I had to laugh when I saw this piece at the Hill where John Podesta was so worried about this answer to a Town Hall question by Bernie Sanders:
“But I hope he’s not thinking about going there, because, again, I think what Trump has done to go in the gutter is reprehensible,” the Clinton campaign chairman added.
Sanders fielded a question late Friday at a town hall in Iowa about Bill Clinton’s affair with White House intern Monica Lewinsky.
“Hillary Clinton is not Bill Clinton. What Bill Clinton did, I think we can all acknowledge was totally, totally, totally disgraceful and unacceptable. But I am running against Hillary Clinton. I am not running against Bill Clinton,” Sanders told the questioner, according to The Washington Post.
Podesta’s warnings to Sanders are laughable as he has as much chance of costing Bernie his seat in VT as I have of being named Secretary of Time Travel in a Ted Cruz administration but more importantly it combined with these little Riffs on Morning Joe crystallizes the problem for a certain group of Democrats and media folks of a particular age.
During the Clinton impeachment hearings Democrat pols and the media that serves them knew what Bill Clinton was and what he had done, they had a choice: They could back him up, despite the facts OR they could pressure him to resign and be replaced by Al Gore.
They choose the former.
Perhaps because the rest of their caucus couldn’t stand the scrutiny (think Ted Kennedy). Perhaps because they thought it would lead to a GOP victory a la 1976 or perhaps they decided they didn’t want to risk emboldening a GOP that had only just won the House of Representatives for the first time in 40 years.
But whatever the reason they not only stuck with Bill Clinton defending him en masse but for 15 years afterwards proceeded to pretend that nothing had happened acting as if, at worst Bill Clinton was the victim of a partisan witch hunt.
Thanks to Donald Trump and Bill Cosby that position is no longer tenable so plan B has become to acknowledge that what Bill Clinton did was wrong (How many times can Harold Ford say “I’m not defending” ) while maintaining that bringing it up in the context of Hillary is beyond the pale.
In other words: talking about what Bill Clinton did to women is, in his and people like Donna Brazile’s eyes, far worse than what he actually did to women.
This reaction is of course completely understandable because if one does not have this reaction it begs the question that nobody in the MSM wants to ask or be asked:
If what Bill Clinton did to women was “disgraceful” and “unacceptable” then why did the media elites and Democrat pols not only defend him at the time but spend that last 15 years treating the ex president as if he had never done a wrong thing?
I submit and suggest that people from Podesta, to Andrea Mitchell to Harold Ford and many others all know the answer to that question, which is why they can’t bear to have it asked.
It’s amazing the difference a few weeks has made in the City of Lunenburg:
Was it only a few weeks ago that we learned how racist the Town of Lunenburg in general and the football team in particular? That the football team in was responsible for painting: “Knights don’t need niggers” on the house of a bi-racial family with a young and very talented football player on the team who was subject to a spate of bullying?
Didn’t we have editorials decry the racism of the town, didn’t the governor weigh in, weren’t commentators talking all about this.
The Lunenburg story has echoes of the rookie hazing scandal that has enveloped the NFL’s Miami Dolphins.
Veteran Richie Incognito was suspended indefinitely on Nov. 4 after rookie Jonathan Martin turned in voice mails and text messages that allegedly showed Incognito using the N-word to describe Martin and threaten his family, according to ESPN.
The controversy came to light after Fox Sports reported that Martin and other rookies had been forced to pay thousands of dollars for dinner tabs and vacations for more veteran members of the team.
Anthony Phillips returned to the end of his driveway to wait for his children to get off the school bus. Asked about rumors that he might have been involved in the incident, Phillips replied, “That just shows you how racist this town is.”
Investigators are focusing on the mother of a Lunenburg teen whose home was spray painted with racist graffiti last month, according to court documents.
Former Lunenburg High School football player Isaac Phillips’ mother Andrea Brazier, replied “OK” when an FBI agent suggested she was the one who spray painted graffiti on the house, according to an affidavit.
The Sentinel has been all over this story from day one.
Now that the case has gone the full circle from outrage confirming liberal prejudices to yet another race hoax it’s time for the question to be asked
Where does the town of Lunenburg go to get their reputation back, where does the football team go to get their Thanksgiving game back and who pays for all the police, local state and federal that were used in the attempt to sell this BS?
Update: Stacy McCain links (sorry I hit the sack early last night and had the PC off) and he knows something (Bill Sparkman) about hoaxes
Ruh-roh. If she lied to the FBI, she could be in big trouble. But since when is it the FBI’s job to investigate racist graffiti? And if real racist graffiti is a federal offense, what is fake racist graffiti? The alleged hate crime was a big deal last month:
Two quick thoughts:
1. It really boggles the mind that someone would be willing to tar a group of teenagers, their families, a school and really an entire Town for the sake of a personal agenda. That degree of selfishness is incredible in its narcissistic depth.
2. If it turns out that the mother is the culprit she has done more damage to her son and her marriage than any amount of teaching or racist words could have done. And it will follow her son for years. How does a parent not realize that?
“I never looked at the cancellations as punishment, although it was certainly viewed that way by many. In the end, the safety of students and attendees at the games was deemed as of paramount importance. At no time did I or any employee of the schools indict or implicate players,” said Lunenburg Superintendent of Schools Loxi Jo Calmes.
Lunenburg’s superintendent and high school principal defended the decision to cancel the rest of the football season amid allegations against the players of writing racist graffiti.
“I thought would I have brought my own kids to that game? And the answer is no way. Why? Because it wasn’t safe to play,” Principal Brian Spadafino said.
The Lunenburg high football game “wasn’t safe?” From what–marauding bands of spray-painters? Hordes of KKK members?
I think the next batch of town elections in Lunenburg are going to be very interesting. Update 3: Ace finds the story.
Update 4: Liberty Unyielding notes that all “hate graffiti” is created equal in media eyes:
As an important aside on an unrelated case, about 50 miles away from Lunenburg High, Masslive.com revealed yesterday that three teens were in custody “in connection with 13 incidents in October and November where homes, churches and cars were either vandalized or set on fire.”
The article reads in part,
“Symbols, slurs, sexually explicit images and, in the case of United Church of Ware, an expletive directed at God and the words “Catholic burning,” were spray-painted…” [added emphasis]
This author can find no other mention in any other source of the anti-Catholic slur. Is the FBI involved in that case? Will this anti-Catholic incident be investigated as a “hate crime?”
I guess some targets of hate are more equal than others.