Skip to comments.Bill Clinton's name stripped from NH Democratic Party fundraising gala, amid 'Me Too' movement
Posted on 08/07/2018 2:23:31 PM PDT by ColdOne
CONCORD, N.H. Former President Bill Clintons name no longer adorns the Democratic Partys major fall fundraising dinner in the state that made him the comeback kid and launched him on the road to the White House.
The New Hampshire state party announced Tuesday that their annual Kennedy-Clinton Dinner will now be known as the Eleanor Roosevelt Dinner, in honor of the famous first lady who went on to serve as the first U.S. delegate to the United Nations.
"We are proud to honor Eleanor Roosevelt, a woman revered around the world for her bold leadership and tireless efforts to create justice. She dedicated her life to helping all hard-working Americans and all those who needed a champion," state party Chairman Ray Buckley said in a statement.
The change comes amid the rise of the Me Too movement, which has drawn attention to examples of powerful men in politics, media and business who have sexually harassed women in the workplace.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
#MeToo becoming toxic to its own body.
I LOVE it!
Something about Bill Clinton and stripped just go together.
NONE of this would have happened if candidate Trump didn’t have the balls to stand up to the Clinton Crime Family.
#MeToo traded man-wh0res for a lesbian? That’s funny.
This will be the only news about it, then it will be ****-canned by the Partisan media shills -- unless and until it becomes convenient for a few seconds. Thanks ColdOne.
It only took the Democratics 20 years to admit the truth about Slick Willie.
Is Hillary and her sex slave still ok?
A Communist lesbian.
The only reason they turned on him is because he isn’t socialist enough. Alex that broad in NY is their goal now.
Not socialist enough and the Clinton’s influence is waning fast.
Two-time loser Hillary killed their juice.
Killary is so unlikable. Who wanted to hear that voice for 8 years? Even the left leaning Dailymail comment section on every killary story has mostly bad comments about her.
Exactly, would have made a tremendous impact 20 years ago.
Now, it is just a self righteous, feel good gesture.
Give it a few years, 10, give or take a few, and the Dems will revile the Clintons.
But ... only when they find a clever way to blame them on Republicans!
I’m totally series. Don’t let your beiber be stuned when it happens. :)
Democrats believe President Bill Clinton. And have always believed him. Democrats believed it when Clinton said he had never been drafted in the Vietnam War and believed him later when Clinton said he had merely forgotten to mention that he had been drafted in the Vietnam War.
Democrats believed him when Clinton he said he hadnt had sex with Gennifer Flowers and believed him later, when Clinton reportedly said he did bed her down.
Democrats believed the president did not rent out the Lincoln Bedroom to celebrities, did not sell access to himself and the vice president to hundreds of well-heeled special pleaders and did not supervise the largest, most systematic money-laundering operation in campaign finance history, collecting more than $ 3 million in illegal and improper donations.
Democrats believe that Charlie Trie and James Riady were motivated by nothing but patriotism for their adopted country.
Democrats believed President Clinton when he conceded that his administration mistakenly obtained the FBI files of more than 300 people, including many top Republicans and believes it was the result of a completely honest bureaucratic snafu involving security clearances.
Democrats believed Clintons chief of staff, Leon Panetta, when he told reporters that obviously a mistake was made and apologized to the people whose FBI files wound up at the White House. Democrats believed Clinton when he said I completely support what my COS Panetta said about the affair.
Democrats believed Vice President Gore when he said that he had made dunning calls to political contributors on a few occasions from his White House office, and believed him when he said that, actually, a few meant 46.
Democrats devoutly believe in "no controlling legal authority"....but not for Nixon or Trump.
Democrats believed Bruce Babbitt when he said that the $286,000 contributed to the DNC by Indian tribes opposed to granting a casino license to rival tribes had nothing to do with his denial of the license. Democrats believed the secretary when he said that he had not been instructed in this matter by then-White House deputy chief of staff Harold Ickes.
Democrats believed him when he said later that he had told lobbyist and friend Paul Eckstein that Ickes had told him to move on the casino decision, but that he had been lying to Eckstein. Democrats agreed with the secretary that it is an outrage that anyone would question his integrity.
Democrats firmly believe in the Clinton Standard of adherence to the nations campaign finance and bribery laws, enunciated by the president on March 7, 1997: I dont believe you can find any evidence of the fact that I had changed government policy solely because of a contribution. Democrats noted with approval the use of the word evidence and also the use of the word solely. Democrats devoutly believe, as Clinton does, that it is proper to change government policy to address the concerns of people who have"given the president money, as long as nobody can find "evidence" of this being the "sole" reason.
Democrats believe president Clinton lived up to his promise to preside over the most ethical administration in American history that indicted former agriculture secretary Mike Espy did not accept $35,000 in illegal favors from Tyson Foods and other regulated businesses.
Democrats believe that indicted former housing secretary Henry Cisneros did not lie to the FBI and tell others to lie to cover up $250,000 in blackmail payments to his former mistress.
Democrats believe that convicted former associate attorney general Webster Hubbell was not involved in the obstruction of justice when the presidents minions arranged for Hubbell to receive $ 400,000 in sweetheart consulting deals at a time when he was reneging on his promise to cooperate with Kenneth Starrs Whitewater investigation.
Democrats believe, as Harvey Weinstein does, that Paula Jones is a cheap tramp who was asking for it, that Kathleen Willey is a cheap tramp who was asking for it, and that Monica Lewinsky is a cheap tramp who was asking for it.
Democrats firmly believe Monica Lewinsky was just fantasizing in her 20 hours of taped conversation in which she reportedly detailed her sexual relationship with the president and begged Linda Tripp to join her in lying about the relationship and that any gifts, correspondence, telephone calls and the 37 post-employment White House visits that may have passed between Lewinsky and the president are evidence only of a platonic relationship. Journos believe that such innocent intimate friendships are quite common between middle-aged married men and young single women, and also between presidents of the United States and White House interns.
Democrats see nothing suspicious in the report that the presidents intimate pal, Vernon Jordan, arranged a $40,000-per-year job for Lewinsky shortly after she signed but before she filed an affidavit saying she had not had sex with the president.
Nor did Democrats read anything significant into the fact that the ambassador to the United Nations, Bill Richardson, visited Lewinsky at the Watergate to offer her a job.
Democrat believe the instructions Lewinsky gave Linda Tripp informing her on how to properly perjure herself in the Willey matter simply wrote themselves.
Democrats believe, as does Hillary, that The Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, The New York Times, Newsweek, Time, U.S. News & World Report, ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, PBS and NPR are all part of a vast right-wing conspiracy to malign the saintly Clintons.
How Democrats Suppressed the #MeToo Movement in the Party - Greenfield
FrontPage | April 27, 2018 | Greenfield
Posted on 04/29/2018 6:54:09 PM PDT by Louis Foxwell
[snip] When asked if she could have been more supportive of women who claimed to have been sexually harassed by her husband, Clinton said each case was different and the allegations were no longer relevant. [/snip]
Clinton: I Don’t Know What Gillibrand ‘Was Trying to Say’
newsmax | Saturday, 18 Nov 2017 | Wanda Carruthers
Posted on 11/18/2017 8:12:57 AM PST by Oshkalaboomboom
I’m guessing Hillary is busting ashtrays and knocking over lamps today.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.