There have been comparisons of late between Anthony Weiner and Bill Clinton on account of the handling of sex scandals and the actions of their respective wives. How is it that Bill Clinton had real affairs and is now a beloved (by Democrats) former president while Weiner swapped dirty pictures online and is provoking disgust from those same Democrats? Weiner kept doing it after he got caught but so did Clinton. Hillary stood by her husband - Tammy Wynette-like - and Huma has done the same for Weiner. Why should voters who want stand-by-your-philanderer Hillary as their next presidential nominee at the same time have a problem with stand-by-your-pornographer Huma? Isn't sex something just between the married couple? I seem to recall it was not really lying if you lied about sex.
There are two points. One, Bill Clinton has charisma while Weiner doesn't. Two, Bill Clinton never admitted it while Weiner did. This is interesting because Weiner, after repeated and ever more embarrassing denials finally told the truth. To this day, Bill Clinton has not changed his story about not having sex with that woman, Miss Lewinsky. Everyone knows it's a lie but as long as he denied the truth, partisans could defend him and claim the Republicans or Ken Star or a Vast Right Wing Conspiracy were on a witch hunt. Once Weiner came clean, he could not be defended.
Politically, Bill Clinton did the right thing. He lied and stonewalled until everyone got tired of the story. It is an interesting lesson. Lying saved Clinton while telling the truth is likely to sink Weiner. Of course, there was photographic evidence against Weiner, so he could not realistically take Clinton's route to success.
No comments:
Post a Comment