Those old enough to remember Watergate [now almost half a
century ago] may recall a delicious phrase coined by H. R. Haldeman in a March
22, 1973 meeting with Dean, Mitchell, Erlichman, and Nixon himself, a phrase
that became immortal as soon as it was made public. The phrase was “a modified, limited hangout.”
I have no idea whatsoever of the truth of Tara Reade’s claim
to have been forcibly fingered by Joe Biden in 1973, but when I watched his
appearance yesterday morning on MSNBC’s Morning Joe, that phrase came unbidden to
mind.
33 comments:
1993
I don't understand what the phrase "modified, limited hangout" means in this context. Perhaps someone can explain it.
Like you, Professor, I have no idea whatsoever of the truth of Tara Reade's claims, although having listened to her on Amy Goodman's program, I tend to believe her. However, that may just be because I cannot stand Biden. That's not only political. I suppose that Biden is no more neoliberal than Obama, and while I disagree with Obama on many issues, he does not turn me off as categorically as Biden does.
However, yesterday Brian Leiter linked to an article from USA Today which pretends to show that the accusations against Biden are not credible. The article did not convince me, but I was wondering why Leiter, someone in whom up to now I had a great deal of political
confidence and respect for his general intellectual capacity, would chose to link to such an article when none of us can really be sure who is telling the truth here.
I can understand a skeptical distance with relation to both Reade's and Biden's versions.
I can also understand and sympathize with those on the left who instinctively trust Reade, but I can't understand how someone on the left can endorse Biden's version when there is no confirming evidence either way.
Unfortunately don‘t exactly now what the phrase is supposed to mean in this context either, but the definition of it is that it is a propaganda technique that involves the release of previously hidden information in order to prevent a greater exposure of more important details, so I guess Reade was only permitted her platform to cover up something bigger maybe?
s.w.
Can't say I remember Watergate as if it were yesterday, though I lived through it. But as Ira's response above suggests, it was Haldeman-speak for releasing just enough info to keep the hounds at bay, buy time, and (it was hoped) get through the crisis. In the event, of course, the strategy was overtaken by developments and was a failure.
Ira and LFC,
Thanks.
Maybe I can ask a further question. What happens if Biden were to drop out of the race?
Does he retain his delegates?
I believe it might be a good idea of Biden to drop out now and for the Democrats to nominate a new person. I can understand that given that Biden did win more delegates, the new candidate would not be Sanders, but there were several other primary candidates who represent more or less the same neoliberal position as Biden does, but with cleaner hands.
What's more, Biden is not Mr. Charisma. That is, he's not a candidate who fires up the masses as Obama did in 2008 and who cannot be replaced without losing lots of votes. So if he has any sense of decency (and he probably doesn't), why doesn't he drop out of the race?
s.w.
I see where you're coming from, but one problem is that a whole gaggle of party leaders, incl former rivals for the nomination, have now endorsed Biden.
Biden may not be Mr Charisma but he has strong support among key parts of the electorate esp African Americans, whose turnout in November will be important. I think we're stuck with him, and a Biden admin, while not Sanders or Warren, will be significantly better than Trump. I assume (?) you vote in Chile, so you will not face a personal choice dilemma in November.
P.s. Biden's dropping out now would be read as a tacit admission of guilt re Reade, and he has unequivocally denied her charges. Then too, he has wanted to be President for years. He isn't going to drop out barring some astonishing and documented revelation, so we're all going to have to just suck it up (so to speak -- I assume you're familiar with the phrase).
Trump is going to hit Biden hard with Tara Reade as well as his son's relation to Ukraine. He'll also mock Biden's cognitive deficiencies. Biden is not a good candidate, as far as I can see.
The MSDNC audience (with segments by Chris Hayes and the interview by Mika) has not been allowed to hear the evidence that corroborates Reade's story (testimony by 3 or 4 others that Reade told them, and the mother's call to that TV show at the time).
Further, Biden's flat refusal, despite Reade's urging, to open his senate records that are held at the University of Delaware (and not in the national archives) does not bespeak of an innocent man.
Wallerstein, there is no reason to expect better of Leiter.
If you saw the Mika interview or would like to see it analyzed by a lawyer with apparently a lot of experience
in taking depositions and cross-examinations, this is a must see:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a_5wv_OPICQ
Fascinating as it is revealing!
Thanks Jerry...
Biden does not come across as an innocent man unjustly accused of a serious crime.
Assuming Biden is innocent, he has to downplay his outrage so as not to offend a lot of women who would otherwise vote for him or at least against Trump. He's even announced that if US Soccer doesn't pay the women's team the same as the men they'll get no World Cup funding from his administration.
I've read somewhere that the papers at Delaware are his personal papers. Those in the archives are "official," i.e., personnel records and the like. If so, then the complaint would be in the archives.
Suppose you have a choice between two somewhat expensive dentists, both of whom are divorced. One of them pays $20,000 a month in alimony, the other $0. Which of the two dentists do you choose? I choose the dentist paying $20,000 a month. OK it's not an entirely fair question.
I have to say that I'm with Prof Leiter on this. So what if Trump goes after Biden on the Tara Reade accusations? Trump is an admitted serial pussy grabber, proud of the fact, whereas Biden is accused of one such act.
Is it worth four more years of...is it necessary to complete the sentence? You've seen with your own failing eyesight that Trump cannot feel good about himself until he fleeces every last cent from every American, alive, dead or yet unborn.
What exactly do you expect to accomplish with these speculations? What is the endgame?
I am sick that Biden is the Democratic nominee. I won't vote for him. I have that luxury as I live in a deep red state where my vote doesn't matter.
I refuse to say, in essence, "My sexual predator is less outrageous than yours". Committing sexual assault is a binary condition for me. Committing sexual assault disqualifies a candidate, period. There is no reason to believe the women who accuse Trump and Kavanaugh and not believe Ms. Reade. Biden should be disqualified by the DNC, but "The ends justify the means" after all.
There were so many preferable candidates to Biden, beyond Bernie Sanders. It makes me sick.
I will not look my wife, and daughter, and mother, and sister, and co-worker, etc. in the eye and say, "I know I voted for a man who sexually assaulted a woman, and I know this dehumanizes you, but the alternative was worse."
Finally, I should address what I took to be Prof Wolff's tacit question: what are the septuagenarians running for office going to do with their Viagra-modified limited hangouts?
Answer: less than nothing. Biden probably couldn't remember.
Endgame,
Republican voters don't seem to care whether Trump is a sexual predator or not. Some Democratic voters, especially women, do and the accusations against Biden will keep them from voting or lead them to vote Green or Libertarian.
There are five months until the election, plenty of time to ask Biden to step down and to replace him with another moderate candidate, one with basically the same political positions as Biden has. I assume, perhaps much too generously, that Biden aspires to become president not out of personal ambition, but because he wants to carry out certain policies and that he will be satisfied if someone with the same policies replaces him.
I think it would be well to remember that it has not been established that Biden is, as a matter of fact, a sexual predator. It may be possible to prove that he is, but it is impossible to prove that he isn't. Assume he is innocent--how could he prove it?
Poor Joe, how does he prove his innocence? I mean, any old woman can just say he assaulted her and what can he do?
This is the problem.
s. wallerstein, that's possible, though it seems unlikely now and in the near future, given the uncertainty surrounding the accusations. The outcome of the election is uncertain enough, even without the pandemic.
Here's another question: for whom is the accusation sufficiently persuasive? College educated voters, or non-college educated voters? (Perhaps I am introducing a false dichotomy, but I somehow doubt it.) Is it possible that the response of college educated voters to these accusations is turning non-college educated voters away?
P.S. I tried to answer your question about the meaning in this context of "modified limited hangout."
Chris,
On the contrary; he can open all his records, not just some of them. But he is burdened, not that the MSDNC audience will be made aware, of the corroboration of Reade's confiding in a few people back then...far more corroboration than Dr. Ford's tale vis a vis Kavanaugh.
The virtue of Reade's claim is that the DNC could swap out Creepy Joe for someone who could win; fortunately the virus is likely to sink Trump. But Biden is about equal to HRC when it comes to policy positions and baggage. Go Reade, swap out Joe.
Given that the DNC would never allow Sanders back, I would support Sharrod Brown.
The Democratic National Committee (DNC), as far as I know, simply does not have the authority or the power to force Biden out and swap in someone else against Biden's own will and preference.
Whatever one might think of Tom Perez, the DNC chair, he is a lawyer. Moreover, the DNC has no doubt a couple of in-house lawyers and it employs outside counsel as well.
It is reasonable to suppose that someone in this gaggle of lawyers is familiar with what the DNC can and cannot legally do, and I am pretty sure the DNC cannot pick the nominee by fiat. Can it subtly favor one candidate over another during the primaries? Probably yes. Can the DNC dictate by Perez picking up the phone who the nominee will be? No.
Sherrod Brown, who btw is needed in the Senate, considered running for President in 2020 and decided not to. In the extremely unlikely event that Biden were to be replaced, why would it be by someone who declined to run this year?
I am not a big fan of Biden's, but this is where we are. If you live in a deep red state and you don't want to vote for him, that's probably fine. But that's it. It's crucial that swing state voters not stay home and at this point a late replacement of Biden would probably depress turnout.
The entire primary process needs reforming. It is absurd that a few states, e.g. Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina, get such a disproportionate say in who the nominee is. But the flawed process produced a flawed nominee. We're stuck with him now, and that's that. The alternative, namely Trump's re-election, is far worse.
"Given that the DNC would never allow Sanders back, I would support Sharrod Brown."
Which is why we can't have nice things. Let's nominate a progressive Democratic Senator from a reddish state that has a Republican governor (gov. appoints replacement in OH). What could go wrong?
"On the contrary; he can open all his records, not just some of them."
Because that worked out so well in 2016!
Re: Reade. Leiter's read seems correct. Biden was vetted by Obama's folks in '08 and men who aggressively hit on women are serial offenders so word gets around. It's well known that one doesn't get into elevators with certain folks, etc. (e.g. Kavenaugh was well known to be a black-out drunk, etc. during the period in question).
Also Reade seems to have an agenda and there are too many inconsistencies. Her (now removed) Medium article on Putin is best described as deranged.
I lived in Los Angeles County's South Bay back in the day so I don't automatically believe anyone about anything (McMartin time).
Ponder that four more years of Trump means a 7 - 2 split on the SC, and another four years of a Barr (or worse) Justice Dept.
And that's the good news.
Bob, I see you were *certain* that Christine Blasey Ford’s allegations against Kavanaugh were true, but you have *no idea* whether Tara Reade’a allegations are true. Despite the fact that Reade has much more corroboration for her allegations than Ford. What gives? It’s almody as if all that liberal cable news had turned you into...well, a mediocre liberal.
I suppose the great silver lining of the pandemic is that it may actually get Biden elected. Lord knows, he needs way more help than the DNC, Obama's mid-night dialing, Jim Clyburn, Big Pharma, and the secret vault at U of Delaware can provide. At least Hillary could complete her sentences. Now if only we could can Venezuela to monitor the election, we'll have a decent chance of getting back to normal neoliberalism. Happy days are here again!
I think of this as a two-step process. First Trump goes. Then Biden goes. With luck, Biden's Vice President, whoever she may be, will be the President in 2025.
I love the semantic fascination with “a modified, limited hangout”, but semiotic silence toward the vulgarly virtuous "forcibly fingered".... I've read about such things in Freud....
"... semiotic silence toward the vulgarly virtuous "forcibly fingered".... I've read about such things in Freud...."
Beautifully rendered, Andrew. I have long admired your name, by the way. Once, years ago after attending a performance of Turrando at a local (and limited) Berkeley hangout, my wife and I walked home with a gent called Lionel Andrew Blais. Wondrous coincidence!
If the reported CDC projections are roughly correct, I suspect we won't be discussing TR's accusations in about a month, unless we're desperate for a distraction from the plague stats.
Uh huhuh. He said fingered...
Thanks Dean.... Nice coincidence....
Post a Comment