consider how everyone has tried to sex up the Lewinsky story (as if it needed more).

Reporters usually type 'FORMER' intern,' well that's true I suppose. Lewinsky was also a 'former kindergardner.'

I want everyone to think about this, including wandrey and bradigan, very carefully before spazzing out. What all reporters SHOULD be typing is:

"Monica Lewinsky, a 24 year old White House employee, had an affair with President Bill Clinton."

It doesn't really make it any better, but think to yourselves, why insist on the 'former intern' angle? Also, why do people like Wandrey mistake her age? Sometimes, people say Lewinsky was 19. How low can it go?

Here ya' go:

en.wikipedia.org/.../Monica_Lewinsky

Born 7/23/73.

The affair happened Nov 1995-April 1996, she was in fact, 22.

I stand corrected.

As for 'intern,' she was an intern up until that month, so her affair started pretty much at the same time her internship ended.

Characterizing her as 'former intern' I guess is somewhat fair, but in fact, she was a 22 year old W.H. employee.

Yeah, doesn't really help....

Chait, you are disingenuous.  Every major corporation and government bureaucracy in the county proscribes having sex with a subordinate, even when neither are married.

The outrage over the Clinton-Lewinsky thing was over the gross unseemliness of it all.  But, he specifically got into impeachable trouble when he first lied to the public and then committed perjury.

Even if the McCain quasi accusations (just insinuations and 2nd party reports point) are true, it is qualitatively and legally far different from what Clinton did.

Do you really, truly not see the difference?  I doubt that you don't.  And your own awkward partisanship is unseemly, even for opinion journalism.

The point is, at this juncture there is not one scintilla of evidence that McCain had sex with her.  Period.  End of story.  There is no there there.  It hasn't even been shown that he did "favors" for the people she lobbied for.  Give it a rest.  Or don't - hell, the NYT is doing for McCain what he himself can't - get the talk-radio crowd on his side.

Thanks Boxo - those were the days.  

Then we turn in to responsible old bags with integrity, jobs and morals - most of us anyway.

But the idea of Monica's innocence just always struck me as funny. Remember her in the hearings?  Making the old goat Senators squirm with her casual confidence in her sexuality?  Referring to the whole thing as her "relationship?"  That was so fun.

I think what Jaunty meant was that saying one thing and doing another is enraging - the fire and damnation preacher shtuping the secretary, Larry and his whole sad life - but there is no story here, no hypocrisy, no story.

Besides, like Tep said - it was horribly sourced and written, as close to pointless as I've ever read.  The supposedly scintllating TNR article dissecting the tedious back and forth between the NYT and TNR reporters was a classic of example of: you all need to get out more.  Take a vacation for chissakes!

Neil Nailed this one,

What Bill did was wrong - as it was an abuse of power, etc. as has been said. Impeachment was over the top, but it was wrong because of his power over her.

In McCain's case, if this happened (and we don't know that yet) the problem is the opposite. The  power SHE would have had over HIM.

While sordid, Bill's dalliance, had NO potential impact on public policy.

McCain's, if true, will have compromised public policy in a very significant way.  This would be made even more egregious given the fact that McCain's primary rationale for his candidacy (and indeed his career in public life - is his supposed purity with respect to special interests. ) If any of this turns out to be true - he's done.

I think the affair angle is a red herring we shouldn't be focusing on and is another example, in a long string over the last few years, of the Times shooting itself in the foot.  The Iseman/Paxson story reported in the Times and the Post is just one in a long series of instances where St. John the Lobbyists' Scourge took positions legislatively after receiving money and perks from lobbyists that were contrary to his previous stated views.  The Post had more today on this contradiction, which really explodes the myth of purity and mevericktude that McCain likes to put out there.  If The New Republic were REALLY a liberal magazine, maybe it could focus on the issue of influence peddling and lobbying coziness that NO ONE in the McCain campaign has been able to specifically deny or refute.  They can't because, as the Post shows today, the campaign is composed at the senior level almost wholly of lobbyists.  Enough of the fond MSM fluffing you've been giving this guy.  If HRC was this in bed with the lobbying industry, you've have a fucking coronary.  Report, goddamn it!

Goose and Ganders= Geese.

Looks like the official kickoff of hardball season. Too bad the first pitch was a knuckle ball low and way outside.

I guess we can all look forward to an education about lobbying and the place that it has in our legislative processes.

Does it provide a mechanism by which to funnel interests toward reasonable legal access?

By the way, it would probably be fairly easy to make a circumstantial case against anyone who has ever held office if involvement with lobbyists is the criteria.

In the interest of full disclosure I do not work for the NYT nor am I being paid by any campaign to run interference or advocacy.

I believe that McCain is a kinda weak, hypocrtical, political hack, nothing too nefarious, but not very inspiring either.

I really don't get McCain's campain... it's basically 'we're all a bunch of tainted screwups, particularly my political party, but I won't be a screwup if you elect me!'

I mean, does this nation NEED McCain? Is he our Marshall Petain? It's not like we're being occupied by Al Queda.

esdaniels - where's the beef? Don't you think it's more than a little ironic that these phantom favors hinted at by this owner of oligarchic newspapers, as well as, in one case, a TV station _in the same market_  as that oligarchic paper, involve companies seeking **media ownership rule changes**?

Bad enough that there's no meat to the accusations, but the pot-kettle aspect is farcical.

Wouldn't a better argument for conservatives be something along the lines of "The Dems constantly complain that lobbyists are screwing the American people. McCain is the guy who will screw them back - one at a time"?

From Politico.com, more on how the McCain campaign has turned the tables and made this into a fiasco for the Times and TNR:

"When the network evening news broadcasts came on, all three of the pieces brimmed with McCain’s messages — and two of them carried clips of Limbaugh hammering The New York Times.

"Tactically, the McCain campaign executed flawlessly and quickly to put this story back in the box,” said GOP strategist Phil Musser, a former executive director of the Republican Governors Association. “They reshaped the coverage from dawn to dusk, avoided any big name conservative defections and were actually monetizing the event online at the Gray Lady's expense.”

“Ironically,” said Musser, who supported Mitt Romney’s presidential bid, “the larger impact of the whole story may well be to further galvanize McCain's leadership position, especially if it goes away quickly.”

Can't they both be sleazy? Do we have to really argue about which is worse, as thought it exonerates the other [McCain still might be exonerated by actual facts, it's worth noting]?

That said, from a timeline of the Lewinsky scandal I read the other day [I got there from a TNR post link that I can't find now], it appears that the month after the affair started, she was promoted to a paying job, and that when she was in New York looking for jobs, before the scandal broke, Vernon Jordan hooked her up with some interviews or introductions. I wish I could find that link...

Tele:

Dude, read the Times article from yesterday and the Post articles from yesterday and today.  If you can't extract from those McCain acting inconsistently with his general public posture of clean politics and with specific policy positions after receiving favors from lobbyists, then you need to work on your reading comprehension skills.  Or you're just a hack.  Or both

Methinks Teppy found the real mouse. We'll see.

"Dude" - ha. Do people still say "dude" where you live?

The Times fell on its face here, failed to produce a smoking gun with something as easily and obviously verified as public legislative/regulatory outcomes-- for their OWN INDUSTRY, no less, on a matter that's near and dear to their own financial souls-- and did for McCain what he couldn't do for himself, namely, unified the GOP base and rallied them to his side.

You can spin it any way you like, but this was a major blunder that helped McC and hurt two publications that I admire greatly. But hey, I'm a "hack". Right.  

I get it. It's sanctimoniousness. That's the angle. Hypocrisy. Well why not just put that on the editorial page. Plenty of room for that without changing the bar. As it is we're going to be treated to various sundry anecdotes and deepthroat conditionals that passes for hard news. The NYT is going to do everything it can to make this seem a reasonable and responsible journalistic effort. You'll all see in the fullness of time as we describe those shadows as only we can.

I don't want to be a jerk here, but isn't the real difference between Clinton and McCain (assuming the affair happened, which we don't know) perjury?  That's something.  Not much, maybe, and not impeachable, and certainly not worth the crazy, costly campaign against him, but something.  I don't buy the exploitation bit in this case and really don't buy it coming from conservatives.  The McCain story, meanwhile, is a joke.  Anyone else think the Times's standards have dropped?  We've been hearing a lot lately about how the Times has held back on stories, and they offer really lame-ass explanations.  New rule:  If it's a real story, print it as soon as you have it, period.  If it's not a real story (e.g., the McCain story), don't print it ever unless you get enough to make it a real story.  As Jason Robards as Ben Bradlee might say regarding this story, "You haven't got it."  And you certainly don't have it for the front page.  Ridiculous.

EDaniels:  "The Iseman/Paxson story reported in the Times and the Post is just one in a long series of instances where St. John the Lobbyists' Scourge took positions legislatively after receiving money and perks from lobbyists that were contrary to his previous stated views.  The Post had more today on this contradiction, which really explodes the myth of purity and mevericktude that McCain likes to put out there."  Exactly, exactly.

This isn't the first scandal eruption McCain will face.  The media will excavate plenty of garbage underneath his floorboards before this election's over.  And you know what?  He sucks at denial.  I heard a minute-long clip of his attacking the New York Times.  He must have said disappointed 20 times--and I'm not exaggerating.  Either he's not that bright (and it's a possibility) or he's old and the plaque in his brain has completely calcified.  Didn't once address the underlying issue, by the way.  It was just "disappointment, disappointment, disappointment."  The hosts of the right-wing radio station were laughing their asses off.      It's too bad the rest of right wing radio won't laugh along with them.      

IIRC, Monica Lewinsky was a bit player.  Clinton allegedly sexually harassed or assaulted numerous women, including allegedly raping a Democratic campaign worker Catherine Willey.  Monica was merely some evidence to prove Clinton's pattern of behavior concerning Paula Jones' law suit.  Clinton betrayed the public trust by telling the American people that he didn't have sex with that woman.

As a general rule, it's worse to sleep with a lobbyist than an intern.  Even if it's not sexual, the relationships between politicians and lobbyists are wrong.  The home builders (I think the NAHB) recently said they won't be giving any more donations to the politicians because the administration isn't giving them enough kickbacks, essentially conceding that it's a quid pro quo.  Terrible.

Well then let's have at it. Let's expose the lobbyist gig for what it is. Let it be unbiased and judicious. Let the cards fall where they may.    

Right.

I'm familiar with the lobbyist gig and its democratically suspect. Through and through. But as long as someone is being payed to make a case before legislators money will ever thus find its way to gain its own advantage. Promise, provision, wink or smile.

Dems shouldn't feel too sanguine about the prospect of such an inquiry. The loftiness of its unselfish supplicants might not survive the greater scrutiny which might be imagined.

Truly. I'm for it. Being a dreamer and all. I would say on the whole that Obama probably comes out plus on the whole measure. If for nothing else but by virtue of not having as much opportunity for such contact sport. But let these dreams not be salted with holier than thou maxims and chest beating. Jeez I hate politics. Jeez I love politics.

In my opinion, whether or not McCain had an affair with Vicki Iseman says almost nothing about his fitness for the presidency. But I wish this incident would prompt conservatives to rethink their sexual standards for public figures, instead of inventing specious distinctions to justify their partisan sexual inquisitions.

--Jonathan Chait

In my opinion this is as an astute a statement as could ever be expected from the American political scene.  Niebuhr would acknowledge as much.

jhildner: I wonder if you would indulge this fan(and I mean it sincerely.lists and all) with your refusal to acknowledge positional responsibility in relationship. I assume you regard some of my offering as being conservative in nature.

Valid point Jonathan - the impeachment of a president over the definition of getting laid still hurts.

Especially when the funding and direct training of priest killers and civilian torturers via the illegal sale of arms to_the terrorists results in a media career for that efficient drug trafficker, Ollie North.

Yep, that will always hurt.

At least liberals have the moral high ground: They're for sale; everything's for sale in the GOP.

(I'm liking Obama's response to Cuba and his FP rhetoric (I'm aware that's all it is) gets better and better, which makes me wonder if he isn't very vulnerable on this in the general. One "spectacular" at home or abroad is all it will take. Yes We Can...maybe.)  

teplukhin2you  said:

But hey, I'm a "hack". Right.  

LOL @ “Dude.”

In no way do I mean to “hump your leg,” seriously, I often email your posts to my respective comrades.  Not that you need my approval, I just thought I ought to say thanks.  Thank you.

Boxo:

I don't think a relationship between an older man and a younger women is per se exploitative nor do I think a relationship between a boss and a subordinate or a teacher and a student is per se exploitative.  The short answer is that it depends.  The essence of sexual harrassment is an abuse of power -- power which can be used to pressure submission into doing something you have an absolute right to resist (ranging from being a "good sport" re advances or a sexist "hostile" environment, to sex), have that effect, or punish a failure to submit, or seem to have that effect.  I don't see any of that going on here.  I doubt Monica felt any pressure to do what she did, nor do I think she was so naive as to not imagine that bad things might happen if the relationship became public.

Interesting blog entry, since this lecture on politics and sex is all premised on something being true has not been proven true -- although certainly the way conservatives selectively use sexual activities as a weapon is quite  hypocritical of them.

I am taken aback though when I see fair-minded people make the case that what Clinton did with a subordinate didn't matter.  Sex between a superior and subordinate is an abuse of power.

I always thought Democrats (and liberals generally) were working to ensure that employees were treated fairly in the workplace and protected from abuses of power.  

jhildner:

Thanks for your response. I think yours is well put. Perhaps I'm being to vain to imagine that I might by virtue of insight into motivation might assign a large degree of responsibility. If not under the law then to myself and the other parties involved.  That I would leverage as much would ultimately be considered culpable on a different and more accountable plane. Of course, that's just me. I agree that such a consideration is impossible to legislate such a hypothetical.

I find the bottom line of such is usually dictated by the degree of selfishness pursued through rationalizations.

Thanks for entertaining my tangential inquiry.

epackard-02:  Really?  You believe that any relationship between a superior and a subordinate automatically constitutes an abuse of power?  Come on.  That's just not true.  We can simultatneously want to vigorously protect against actual abuses of power in the workplace while still recognizing that not every relationship between superior and subordinate is one.  Not smart, to be sure, and the presumptions won't go your way if things go south (a break-up followed by a firing or bad review or something like that), but do you honestly view Monica Lewinsky as a victim of anything?

This is not going to go away for McCain. Besides the story's highlighting all the professional lobbyists on his campaign, the Washington Post has just posted (3 hrs ago) a follow-up in which Lowell Paxson contradicts McCain's assertion that he did not meet personally with Paxson and Vicki  Iseman before sending letters to the FCC. Add to this McCain's problems with the FEC -- it's going to be hard to get the straight-talk express back on schedule. Post article is at www.washingtonpost.com/.../AR2008022202634.html.

Please allow me to edit. It's been a long day and I think sleepy time is in order.

Thanks for your response. I think yours is well put. Perhaps I'm being to vain to imagine that I might by virtue of insight into motivation assign a larger degree of personal responsibility. If not under the law then to myself thus accountability the other parties involved.  That I would leverage as much would ultimately be considered culpable on a different and more accountable plane. Of course, that's just me. I agree that such a consideration is impossible to legislate.

"I am taken aback though when I see fair-minded people make the case that what Clinton did with a subordinate didn't matter.  Sex between a superior and subordinate is an abuse of power."

epackard-02: And yet what goes on between a male Senator and a female lobbyist seeking the Senator;s intervention is nobody's business?

Admit it, my friend.  It's only wrong when a Democrat does it.

Boxo:

I think Bill deserves a lot of blame for what happened to him.  Just because the reaction was wildly excessive, and just because, in a perfect world in which none of us live, these events would not have seen the light of day, doesn't mean that he didn't open the door with his stupid, sordid, and (if we are to assume that Hillary expected fidelity from her husband, or at least, along with Monica, not to be dragged through a public airing of stained dresses, etc., and if we are to assume that those who gave their loyalty to Bill and his worhty political goals expected not to have it squandered on ill-considered blow jobs) shameful conduct.

But I have trouble viewing Monica as Bill's victim.  To be clear, I don't harbor hatred for her, or even dislike.  She was an admirer who managed to get what she wanted -- a personal relationship with the object of her affection.  If she had been a White House employee on the receiving end of unwanted sexual advances, she would be a victim of harassment, no question.  But she wasn't.  She pursued him.  The only remaining question then is whether she was treated shabbily after the fact.  She was transferred to the Pentagon to protect Clinton, true, but I don't think someone who has an affair with a president really has any reasonable grounds for complaint if she is quietly relocated.  A smart person -- and Monica wasn't a dummy -- knows what she's getting into.

Fact is, the story didn't break because of Monica but because of LInda Tripp.  Monica didn't want this to become the thing that it did.  She has said that she thought Bill's discussion of the affair in his book was gratutituously nasty to her, and it's true that the whole controversy probably has and will continue to give her undeserved grief, but such is way with life and love and independent prosecutors.

You guys don't understand Republicans. A Republican is someone who shouts at you from the top of his lungs: "I can lie and cheat and fuck whomever I want, but you can't! Why? Coz you're a liberal and I'm a conservative!!!! And that means you have no rights and I have all."

What's so hard to understand? They are perfectly clear. Both Henry Hyde and Newt Gingrich, who were investigating Clinton in Congress in the Lewinsky affair, fucked youngsters from their own staff. Gingrich did it DURING  the impeachment. But that's okay, he's a Republican, he CAN.

jhildner -- Yes, I do think that any intimiate relationship between a superior and subordinate is an abuse of power. That is not the same as saying that Lewinsky was a victim. However, due to her involvement with Clinton, there could have been any number of decisions made that were distorted in her favor when some other decision may have been best.  When talking about power relationships in any organization, the two involved with one another are not necessarily the only ones to be affected.

waynejm -- I didn't state that what happens between a lobbyist and a senator is nobody's business. I said that the allegations apparently haven't been proven. But I did clearly state that conservatives are hypocritical when they make issue of what a Democrat does but not a Republican.  

I will comment further by saying this. It would be interesting to see how many conservatives who vilified Clinton for the Lewinsky affair actually said that similar actions by conservatives were fine. Or, for that matter, how many liberals who believed Clinton should be left alone later made quite a fuss about Gingrich or Craig.

It's easy to vilify groups as a whole without getting into the gritty details, as we Americans know all too well.

Epackard, Craig is still the Senate. And he didn't have an affair with a consenting adult, he solicited sex from strangers.

Neither him nor Gingrich, who had an affair with a young woman from his staff,  were impeached or dragged before a grand jury. Why not?

Your arguments are pure bullshit, the very embodiment of what it means to be a self-righteous conservative,

Some of the ugliest sexual harassment that I've ever seen in the business world has been harassment by customers of their supplier's female personnel- it's not covered by corporate sexual harassment policies, and of course the supplier will go to great length to maintain good a relationship with a customer's representitive.  It's a huge unaddressed area in sexual harassment law.  It is absolutely untrue to say that McCain didn't have leverage over the career of a woman who lobbied his committee.

Incidentally, such harassment need not be sexual.  Fifteen years ago, I worked on a project where the customer's representitve was a devout Mormon.  He would invite his supplier's employees over to dinner, and subject them to pressure to take "Introduction to the LDS Faith" classes.  We were under a lot of pressure from our management to accept this.  (I refused, and kept my job, but I was "talked to".)

sleepyavl -- Are you calling me a self-righteous conservative? ... or just alleging that I'm parroting their arguments?

If you are saying I'm a conservative (we won't even get to "self-righteous"), then your argument is bullshit.

"That is not the same as saying that Lewinsky was a victim."  Maybe, though I don't agree.  You may not think 22 is young, but frankly, your brain is still growing at that age, which means you're likely to be a lot more reckless.  Had she been older, she probably would have had better judgment, and at the least, not blathered on like a post-adolescent to Linda Tripp.  Furthermore, she was ultimately victimized by Clinton when he threw her under the bus, denied their relationship, and so turned her into government and media prey.  She was publicly and institutionally raped--in court, in the media--and her name has been turned into the butt of a planet-wide joke.  Clinton exploited her, hence she is a victim.

epackard -- The issue with Craig is his hypocrisy with respect to gay rights.  If you do what he did -- no doubt not for the first time -- you're disqualified from lecturing the country on family values and certainly from casting stones at gays.  Let he who is without sin ... oops.