It’s a funny thing.
Bill Clinton run for election as President (and his Presidency itself) was peppered with multiple accusations of infidelity, sexual molestation, and accusations of rape.
The reactions of Democrats? More or less nil. They didn’t even care about the charge of perjury during the Lewinsky scandal.
Bob Filner, mayor of San Diego, though…that’s a different story. Even Democrats are calling him out now.
Debbie Wasserman Schultz wants him to step down from his position as mayor, for “the good of San Diego”.
Dianne Feinstein doesn’t believe “that somebody who is lacking a moral compass really sets a role model or really will provide the kind of leadership that San Diegans want” and Filner should resign.
Even Nancy Pelosi condemned the man (along with Anthony Weiner): “The conduct of some of these people that we’re talking about here is reprehensible. It is so disrespectful of women, and what’s really stunning about it is they don’t even realize it. You know, they don’t have a clue.”
So what’s the difference?
Filner has only been accused of these cases of sexual harassment, the same as Clinton was accused, but for some reason Filner’s abuse of women is more deserving of censure by his party?
I can only think that the problem is that one is a small fish in the big pond of American politics and they hope the scandal will blow over with no real effect on their party and platform.
If they had impeached Clinton or held him accountable for the accusations of Gennifer Flowers, Paula Jones, Kathleen Jones, Juanita Broaddrick, and Elizabeth Ward Gracen (some of which were harassment and some consensual extramarital affairs) it would have looked much worse for the party overall. I mean, seriously, this was the man their party chose to run for President?
On the one hand it looks like the Democratic party hasn’t gotten any better at vetting their candidates.
On the other, it looks a whole lot like the Democratic party doesn’t give a rat’s ass about women…just about their reputation.
It’s not like they’ve suddenly changed opinions on how they should treat members of their party that are accused of sexual misconduct. If that were the case, then Bill Clinton wouldn’t still be their go to guy for speaking engagements. Shaming him now would be the definition of “too little, too late”, but at least it would be something.
Yet, strangely, they don’t appear to care.
You want a War on Women?
Guess what, you have one.