Hey Democrats: Why Does Weiner Have To Go, but Bill Clinton Didn't?
So I've been looking around on the Intertubes to see all the denunciations of Anthony Weiner's prevarications by members of his own party. And there are a lot of them.
Tim Caine, former chairman of the Democratic National Committee, declares that he should resign:
Lying is unforgivable....Lying publicly about something like this is unforgivable and he should resign.
Allyson Schwartz, head of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, has a similar opinion:
Having the respect of your constituents is fundamental for a member of Congress. In light of Anthony Weiner's offensive behavior online, he should resign.
Weiner has been trying to reach out, even calling Bill Clinton, who officiated at his wedding (less than a year ago) to his (now-pregnant) wife.
Am I the only person who thinks all of this a little bizarre?
Can someone explain to me what Anthony Weiner did that was so much worse than what Bill Clinton did that he is being asked by his fellow Democrats to resign?
For those unfamiliar with the history, let us review the two men's transgressions, in context.
Anthony Weiner allegedly and admittedly communicated with young women on social media and sent them photos of his unmentionables, and then lied about it for a week or so before coming clean.
Bill Clinton had actual sexual relations (and yes, folks, "oral sex" is sex -- look at the second word) with a young woman in his pay, in the Oval Office, during working hours, sometimes while discussing troop movements with members of Congress on the phone. He sometimes held up meetings with government officials so that said young woman could have the proper time to service his needs, which included (to put it as delicately as possible) using her tongue to function as toilet paper.
Then, when threatened with this becoming public knowledge as a result of a civil lawsuit over his sexual intimidation of a state employee brought to him by his personal state-police detail in Arkansas, he obstructed justice by intimidating and bribing witnesses to suborn perjury both personally and via third parties. When put on the stand himself, he repeatedly perjured himself, despite having taken an oath to defend the Constitution and uphold the law of the land.