Kathleen Willey Infuriated By Media Firestorm Over Cain's Alleged Sexu

[bonnie]

Kathleen Willey Infuriated By Media Firestorm Over Cain's Alleged Sexual Harassment

By Noel Sheppard | November 06, 2011

A former White House aide that accused Bill Clinton of sexually assaulting her back in 1993 says she's infuriated by the media firestorm caused by anonymous harassment allegations leveled at Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain.

Speaking with radio's Steve Malzberg Friday, Kathleen Willey said, "Why are we even entertaining, you know, any of this from a person with no name and no face and a spokesperson who isn’t really clear on anything either" (video follows with partial transcript and commentary):

KATHLEEN WILLEY: You know, it’s infuriating is all that I can say about watching what’s going on because everything is vague and innocuous, and we don’t have any names, and we don’t have any dates, and we don’t have any, you know, we don’t have any people. We have spokesman for the people, you know, the women. And, you know, it’s clearly a double standard. And I, hopefully, you know, the American people are starting to see through this is all I can say, because, you know, they just, they have just blown this thing out of, out of proportion.

I saw something interesting last night, something Brent Bozell was talking about. What happened to me and us, you know, as compared to Cain. When my first story, my story came out, I had three segments on network news. Paula had one. Gennifer I think had one or two. I mean, you know, there have been stories about Cain, they’re up to like 50 or 60 things on network TV, you know, as compared to with information, because it’s a whole less clear in this thing with Cain.

Willey was referring to a NewsBusters report finding the broadcast network news outlets did a total of fifty segments about Politico's allegations in the first three days after the story broke. By contrast:

STEVE MALZBERG, HOST: There were three reports after you went public in ’97, there were three brief reports for Juanita Broaddrick back in ’99, and when Paula Jones went public in February of ’94, only ABC gave her sixteen seconds. The other networks did nothing until Bill Clinton got a defense attorney in May of that year.

WILLEY: Exactly. Exactly.

MALZBERG: Now do you attribute this, this double standard as you call it to Democrat-Republican, or is there any racial overtones in your view here with Cain?

WILLEY: I don’t think so much racial. It’s that, it’s just conservative versus liberal and progressives, you know? It’s two different agendas, and unfortunately for us in this country, you know, we’ve got biased press, biased networks, biased anchors, and, you know, they do, they do what they can do. I mean, they don’t have any restraints on them. It’s a real lesson, you know, it really is because I was, you know, I always felt when I was a kid that Walter Cronkite was telling the truth. I mean, really. And we’ve found out that it’s never been, it’s never been that way.

MALZBERG: Kathleen, what about the hypocrisy of the, of the women’s groups as well?

WILLEY: Oh, don’t even get me started. Really, I know. Well, there again, they didn’t come to my rescue. I, I cannot tell you how many phone calls I made to Patricia Ireland at NOW. And, and, you know, just pleas, pleas for help. Just anything. They, they never called me back. They never called me, none of them. And, they’re, when they were asked, you know, about me after all this happened, the responses were so tepid. You know, it was like, “Well, if it did happen, we had something real serious to deal with here.” And then who was it, the one that said, you know, Betty Friedan or somebody, just made a horrible, crude remark, you know, about what just happened, you know, as long as he, as long as Clinton keeps, keeps, you know, he’s not against abortion…

MALZBERG: Abortion, yeah, then he’s okay by them. Yeah, I remember that. Let me ask you: what do you think of this woman in particular - we don’t know her name – trying, trying to get the story out against Cain while not wanting to speak, not wanting to be identified, wanting to hide behind her lawyer, all this after signing an agreement and getting money? What do you think of her?

WILLEY: Why is, why is anybody giving her any credibility at all? That’s my point. Why, you know, why are we even entertaining, you know, any of this from a person with no name and no face and a spokesperson who isn’t really clear on anything either? That’s the point. And these people are getting as much airtime as they want.

Indeed they are, and everyone involved should be asking themselves why unnamed, unspecific accusers create such a media firestorm today when women that actually stepped forward with far more serious charges in the '90s were almost totally ignored by comparison.

Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppa...l#ixzz1d38koS33

[lazarus]

Poor Herman. I think he's toast.

[bonnie]

Poor Herman. I think he's toast.

Very possible.He dosen't have women reporters wishing they were in the position of these women coming forward

[lazarus]

? Don't understand.

[phkrause]

"anonymous?" Isn't that when we don't know who someone is??

That is the biggest crock I've ever heard.

[bonnie]

? Don't understand.

At the time the story broke on Clinton and his tom cat behavior,a woman reporter made the comment.Something to the effect she would not have minded being in Monica's position

Gloria Steinem,a spokeswoman for the woman's movement said all "employer's get one grope free"

[bonnie]

"anonymous?" Isn't that when we don't know who someone is??

That is the biggest crock I've ever heard.

Having Gloria Allred as a attorney is as believable as listening to Jessie Jackson on racism.

[Guest]

Why would somebody who says they're not going to sue, need a lawyer in the first place? And I know Gloria Allred isn't cheap, although she will work to get on camera.

The whole thing rings phoney to me. She didn't even work for the company. She didn't tell her boyfriend or her other close friends because she said she was embarrassed, but now she's going to tell us and the rest of the world in a press conference.

I guess we could also pay somebody to get up and tell a bunch of the same kinds of lies about Obama, but our side won't stoop that low. The thing that worries me is, if this don't take him out they may just keep em coming. I mean anybody can say anything, and they don't have to have any proof or evidence. Just like this woman.

[bonnie]

Why would somebody who says they're not going to sue, need a lawyer in the first place? And I know Gloria Allred isn't cheap, although she will work to get on camera.

[Dr. Shane]

? Don't understand.

You obviously don't listen to Hannity and Limbaugh enough to understand the right-wing rhetoric.

[bonnie]

Originally Posted By: lazarus

? Don't understand.

You obviously don't listen to Hannity and Limbaugh enough to understand the right-wing rhetoric.

Simply cannot get your focus of talk radio. Must be a boring life

Neither Rush nor Hannity are the ones that made the comments,nor are they responsible for them.

Nor are they the ones that repeated the frequent,"What was done in the private life had no bearing on the presidency".

If more comes out that is more convincing I hope that Cain is finished,whether it was private or public life.Just as I believed that Clinton should either be forced out or have a shred of integrity and step down.

Aside from that,explain to me the different mindset? Whether you like Cain or not why is his private life more important than the so called private life of a sitting president?

[Dr. Shane]

OK Lazarus, I will clue you in since you probably don't have the time or patience to listen to Limbaugh and Hannity. They relate everything to Clinton of Obama no matter how unrelated the story may be. In their twisted logic the mainstream media should actually be defending Cain (like they are) and attacking any woman who dares to accuse him of anything.

[bonnie]

OK Lazarus, I will clue you in since you probably don't have the time or patience to listen to Limbaugh and Hannity. They relate everything to Clinton of Obama no matter how unrelated the story may be. In their twisted logic the mainstream media should actually be defending Cain (like they are) and attacking any woman who dares to accuse him of anything.

No one has suggested anything remotely as you have claimed. I have not heard anyone of them say he didn't,what they did say last I heard was they did not know.

Again you have gone off on your focus/obsession instead of answering the question.

What allows for the different mindset. If the actions of a presidential candidate in private life has a bearing on his fitness for the presidency(I believe it does)why are same or worse actions of a sitting president irrelevant?

[Dr. Shane]

They relate everything to Clinton of Obama no matter how unrelated the story may be.

My bad. That should read "Clinton or Obama" A guy I use to work with and I use to listen to Rush together and we had a lot of knee-slapping moments when he would go on his anti-Clinton rants. That's Rush, and Hannity is the same if not worse.

[phkrause]

Originally Posted By: Shane

They relate everything to Clinton of Obama no matter how unrelated the story may be.

My bad. That should read "Clinton or Obama" A guy I use to work with and I use to listen to Rush together and we had a lot of knee-slapping moments when he would go on his anti-Clinton rants. That's Rush, and Hannity is the same if not worse.

I figured that's what you meant.

They remind me of the late Celtics sports announcer Johnny Most. When you listened to him on the radio and watched the game on TV, you thought you were watching a different game than he was announcing. It was pretty hilarious.

[bonnie]

Originally Posted By: Shane

They relate everything to Clinton of Obama no matter how unrelated the story may be.

My bad. That should read "Clinton or Obama" A guy I use to work with and I use to listen to Rush together and we had a lot of knee-slapping moments when he would go on his anti-Clinton rants. That's Rush, and Hannity is the same if not worse.

Typical answer when you can't provide backup for what you say or don't want to answer a question. The above is what you usually resort to to deflect your own lack

[lazarus]

OK Lazarus, I will clue you in since you probably don't have the time or patience to listen to Limbaugh and Hannity. They relate everything to Clinton of Obama no matter how unrelated the story may be. In their twisted logic the mainstream media should actually be defending Cain (like they are) and attacking any woman who dares to accuse him of anything.

When I first came to the US I used to listen to those guys a lot. It was an interesting window on American politricks. After a while I realized that it was a game. These guys are simply entertainers. They're are not interesting in advancing the fortunes of the nation, they make money from feeding the GOP base.

Can you imagine what they'd be saying of these accusations were being leveled against Obama?

[Dr. Shane]

They're are not interesting in advancing the fortunes of the nation, they make money from feeding the GOP base.

They may not be as influential as some their followers would like to believe. Remember that conservative talk radio was completely against McCain and he won the nomination any way.

Limbaugh hates what he calls the establishment Republicans. Who are they? I am not sure except they must be a group of Republicans that disagree with him.

[Guest]

OK Lazarus, I will clue you in since you probably don't have the time or patience to listen to Limbaugh and Hannity. They relate everything to Clinton of Obama no matter how unrelated the story may be. In their twisted logic the mainstream media should actually be defending Cain (like they are) and attacking any woman who dares to accuse him of anything.

Not truuue....

[John317]

When I first came to the US I used to listen to those guys a lot. It was an interesting window on American politricks. After a while I realized that it was a game. These guys are simply entertainers. They're are not interesting in advancing the fortunes of the nation, they make money from feeding the GOP base.

Yes, of course, people like Limbaugh and Hannity are entertainers. No doubt of it. (The best and most successful political leaders of the 1800s were also good entertainers.) It is not true, though, that they care nothing about doing what's best for the nation. They believe that the ideas they advocate are in the best interests of America. That's really the driving force behind their work. Entertainment is a means to an end. At bottom, they favor individual liberty and capitalism and oppose socialism and big government.

[Guest]

That's exactly right John.

[bonnie]

Yes, of course, people like Limbaugh and Hannity are entertainers. No doubt of it. (The best and most successful political leaders of the 1800s were also good entertainers.) It is not true, though, that they care nothing about doing what's best for the nation. They believe that the ideas they advocate are in the best interests of America. That's really the driving force behind their work. Entertainment is a means to an end. At bottom, they favor individual liberty and capitalism and oppose socialism and big government.

One thing you may have noticed,there are those obsessed with talk radio. Nothing is ever specific,it is just general condemnation used to invalidate everything but a liberal viewpoint. Dismissing conservatives as one that does not have the ability to see what is going on and form an opinion.

[lazarus]

It is not true, though, that they care nothing about doing what's best for the nation. They believe that the ideas they advocate are in the best interests of America. That's really the driving force behind their work. Entertainment is a means to an end. At bottom, they favor individual liberty and capitalism and oppose socialism and big government.

How would they be behaving if it were Obama who was being accused? The would not be talking about evidence or false accusations. They would be doing the same thing that others are doing. They are hypocrites. If they really cared about the future of America they would display the same intellectual honesty of someone like Ron Paul. They make their living on exploiting the divisions in American Society as regards to race, economics and social issues.

[Dr. Shane]

How would they be behaving if it were Obama who was being accused? The would not be talking about evidence or false accusations... They make their living on exploiting the divisions in American Society as regards to race, economics and social issues.

[John317]

If they really cared about the future of America they would display the same intellectual honesty of someone like Ron Paul. They make their living on exploiting the divisions in American Society as regards to race, economics and social issues.

One can be intellectually honest and yet disagree with Ron Paul. I think it's a mistake to think that if people really are concerned with the future of America, their intellectual honesty will result in ideas like those of Ron Paul. I like many of the things he says, but I don't agree with his thinking on foreign policy.

But speaking of exploiting the division in American society, are you saying Obama is not doing this?

I think if you look around, you will find quite a few people who make -- or have made-- their living upon the exploitation of divisions in American society.

I don't think anybody can honestly say this about Rush or Hannity. I haven't listened to Rush since the election of '08 but I watch Hannity almost every night along with O'Reilly. I especially appreciate O'Reilly.