Kamala Harris and the “’Me Too’ Movement” Present Existential Threats to Each Other
By the title we refer not to their shared, shall we say, elevated b-word quotient. (However fittingly it may apply, the media is under strict orders to avoid such characterizations, or even any hard questioning don’t you know – even as referring to Donald Trump as a “Fascist” or “Nazi” is well within the media mainstream. Other than with select intellectually honest women, the irony is lost on the purveyors of “girl power.”)
Nor do we refer to their shared far Left ideologies. (Hillary being an acolyte of Saul Alinksy and his Rules for Radicals; Harris’ record embracing loony lefty policy positions including, but not limited to the “Green New Deal” and free healthcare for illegal aliens.)
No, we refer here to a shared “Me Too” problem.
Back in the days of semen-stained blue dresses, documented serial adultery and credible rape allegations against “Bill,” there was a commonly held belief that Hillary Rodham Clinton must have remained married to the cad out of her personal ambition – political and otherwise. While we can never know her true motivations, this still seems the most logical and plausible explanation.
It is indisputable that Hillary rode Bill’s coattails into nearly becoming the first female President, and to massive wealth (through legally and ethically questionable means of accumulation).
Yet at the same time, Hillary Rodham Clinton was anointed “feminist” icon – a career-holding, accomplished woman – one who didn’t “need” Bill in order to live a very comfortable lifestyle. She declared that she was no Tammy Wynette “standing by her man.” And no, Hillary was never at risk of just scraping by as “working poor” in one of those trailer parks their campaign manager James Carville demeaned while smearing Paula Jones.
So, a spousal variant of “sleeping your way to the top” credibly applies here.
Amongst the fallout from that “blue dress” era, the “feminist organizations” were exposed as a partisan hacks, not “civil rights” or “equality” advocates. When confronted with a choice of publicly adhering to their declared purposes – equality and respect for women, or not – they cynically and hypocritically sided with the Clintons and against credible women accusers. (Who were, by Progressives overall, given the exact opposite treatment of that later afforded to immeasurably less credible accusers deployed against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh.)
A contemporary account (1998) by an intellectually honest woman declared thus:
If feminists had stopped to think of Monica Lewinsky as a real person, it might have slowed them down. The most grotesque aspect of the case is this determination to depict Lewinsky’s end of the alleged affair as liberated, autonomous female sexuality in action, instead of as the pathetic picture it was, of a young woman seeking a dubious affirmation in all the wrong places. To be sure, the May-December romance is always a complex, two-way transaction. But what little we know of the Clinton-Lewinsky relationship suggests that in all of the specifics that matter – when he called, when and where they met, what they actually did with each other, and even when she was allowed to speak to him – the relationship was controlled (duh!) by the powerful, married, 50-ish man, not by the 20-something woman on the lowest rung of the status ladder.
Why do feminists find it so hard to acknowledge the ugliness of this arrangement?
Fast forward to today, and life after the Harvey Weinstein inspired “Me Too” “movement.” Herr Weinstein of the fabled “casting couch” was, it appears, a genuine pig. One who for decades happily oinked amongst the highest echelons of Hollywood and Washington – without objection or repudiation by the Progressive Pooh-Bahs. That is, until casting couches (and other workplace venue equivalents) suddenly became social justice verboten.
Starting in the mid-1990’s, twenties-something Kamala Harris (Kamala) was involved in an affair with (then married) sixties-something Willie Brown (Willie) – at the time, the most powerful political figure in California. No doubt (snark alert) the affair was motivated solely by her being physically attracted to this Social Security age married man, and he attracted to her because of her perky intellect – all made irresistible by true love.
Besides a BMW 7-series, this “true love” netted Kamala multiple six-figure taxpayer financed positions, and entre-plus into California’s Democrat power structure. As SFWeekly reported in 2003:
Aside from handing her an expensive BMW, Brown appointed her to two patronage positions in state government that paid handsomely — more than $400,000 over five years. In 1994, she took a six-month leave of absence from her Alameda County job to join the Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board. Brown then appointed her to the California Medical Assistance Commission, where she served until 1998, attending two meetings a month for a $99,000 annual salary.
Query if those patronage positions also carried with them credit toward a state pension?
In any case, it is fair to say that but-for Willie’s (presumably penile prompted) patronage – and the career trajectory it enabled – Kamala Harris would not now be the Vice Presidential nominee of the Democrat Party. She would have been successful on her own merits, but she would not be at this level.
Just as it is fair to say that Hillary would have been successful on her own merits, but would not have been at her current level had she not ridden Bill Clinton’s coattails.
Which for the “Me Too” advocates, like their “feminist” predecessors, should be the catalyst for some serious self-reflection; indeed some potentially existential questioning. After all, stated principles can become pesky things when they collide with realpolitik. (Avoiding this confrontation no doubt being one of, if not the primary motivation underlying the aforementioned media marching orders.)
Here is a sampling of pertinent (potentially existential) questions that should be publicly answered by the “Me Too” crowd:
Q: Casting-couch type arrangements are mutually beneficial contracts; each party gets something they want. If Willie first propositioned Kamala, and she (obviously) accepted and benefited, is the arrangement (and others like it) still to be condemned?
Q: Would the answer be different if Kamala had been insulted and turned-down Willie’s offer(s) in real time? Would that then have constituted sexual harassment on Willie’s part?
Q: Whereas since we know that she accepted Willie’s offer(s) in real time, does that mean it did not constitute sexual harassment?
Q: What if Kamala willingly accepted Willie’s offer, but says that she now regrets it. Was Willie’s offer acceptable at the time, but now retroactively not acceptable? Is there a “statute of limitations” (of sorts) past which such arrangements cannot be questioned or challenged?
Q: What if Kamala first propositioned and/or proposed the arrangement to him – does this take it out of Weinstein casting-couch territory (perhaps into semi-“sex-worker” territory instead)?
Q: Are such arrangements acceptable if the person not in the “power position” (male or female) initiates or first offers the proposition? Or are such arrangements inherently unacceptable?
So, as the Progressive media follows orders and peddles hagiographies of Kamala Harris as a pioneer “woman of color” – one may also become the first female President ( more like inevitably, given Joe Biden’s cognitive exit stage left) – it is critical for the rest of us to raise pertinent points, and to ask serious questions.
One being the Kamala Harris would not have gotten in this position in the first place but-for an adulterous relationship with a California power-broker, albeit a political one rather than an entertainment industry one. But in the end, is there any meaningful difference between a casting couch and a patronage couch?
Also: given that, is Kamala Harris an appropriate role model to present to girls and young women? If she does become Vice President (much less President) via the patronage couch, what message does her chosen means of career advancement convey to girls and young women?
Also: Is “Me Too” really about what it claims to be, or is it just another situational BS peddler, like the 1990’s “feminists” showed themselves to be?
If “Me Too” sticks to its stated principles, mustn’t it publicly oppose Kamala Harris’ candidacy?
If it does, what will the impact be on that candidacy – would that tank it?
Kamala Harris and “Me Too” do indeed present existential threats to each other.
Grab your popcorn and enjoy the show …
I am the author of the book Communiqués From the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy– available on Kindle ($2.99) and in paperback ($12.99). Please consider enjoying my work by purchasing and reading. Thank you.
4 thoughts on “Kamala Harris: “A Hillary of Color””