There’s been one name conspicuously absent from the current anti-sexual-predator uprisings in Hollywood, Washington and state capitals around the country. And no, I’m not talking about Trump.
One-time “liberal” icon Bill Clinton, we all recall, was accused of actions much like those of Harvey Weinstein (and Trump, for that matter), and was defended by lots of liberals who were willing to sell their principles to keep the White House. Is it hypocritical of them to now voice such outrage about Roy Moore (or Trump)?
Matt Yglesias of Vox says yes, arguing that the failure of Washington Democrats to force Clinton to resign gave sexual predators 20 more years of happy hunting. He credits Clinton’s successful defense of his presidency to successfully framing the issue not as sexual assault but marital infidelity.
That positions might strike you as absolutist, but even a more nuanced look back at Clinton’s predilections, like this one from The Rude Pundit, reaches this conclusion:
I do think that Bill Clinton is tarred by all the allegations, from the most outrageous to the most tragic, true or not, and he was impeached. Yes, he gets to live the life of a wealthy man, but his legacy has an asterisk, and a good percentage of the country vilifies him and Hillary.
He’s right about that last part. But I wonder if those who vilify him do it for the right reasons.