≡ Menu

It was laughable to hear retiring Senator Jeff Flake proclaim that his give-away-the-store DACA proposal was the only game in town. Although, Flake insisted that the Democrats were negotiating in good faith, he obviously was not on the same page as the president or the majority of GOP Senators who want to enact an immigration policy that benefits existing citizens, does not grant amnesty and ends the inexplicable policy of chain migration.

The “good faith” Democrats to whom Flake was referring offered Trump nothing. They wanted amnesty for those covered by DACA and in return they offered Trump nothing: no end to chain migration, no wall. Is this what Flake calls “good faith” negotiating?

As Paul Mirengoff at PowerLine notes,

The deal Graham helped write and then took to Trump lurched to the left in every significant particular. For example, it included litigation land mines for the border wall. It retained the Diversity Lottery under a different name. It provided work permits for the parents of the DACA population.

When he viewed this insulting proposal, understandably Trump expressed his strong disapproval.

It is beginning to look as if the Democrats have no interest in a DACA resolution. After his meeting with Trump, Senator Dick Durbin took Trump’s comments completely out of context by leaked to the press that Trump had used disparaging words to describe some countries that the United States accepts many immigrants randomly. As Mollie Hemingway in The Federalist observes,

The media weren’t interested in understanding the context of the remarks, just pushing the narrative that if you disparage certain countries you are obviously racist and all virtuous and well-meaning people in politics are disgusted by it.

What this entire episode reveals is that on the issue of immigration, there is still a wide gap within the Republican Party between establishment Republicans, like Graham, McCain and Flake, who favor amnesty in exchange for weak promises of border enforcement and the rank and file. Fortunately when Graham approached Trump with his DACA capitulation proposal, sensible conservative immigration advocates Senator Tom Cotton and Representative Bob Goodlatte were both present in the room.

What Republicans like Flake fail to understand is that the Democratic Party has abandoned the white working class in flyover country. Illegal immigrants are the new preferred constituency for the Democratic Party. This was made manifestly clear during their convention in 2016 when they paraded illegal immigrants on the stage as rock stars to wild cheers. Hillary’s infamous “deplorables” comments further underscored Democrats future political strategy.

As demonstrated by his willingness to play the role of useful idiot for the Democrats, there is a reason Flake is not running for reelection. His views on immigration are diametrically opposed to those of his constituents.


The attorney for James Damore, the software engineer who was fired from Google for having the audacity to question some of the sacred tenets of political correctness, has filed a class action suit against the company.

From a legal perspective, there seems to be enough documentary evidence already disclosed that demonstrates the company not only discriminated against conservatives, but also supported an environment where those who didn’t subscribe to the diversity group-think so prevalent in the company, would have their careers ruined by other employees who found such views offensive.

Here is an email provided by Damore from a manager addressed to “hostile voices” indicative of the monolithic mindset at Google enforced by certain employees who act as commissars of political correctness:

I will never, ever hire/transfer you onto my team. Ever. I don’t care if you are perfect fit or technically excellent or whatever.

I will actively not work with you, even to the point where your team or product is impacted by this decision. I’ll communicate why to your manager if it comes up.

You’re being blacklisted by people at companies outside of Google. You might not have been aware of this, but people know, people talk. There are always social consequences.

What the email noted above indicates is that management encourages an environment where the retribution for those who deviate from the proscribed religion of diversity is swift and unforgiving. It is hard to see how intentionally shaming and ostracizing dissenters from the company’s catechism of diversity is any different than the Puritan practice of putting wayward sinners in the stockade for humiliation in the public square.

From a legal and public relations standpoint the case is explosive for Google and its attorneys undoubtedly will advise the company to settle the case quickly. Google will not want the lawsuit to progress to the discovery phase of litigation. Once more documents are produced, Google is going to be exposed as a monolithic swamp of political correctness run amok. As Megan McCardle notes,

… even if a court ultimately vindicates its corporate culture. The company’s internal systems, featuring an immense array of internal employee communications, will be ripped open to scrutiny. If I were a Google executive, I wouldn’t want to bet that employees haven’t said much worse things in emails and on message boards than those featured in the lawsuit. Things that are plainly, inarguably, expensively illegal.

Here’s the bad news for Google in terms of the prospects for settlement: Damore’s career already has probably been irreparably damaged. He may want to bring the case to trial in light of the immense damage public revelations and disclosures from the litigation would cause Google.

It is hard to imagine how management that is so rigid in its ideology can be sufficiently nimble or creative to foster the long term health of the company. The left-wing politically based group-think imposed on employees reflects poorly on those charged with implementing the company’s strategic mission. No business can thrive with a philosophy that encourages conformity and penalizes divergent views.

Any sane board of directors or institutional shareholders would realize that the inevitable ramifications of advancing this malignant practice as part of the corporate culture ultimately, will adversely impact the business operations of the company.

Senior managers first duty is to enhance shareholder value, not encourage or proselytize a politically motivated jihad of diversity and political correctness.

This lawsuit is not only going to bring a microscope to the destructive, oppressive and authoritarian working environment that exists at Google, but it also is going to bring a long overdue examination of the entire progressive philosophy of diversity and inclusion that is a fundamental underpinning of modern day liberalism and enshrined in the Democratic Party.


In a remarkable incident on Thursday, Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer (Md.) blasted fellow Democrat Nancy Pelosi when she called him a “White Guy” while he was participating in the DACA immigration negotiations.

Here is how Pelosi described Hoyer and four other members of a bipartisan group involved in DACA discussions,

“The five white guys I call them, you know,” Pelosi said, referring to five bipartisan lawmakers, including Hoyer, leading efforts to salvage the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program. All five of the lawmakers are white.

“Are they going to open a hamburger stand next or what?” she said, referring to the popular fast food restaurant “Five Guys.”

Hoyer pushed back against the remarks.

“That comment is offensive. I am committed to ensuring DREAMers are protected and I will welcome everyone to the table who wants to get this done,” he told Politico in a statement, using the nickname referring to recipients of the DACA program.

Unlike Republicans, Democrats rarely criticize each other in public, so this spat between two congressional leaders of the party is truly unusual.

Fro democrats, the test of whether an activity, pursuit or policy is noble, virtuous or just is judged y whether or not it advances the goals of “diversity” and “inclusion.” Since whites are not “of color”, there is no room for them in the Democrats “coalition of the ascendant.” This was made manifestly clear during the election and Hoyer was certainly aware of his party’s of the white working classes.

Academic leftists have been concocting and proselytizing social theories about the menacing nature of whiteness for the past several years. Indeed one law professor recently went so far as to claim that friendship with white people is impossible and to be avoided at all costs. Not one member of the Democratic Party criticized these remarks. In light of the acceptance of such intellectual drivel by the party, there is no rational reason why Hoyer, after all these years, would take umbrage now at being deprecated as a “white” man.

One would have thought this would have been accepted and acknowledged by Hoyer by virtue of his leadership opposition in the party. Pelosi was only expressing the views of the Democratic Party, which is why Hoyer’s reaction was so incongruous.

Hoyer’s unusual response raises a question: where has he been the past ten years? He is a little late coming to the party. It has now become de rigueur, accepted and encouraged within the Democratic Party as well as among liberal commentators to disparage and mock white men, solely for their “whiteness.”

Could Hoyer’s peculiar reaction signal that some Democrats are finally awaking from their dogmatic slumber and realizing the whole diversity and multicultural movements have gone too far and now have come back to devour its own?


Can you imagine the faces of Kirsten Gillibrand and Kamala Harris after Oprah’s Golden Globe address and all the media hoopla about her presidential demeanor that followed immediately thereafter? They both probably needed to be resuscitated. After all the recent political grandstanding in which Harris and Gillibrand have engaged in anticipation for a 2020 run, it must have been disheartening to see their personal political aspirations, in an instant, vaporized by their own party’s TV star.

The Democratic Party no longer has a coherent or inspiring political philosophy that is rational or based on any moral principles. That’s because in the political sphere, today’s Democrats don’t think, they emote. As such, Oprah and today’s Democratic Party are a match made in heaven. Oprah would be the perfect vehicle for expressing the current intellectual shallowness of the party.

Since the Democratic Party is now indelibly wedded to Hollywood, it is only fitting that the party’s next nominee should be a stage magician who is adept at manipulating and channeling the emotions of the public. For a party whose philosophical foundation is now based entirely on a tribal-like obsession with racial and gender identity politics, Oprah is manna from heaven, a veritable double header: she is black and a woman. Too bad for her potential primary rivals. In the game of identity politics baseball, the teams haven’t even gathered in the stadium and Oprah already has hit a double. Although she has expressed no interest, should she decide to take the plunge, the Democratic presidential nomination would be hers for the asking.

I weep for you Kirsten. Don’t even think about it Uncle Joe. Sorry Kamala, even though you hit two key Democratic Party identity politics buttons, Oprah has upped the ante. She is a billionaire and a consummate media insider. Yes Senator Warren, after laughing at the reality TV star candidacy of Donald Trump, your party would have no compunction nominating its own entertainment mogul.

The irony here for prospective Democratic candidates is delicious. Live by the identity politics sword, die by the identity politics sword.

The Democratic 2020 primary is going to be high entertainment worthy of the big screen. Let’s call the upcoming movie, Gone With the Identity Politics Wind, starring Oprah Winfrey. Kirsten Gillibrand and Kamala Harris will have supporting roles, but there will be no doubt as to who the real star is.

My advice to those Democrats who would challenge Oprah if she decides to run? Bon Chance. Save your time and money, because you don’t stand a chance. Hollywood has already expressed its preference and since the entertainment capital is one of your party’s most important constituencies, you are already going to be swimming upstream before the contest even begins.


Politico recently published another one of its puff-piece articles in their series of rising Democratic Party stars, who are, in the opinion of Politico, viable contenders for their party’s 2020 presidential nomination because they are all women. Why you might ask, are no men on the list? Because, according to Politico, 2020 is going to be the year of the woman (no Republican women need apply). The Democratic Party will then enjoy the, ” karmic justice of defeating Trump with shards from a glass ceiling.”  The latest in this identity politics prognostication, is a glowing hagiography of Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, by David Freedlander, that praises her past “leadership” on issues of sexual harassment in the workplace.

The first question raised by any article that contends Gillibrand is going to be a 21st century Joan of Arc against sexual harassment in the workplace is, where has she been for the past twenty years concerning the depravities and sexual misconduct of Bill Clinton? David Freedlander addresses those who questioned Gillibrand’s johnny-come-lately- newfound concern for moral turpitude among one of the icons of the Democratic Party and he then peremptorily dismisses the issue as if it were insignificant,

The answer is that Gillibarnd the blowback was immediate. “Over 20 yrs you took the Clintons endorsement, money and seat. Hypocrite,” wrote Philippe Reines, a longtime Clinton confidant, on Twitter. “Interesting strategy for 2020 primaries. Best of luck.”

The first half of the tweet was predictable, a Clinton loyalist biting back at a perceived threat to the family. But the second half was telling.

Does Freedlander believe that Gillibrand would be vulnerable or pay any political price for her double standard and hypocrisy? Hardly,

The world is paying attention to Gillibrand in a new way. At least since the day after Donald Trump’s inauguration, when Gillibrand thrilled the crowd at the Women’s March, jabbing the air with her finger and telling them, “This is the moment of the beginning of the revival of the women’s movement. This is the moment you will remember when women stood strong and stood firm and said never again. This is the moment that you are going to be heard!” The 51-year-old Gillibrand has come to represent a rising generation of Democratic leaders, one who came of age in an era when equality of the sexes was something almost taken for granted. And the buzz about her presidential ambitions has only grown.

For years, the issues that Gillibrand has made her name on—aid for 9/11 workers, ending “don’t ask don’t tell” in the military, transgender rights—were important but distinct, touching on segments of American life that most people never interact with. And now, at a moment when the cover has been ripped off toxic workplaces from Hollywood to Wall Street, Gillibrand is finding that the rest of the world has caught up with her crusades.

The problem for Gillibrand is that her cynical posture concerning Bill Clinton is so galling, that it will not be easily shed.

As I note in my book Election 2016: How Donald Trump and the Deplorables Won and Made Political History, it was Trump who deftly hoisted Hillary on her own war on women petard in the election and forced the Democrats and the media to have their reckoning with Bill Clinton,

The fatal flaw in Hillary’s war on women strategy was its tenuous assumption that somehow voters would be either too stupid, or simply too disinterested (perhaps due to her historic candidacy) to hold the Clintons to the same standards of conduct that she was attempting to apply exclusively to Trump.

The idea that Hillary could make Trump alone the object of obloquy when the subject was mistreatment of women was breathtakingly audacious and hypocritical. Only one assured that the media was in her pocket would dare to be so presumptuous.

Gillibrand’s position during the election was no different than Hillary’s,

The reality was that while occupying the highest office in the land, Hillary’s husband defiled the sanctity of the Oval Office by having sex with a 22 year old intern. Yet, here she was, without shame, earnestly pleading to voters that Trump should be disqualified from the presidency because he had made boorish comments captured on tape. Did Clinton truly believe voters were that stupid or forgetful?

Similarly, does Gillibrand seriously believe her party’s primary voters will not pierce her veil of insincerity and ultimately find her sudden change of heart was motivated by nothing other than naked political ambition? Any opponent of Gillibrand’s in the democratic primaries would be able to make mincemeat out of her rapid conversion after Hillary’s loss. Glowing praise from journalists such as Freedlander isn’t going to change this fact.


Why isn’t Mitt Romney Tweeting about Al Franken?

If you want to know one of the reasons a reality TV star clobbered the establishment candidates in the Republican primaries, look no further than this quintessential useful idiot moment of former GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney. Yesterday, Romney sent out the following tweet:

Roy Moore in the US Senate would be a stain on the GOP and on the nation. Leigh Corfman and other victims are courageous heroes. No vote, no majority is worth losing our honor, our integrity.

The question on most every non-establishment republican’s mind is why isn’t Romney assailing the lecherous conduct of Democratic Senator Al Franken and Democratic Congressman John Conyers? It appears that Romney is content to save his harsh criticism only for members of his own party. Even if one can understand why he could never support Trump, many conservatives wonder, is it asking too much for Romney to assail the Democrats, when warranted, on occasion?

Why didn’t Romney ever address the disgraceful history of the media in conjunction with feminists and the entire Democratic Party when they dismissed outright serious allegations of misconduct, including rape, made against Bill Clinton? The reality was that while occupying the highest office in the land, Hillary’s husband defiled the sanctity of the Oval Office by having sex with a 22 year old intern. Yet, during the election, she shamelessly argued to voters that Trump should be disqualified from the presidency because he had made boorish comments captured on tape. Even though he found Trump beyond the pale, couldn’t Romney have at least levied a charge against Hillary’s galling hypocrisy during the election?

What does Romney hope to gain for the Republican Party by his long-term see no evil stance when it comes to criticizing members of the opposition? Romney an other never-trumpets of his ilk is clueless concerning the nature of the modern day Democratic Party and its political tactics.

Romney’s persistent silence in the face of deviant behavior of Democrats is deafening and is indicative of establishment republicans not equal to the task of opposing the 21st century Democratic Party.


Sexual Predators Are Giving Men a Bad Name

Oh, Oh. Another man in the broadcast news business behaving very badly has been exposed. CBS dropped the hammer on long-time anchor and reporter Charlie Rose, after several women came forward alleging sexual harassment. Some of the details are rather revolting: A graduate of the Harvey Weinstein school of perversion, Rose was alleged to have paraded around naked, in front of work colleagues.

CBS had moved quickly Monday to suspend Rose, 75, after the Washington Post reported that day that eight women said they were subjected to inappropriate behavior while working with him. The story said Rose made unwanted sexual advances, appeared nude in their presence or groped them. His PBS talk show also was halted and there was no immediate update on the long-term status of the program.

Glenn Thrush of the New York Times and now the venerable Charlie Rose. Each new passing day seems to bring a torrent of accusations of sexual misconduct across the spectrum of professions and occupations. One theory of why rich and powerful men engage in despicable acts is that former president Bill Clinton and his Democratic supporters were responsible for defining deviancy down in terms of what constitutes moral turpitude and depravity. Perhaps some sexual predators reasoned If Clinton, as president of the United States, managed to get reelected after the Monica Lewinsky scandal and survived unscathed by the allegations of sexual assault by others including a very credible accusation of rape, why wouldn’t other men in positions of power think they could escape scrutiny?

Many of Clinton’s supporters, particularly prominent feminists, were prepared to look the other way because his position on abortion mirrored their own.This was the modus operandi for years of Harvey “Four C’s”* Weinstein.

What was one of the first comments Weinstein made immediately after his depredations were made public? He promised that after his stint in rehab, he was going to go after the NRA! As if his misconduct was to be excused or ignored, like Clinton’s, because he was a champion of policies favored by liberals.

In the meantime, miscreants who are being exposed daily are giving men a bad name. Perhaps one explanation for their deviant behavior is that evolution has seemingly passed these homo sapiens by. In their relations and interactions with female co-workers, many are behaving no better than Cro Magnon man.  Although this unfairly gives cave men a bad name.

*corpulent casting couch creep


With all the penitent Democrats and commentators coming forward recently to seek absolution for their decades long slumber in holding Bill Clinton accountable for the same type of behavior allegedly committed by Trump, here is a primer from my recent book, Election 2016: How Donald Trump and the Deplorable Won and Made Political History that describes how it was Trump who was responsible for exposing the veil of hypocrisy surrounding the contention of Hillary and the Mainstream Media-Democratic Party-Complex, that Bill Clinton’s despicable and demeaning behavior was off limits in the election.

Hillary’s War Against Women Strategy Backfired

Hillary’s sales pitch to the American people that Trump was unfit to be president, rested almost entirely on indelicate statements he had made that elite progressives found beyond the pale as well as the sexual braggadocio captured on the Access Hollywood tapes. The Miss Piggy strategy would be implemented through Hillary’s remarks on the campaign trail, in her speeches and most importantly, during each of the three presidential debates. “The campaign strategy seemed to be to double- and triple-down attacks on Trump over the cavalier way he had treated women verbally earlier in his life. According to her, Trump was disqualified based on Hillary’s “war on women” criteria, while she should win on these same criteria, on feminist grounds if nothing else, simply because she aspired to be the first woman president.”⁠

The entire Miss Piggy strategy relied for its success on the ability of Clinton to characterize Trump as an enemy soldier in the Democrats’ “War on Women” narrative. The fatal flaw in the scheme was its tenuous assumption that somehow voters would be either too stupid, or simply too disinterested (perhaps due to her historic candidacy) to hold the Clintons to the same standards of conduct that she was attempting to apply exclusively to Trump. The linchpin of Hillary’s entire campaign plan was based on the idea that voters were obligated not to vote for Trump, rather than an affirmation of why voters should enthusiastically vote for Hillary. The ability of Hillary to successfully convince voters to embrace her thesis about Trump being unfit for the presidency would help determine the outcome of the election. Clinton’s strategy also anticipated that reiterating Trump’s flaws, specifically the Access Hollywood tapes, would assist neverTrump Republicans in their quest to marshal others in their party to cross over and vote for Hillary.

Regrettably for Hillary, her entire negative campaign strategy (don’t vote for Trump) was rendered inoperative by her opponent, who had already made a number of preemptive strikes against the “War on Women”charade during the Republican primaries. First, the idea that Hillary could make Trump alone the object of obloquy when the subject was mistreatment of women was breathtakingly audacious and hypocritical. Only one assured that the media was in her pocket would dare to be so presumptuous. The reality was that while occupying the highest office in the land, Hillary’s husband defiled the sanctity of the Oval Office by having sex with a 22 year old intern. Yet, here she was, without shame, earnestly pleading to voters that Trump should be disqualified from the presidency because he had made boorish comments captured on tape. Did Clinton truly believe voters were that stupid or forgetful?

The Miss Piggy ploy also was founded on the expectation that the media would always act to protect the Democratic Party’s candidate and thus, would never bring up Bill Clinton’s despicable history of assaulting and preying on women. A typical mainstream media response was CNN’s Don Lemon admonishing his guest in late December, 2015, that Bill Clinton’s behavior, as a topic for discussion, was irrelevant, as it had already been litigated and re-litigated and accordingly was old news.⁠


Liberal Indulgence, Bill Clinton and Moral Turpitude

Recently, liberals and feminists have been tying themselves into knots by calling for a reckoning for the serious and credible allegations of sexual misconduct levied against Bill Clinton while he was president. The reason they twist themselves into pretzels is that they want to have it both ways. Now that people are listening to and taking seriously the recent cascade of credible allegations of sexual misconduct against degenerate powerful men who have shamelessly abused their power, partisan liberals must address the disgraceful history of the media in conjunction with feminists and the entire Democratic Party when they dismissed outright serious allegations of misconduct, including rape, made against Bill Clinton. It is intellectually incoherent to argue that credible allegations of sexual harassment and assault for misconduct ought now, in the age of Harvey Weinstein, to be taken seriously, but in the same breath, assert that ignoring Bill Clinton’s accusers was defensible.

Yet, liberal Michelle Goldberg, makes a thoroughly specious attempt to engage in this exact sophistry when she excuses those who dismissed the highly credible accusations of Juanita Broaddrick. Goldberg claims that conspiracy theories concerning the Clintons allegedly fomented by certain right wing sources was sufficient cause to doubt the veracity of allegations, including Broaddrick’s, that were made against president Clinton. So, according to Goldberg, it was perfectly acceptable, indeed warranted, to be skeptical about the stories of Broaddrick, Kathleen Wiley and Paula Jones because their tales were a phantasmagoria manufactured by the Clintons’ enemies, the vast right wing conspiracy. In the same breath, Goldberg welcomes the new environment of a presumption of credibility that now attaches to complaints about harassment. This is a rather futile attempt to square the circle.

One of the reasons Donald Trump is in the White House is that the Clintons are and the Democratic Party are solely responsible for defining deviancy down when it comes to establishing a standard for moral turpitude sufficient for a politician’s disqualification for higher office. Those former liberal defenders of Clinton, who now in a penitent moment decades after Bill Clinton’s infractions, still don’t understand why the idea that Bill Clinton’s conduct was off limits during the recent election was one of the issues that many voters found utterly incoherent and monumentally hypocritical.

What many voters realized was that by incessantly attacking Trump yet proclaiming Bill Clinton’s serious misdeeds irrelevant because the matter had already “been litigated” the media was merely acting as Hillary’s Praetorian Guard. Voters saw through the ruse and expressed their disapprobation with the Clinton campaign and the Mainstream Media-Democratic Party-Complex.



Finally, a Bill Clinton Reckoning at Hand?

In the midst of a torrent of allegations concerning rich and powerful men behaving badly and in some cases, criminally, sooner or later the Democratic Party is going to be forced to reassess the esteem and veneration in which they have held former president Bill Clinton.

The revelations about Harvey Weinstein have caused an outpouring of claims from a multitude of women across the cultural and occupational divide. The fact that the opprobrious conduct was in the past is no longer a sufficient reason thankfully for dismissing outright the allegations.

Given the new and welcoming environment for holding men in positions of power who abuse that trust or their status in the past for personal aggrandizement, it is hard to see how Democrats can argue indefinitely that Bill Clinton’s past behavior is moot.

Some in the media can see the handwriting on the wall. Chris Hayes of MSNBC was one of the first on the Left who understands that Democrats now can no longer offer their standard and shopworn defense that Clinton’s conduct occurred in the past and the matter has already been litigated. Yet this was precisely the response Hillary gave during a recent interview when asked about the difference between Trump’s alleged depravity and that of her husband and it was Bill Clinton’s get out of jail free card for paving the way for Hillary’s coronation.

As I note in my book Election 2016, the idea that Hillary could make Bill Clinton’s past sexual misconduct and mistreatment of women off limits during the election, “was breathtakingly audacious and hypocritical. Only one assured that the media was in her pocket would dare to be so presumptuous.”

The problem for Democrats, as Hayes notes, is that there is an outstanding and very credible allegation by Juanita Broaddrick that she was raped by Bill Clinton in the late 1970’s. If a miscreant like Roy Moore should be cast aside in his quest to represent Alabama in the Senate for credible allegations of misconduct that occurred over thirty years ago, how can Democrats continue to deify Bill Clinton as a revered icon of the party?

In the Atlantic, Caitlin Flanagan raises similar questions. Flanagan correctly notes that feminists completely squandered their credibilty in the 1990’s by their rush to defend Bill Clinton’s indefensible behavior. Additionally, Flanagan observes that the most remarkable aspect of the cascade of sexual harassment and assault accusations is that these women’s stories are being believed,

Most of them don’t have police reports or witnesses or physical evidence; many of them are recounting events that transpired years—sometimes decades—ago. In some cases, their accusations are validated by a vague, carefully couched quasi-admission of guilt; in others they are met with outright denial. It doesn’t matter. We believe them. Moreover, we have finally come to some kind of national consensus about the workplace; it naturally fosters a level of romance and flirtation, but the line between those impulses and the sexual predation of a boss is clear.

Flanagan notes the following about Clinton’s debauchery and how men accused today are being cashiered for far less,

It was a pattern of behavior; it included an alleged violent assault; the women involved had far more credible evidence than many of the most notorious accusations that have come to light in the past five weeks. But Clinton was not left to the swift and pitiless justice that today’s accused men have experienced. Rather, he was rescued by a surprising force: machine feminism. The movement had by then ossified into a partisan operation and it was willing—eager—to let this friend of the sisterhood enjoy a little droit de seigneur.

It will be interesting to view the posture of Democrats as the cries for reexamining the corrosive conduct of Bill Clinton become more loud with each passing day.