Hey Democrats: Why Does Weiner Have To Go, but Bill Clinton Didn't?

These were all federal felonies. In the midst of this, he went on the air and lied to the American people, pointing his finger at us to rebuke us for the crime of even imagining that he was being less than truthful. The only reason that he eventually came clean was because the young woman (on the advice of an older woman, who was the only person in the affair who told the truth, and had her family threatened if she wouldn't perjure herself, and was vilified for it, including jokes in the Clinton-supporting media about her physical appearance) held on to the evidence in the form of a blue dress with remnants of his perverse passion on it.

Not only did he do all of these things, but he enlisted his friends and employees to trash the young woman's reputation, as well as that of other women whom he had similarly mistreated.

With the sole exception of Senator Joe Lieberman, I don't remember the outrage from his fellow Democrats then that we are hearing now about Anthony Weiner. Pat Leahy not only didn't demand Clinton's resignation, he (like all other Senate Democrats) voted to keep him in office, even though it would have been a boon to his party to remove Clinton, because it would have made Al Gore president, and almost certainly assure his election in 2000.

So I'm scratching my head. Why throw poor Tony under the bus, when the party went all-out to defend a much worse case, even against its own political interest? Can someone, anyone, explain it to me?