2018-01-08 19:57:57 UTC
The jig is up (only 20 years late):
"Here's Why Liberals Are Finally Reckoning With Bill
Clinton's Alleged Sex Crimes
L.V. Anderson Nov 16 2017, 7:35 AM
In the wake of bombshell reports about Harvey Weinstein's
history of sexually harassing and assaulting women, dozens
of powerful men have lost their jobs after being outed as
sexual predators. Now liberals are turning their focus to
one powerful man who didn't lose his job after being outed
as a sexual predator: Bill Clinton. This week, writers at
the New York Times, the Atlantic, Vox and Politico have
returned to the allegations against Clinton and concluded
that Democrats made the wrong call when they rushed to
defend him in the '90s.
Clinton has been accused of raping Juanita Broaddrick in
1978, of propositioning and exposing himself to Paula Jones
in 1991, of groping Kathleen Willey in 1993 and most
famously of having an affair with an intern, Monica
Lewinsky, in the mid-'90s. Clinton has continued to deny all
the allegations except the Lewinsky affair, and Democrats
have largely ignored or cast doubt on the other allegations.
Until now. . . .
Goldberg asserts, "It's fair to conclude that because of
Broaddrick's allegations, Bill Clinton no longer has a place
in decent society."
Meanwhile, Vox's Matt Yglesias concludes that Clinton should
have stepped down from the presidency not because of the
Broaddrick charges, but because of the Lewinsky affair.
Democrats, by and large, agreed at the time that the affair
was the Clintons' private business, but Yglesias thinks that
"What we should have talked about was men abusing their
social and economic power over younger and less powerful
women." [. . .]
Fame is a vapor, popularity is an
accident, riches take wings, those
who cheer today may curse tomorrow
and only one thing endures - character.
-- Harry S. Truman