The wave of sexual abuse allegations against men from Harvey Weinstein to Roy Moore has prompted significant reflection among liberals about how Bill Clinton’s misdeeds were handled and how his accusers were treated in the 1990s.
New York senator Kirsten Gillbrand, who holds the seat that Hillary Clinton occupied from 2001-2009, said Thursday that Bill Clinton should have resigned for the Lewinsky affair. That prompted a public warning shot from Phillipe Reines, a longtime Clinton aide and senior advisor to Hillary Clinton at the State Department:
Ken Starr spent $70 million on a consensual blowjob. Senate voted to keep POTUS WJC. But not enough for you @SenGillibrand? Over 20 yrs you took the Clintons’ endorsements, money, and seat. Hypocrite.
Interesting strategy for 2020 primaries. Best of luck.https://t.co/KIsnfY4WLT
— Philippe Reines (@PhilippeReines) November 17, 2017
Of course, Reines’ tweet is an artful dodge in many ways. The recent criticism of Bill Clinton revolves around a lot more than Lewinsky—a recent New York Times column from a prominent feminist was headlined, “I Believe Juanita,” referring to the woman who has long accused the former president of raping her. Reines is not wrong about the hypocrisy of Gillibrand (and legions of other Democrats) who took the Clinton’s money and ignored his predatory behavior in the past. However, that doesn’t mean Gillibrand isn’t right about Bill Clinton now.
Gillibrand has long been rumored to be planning a presidential run. It will be interesting to see if the Clintons, who are at their lowest ebb of power in decades, are able to hamstring her prospective campaign or otherwise effectively threaten a growing chorus of Clinton critics in the Democratic party.
