Is it that Bill’s peccadillos were more conventional in that they involved actual sex with real live people in the non-virtual world (despite his use of the legalistic definition of “sexual relations” in his Paula Jones deposition, which enabled him to later claim that what he did with Lewinsky didn’t actually fall under that heading)? Compared to Weiner, the former president was positively old-fashioned in his procilivites. Is it Weiner’s relative kinkiness that’s the problem here? Or the fact that the Weiner/Abedins are reminding people of what was hardly Bill and Hillary’s finest hour, a memory the Clintons would rather have people forget if Hillary is to run successfully in 2016?
Or is it that, for the Clintons, the lying and the standing-by were justified because the stakes were so very much higher?:
“The Clintons are pissed off that Weiner’s campaign is saying that Huma is just like Hillary,’’ said the source. “How dare they compare Huma with Hillary? Hillary was the first lady. Hillary was a senator. She was secretary of state.”
This is a curious remark, because actually Hillary was only the first of these things when the Lewinsky story broke, and she’d only been a first lady of Arkansas when the original “standing by” occurred in 1992, back when Bill was running for his first term as president.
So maybe that’s the difference. Maybe Hillary wouldn’t have stood by for a measly mayoral first-ladyhood.
And the moral of the story? Perhaps it’s bad luck to have Bill Clinton perform your wedding, as happened just three short years ago when Weiner and Abedin tied the knot.
The liberal but populist New York Daily News (as opposed to the liberal but ultra-elitist New York Times) has been reduced to filing stories with the headlines such as this: “Huma Abedin’s rich, glowing hair draws looks of envy from many women, scandal or not:”
“She’s not hiding behind her hair,” says famed stylist and midtown salon owner Louis Licari. “Picking up her hair lifts her face. She is a pretty chic girl — she’s got it going on.”
New York women are embracing Abedin’s hair, even if the controversy that made it famous makes them cringe.
“I love the bun. If I could find a way to make my hair look like Huma’s, I would be so happy,” said Washington Heights tutor and mom Kimberlie Trueblood, also a brunette. “She’s a really beautiful woman — she could get a way better man than Anthony Weiner.”
Abedin’s hair has been admired and tweeted about since 2011, and even the conservative National Review called her style “Kennedy glamour resurrected” and said she “looks awesome at a press conference.”
But unlike the timid, liberal New York Daily News, “even the conservative National Review” isn’t afraid to mention what Andrew C. McCarthy calls “The Huma Unmentionables:”
What a racket. The marriage to Huma Abedin, a Clinton insider, enables Anthony Weiner to resurrect a debased career and deflect attention from his psychotic antics even as he continues them. The marriage to Anthony Weiner, a prominent Jewish progressive, enables Huma Abedin to deflect attention from her associations with various Islamic supremacists even as, during her tenure as a top State Department official, American policy embraces Islamic supremacists.
But let’s not discuss that.
And while we’re not discussing it, let’s not discuss Diana West’s latest article at Townhall, which also asks, “Why Won’t the Media Cover Huma Abedin’s Ties to the Global Jihad Movement?”
Related: “New York Times: Anthony Weiner Unqualified to be Mayor of New York, Qualified to be President of the United States.”
Actually, I don’t think we should knock the Times for inconsistency here, given that Weiner does have over three times the years of service on Capitol Hill than the last man the Gray Lady endorsed for the Oval Office.