Jamesian Philosophy Refreshed

I find this odd. Rosario Dawson has been taking heat for even mentioning the name "Monica Lewinsky" in the course of making a case for voting for Bernie Sanders. Jeez, do these Clintonistas have a thin skin, or what? On Saturday, April 23, Rosario said, "We are literally under attack for not just supporting the other candidate. Now I'm with Monica Lewinsky with this: bullying is bad. She's actually dedicated her life now to talking about that." She said that bullying is still bullying when it is a "campaign strategy." First, obvious, point. One doesn't need to invoke Monica Lewinsky's name to make the point that bullying (however actually defined) is bad. In American politics, in a campaign with someone named Clinton  in it, there is a natural suspicion that the name has been introduced for other purposes -- to remind us of a once-juicy sex scandal. Second point: so what? One's impression is that politicians used to be made of...

I'm sorry, but I don't understand intelligence-agency type controversies unless they are put into terms any moviegoer can grasp. Petraeus wasn't Bond, James Bond. He was M, the boss of this country's answers to Bond.  M, if married, obviously can't mess around on the side, since that would give Goldfinger a really good tool for blackmail. Of course, if everybody knows about something, it is no longer material for blackmail. David Letterman told the world about the indiscretions he had committed, disarming his blackmailer in one televised blow. Likewise, I don't see how anyone could blackmail Bill Clinton with the news about Monica Lewinsky, since we have already all been thoroughly sated with that. So the problem with Petraeus wasn't just that he couldn't keep a secret, but that he could neither keep his affair a secret nor effectively be open about it. That is the zone of blackmail-ability. Am I getting this so far? Anyway, you can watch so...