Greenfield: Why the Democrats Really Turned on Bill Clinton

FrontPage ^ | 11/10/17 | Greenfield

[Louis Foxwell]

Why the Democrats Really Turned on Bill Clinton It’s not about his victims, it’s about money and power. November 16, 2017 Daniel Greenfield

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is an investigative journalist and writer focusing on the radical left and Islamic terrorism.

In the winter of ’56, Khrushchev told the 20th Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union that Stalin may not have been a very nice guy. In the fall of ’17, the media began to concede that maybe Bill Clinton did abuse a whole bunch of women. And maybe those women weren’t really part of a vast right-wing conspiracy to make a bloated piggish progressive hero seem like he might not be a very nice guy.

Why are Democrats turning on the Clintons? Same reason Khrushchev turned on Stalin. They’re purging the Clintons for the same reasons that they defended them. They’re calling out Bill Clinton for his sexual assaults for the same reasons that they covered them up. It’s about power and money.

The Democrats smeared Bill Clinton’s accusers then. Now they’ll exploit them to throw the Clintons out.

The #MeToo campaign provided an opening. But if you really want to understand why the left is disavowing Bill Clinton, ignore the hashtags and look at the bigger picture.

Earlier this month, the rollout of Donna Brazile’s book raked Hillary Clinton and her campaign over the coals. The former interim DNC boss made the case that the Clinton campaign had rigged the primaries.

Brazile’s outrage at the rigging is laughable. Not only was she caught passing a debate question to Hillary, but the only reason she was allowed to replace Debbie Wasserman Schultz is that she was a Clintonista who had served as a Clinton adviser and was promoted to head Gore’s campaign.

After Hillary’s collapse, Brazile was left out in the cold. Like Schultz, she was one of Hillary’s fall girls. And unlike Schultz, she didn’t have a cozy congressional district to call her own. Her CNN contract was torn up after the debate question leak. (Though if you think CNN was actually surprised that a Clinton ally leaked it to the Clintons, you’re also shocked that there’s gambling going on at Rick's Cafe Americain. CNN had disavow Donna who then had to disavow Hillary. Now the Dems are disavowing the Clintons.)

Brazile’s book tour was Act 1 in purging the Clintons from the Dem establishment. Talking about Bill Clinton’s sexual harassment and abuses is Act 2. And the odds are very good that there’s an Act 3.

Why get rid of the Clintons? Let’s look at what the First Grifters have been doing to the Dems.

In May, Hillary rolled out Onward Together. The new SuperPAC was supposed to fundraise for lefty groups. But the groups don’t actually appear to be getting the cash.

Understandable. The flat broke Clintons always have lots of bills to pay and private jets to book. And good chardonnay doesn’t come cheap. A 1787 vintage Chateau d'Yquem runs to $100K a bottle.

Fresh from that success, a paid advisor to Hillary co-launched something being called Party Majority. This wonderful new organization would “act as a parallel structure to Democratic Party committees at the national and state levels”, vacuuming up a whole lot of cash while putting its boot on the DNC.

The Clintons were once again trying to displace the DNC. And that would let them skim a lot of cash from the DNC to fund their political operation and lifestyle. And, even once again, rig the process.

Who’s up for Hillary in 2020?

Party Majority rolled out in early November. Since then the Clintons are suddenly being hit from all sides by their own.

Funny how that works.

If President Hillary Clinton were in the White House, the First Gentleman could work his way through an entire nunnery and every media outlet in the country would praise him as our greatest feminist.

If the Clintons had done the decent thing (for the first time in their miserable grifter lives) and stepped away from politics, Bill could have been a bitter, bigoted and befuddled Democrat elder statesman.

Just like Jimmy Carter.

But the Clintons just wouldn’t stop. And so the circular firing squad has finally been convened. Its members are hypocritically pretending that they’re purging Bill because they suddenly care about the women he had sexually assaulted over the years.

It only took the Dems an entire generation to figure out that rape is wrong.

Hillary Clinton’s approval ratings are terrible. Every time she goes on television, more people are likely to vote Republican. Her entire existence is a reminder of why the Democrats lost so badly in ’16.

Not only won’t Hillary Clinton retire to bake cookies and send anonymous threatening letters to her neighbors because their kids occasionally throw a ball over her mansion’s iron gates, but she insists on sabotaging the 2020 candidates who are her party’s best hope to succeed where she miserably failed.

Hillary Clinton’s book, What Happened, took numerous shots at Bernie Sanders. And her entire book tour appeared designed to sabotage his book tour. Then she began attacking Joe Biden.

Both Bernie and Joe, unlike her, are viable 2020 candidates. (Which says nothing good about the Dems.)

The media doesn’t suddenly “believe Juanita”. Or rather it always knew that Juanita Broaddrick, Kathleen Willey, Paula Jones and the other women were telling the truth. It didn’t silence them because it thought they were lying. It silenced them because they were telling the truth about its guy.

Now Bill Clinton isn’t the media’s guy anymore. He’s a problem.

And what the media does “believe” is that the Clintons will continue to be a liability that might cost them victories in 2018 and 2020. The DNC badly needs money. The Clintons are once again posing a threat to the DNC’s financial viability. And the Dems have become less willing to lose House and Senate seats to sate the insatiable greed of the grifters from Hope.

Then there’s 2020. The Dems don’t want to risk their nominee facing passive aggressive attacks by Hillary Clinton. Nor do they even want to see Hillary Clinton on the air for the entire election.

The Clintons could have had a nice retirement. Seats on boards and foundations. Occasional smaller scale speaking gigs. Bill would have been a featured speaker at the next DNC convention.

And maybe even Hillary in a lesser role.

But they wouldn’t go quietly. And now the left is making it a mandatory retirement.

Act 1 blames Hillary for rigging the primaries. Act 2 calls out Bill’s abuse of women. Acts 3, 4 and 5 will delve into some other Clinton scandals that Democrats have been denying for over a generation. If the Clintons don’t get the message, the final act will plant a big red boot in their behinds.

And this won’t even be the first time that the Dems tried to get rid of the Clintons.

After Bill’s time was up, the Dems and the media tried to head off a Hillary political career at the pass. Let’s flip through the pages of the New York Times in 2001 that describes Hillary's “calamitous Senate debut” and cautions that “talk about her presidential prospects has ground to a halt.”

“The man is so thoroughly corrupt it's frightening,” a Times column reads. “The Clintons may or may not be led away in handcuffs someday.”

In AmSoc, history is constantly being rewritten. A few years later, no criticism of the Clintons could be allowed. And everyone forgot that Carter’s chief-of-staff had called them, “The First Grifters.”

Or at least they pretended to forget.

It’s not the first time that the Dems have tried to get rid of the Clintons. But it might be the last.

Like Stalin’s Communist successors, Democrats should not be allowed to pretend that they knew nothing or that their purge of the Clintons is motivated by a sudden attack of integrity.

They’re purging the Clintons for the same reason that they covered up for them.

They’re calling out Bill Clinton for his sexual assaults for the same reason that they covered them up.

They did it out of political self-interest then. And they’re doing it out of political self-interest now. There’s nothing clean or honest about what they’re doing. There’s no moral reckoning here. Only a political reckoning. It’s not about the women Bill abused. It’s about DNC cash and the 2020 election.

That’s the dirty, ugly truth. And it’s as dirty and ugly as the Clintons and the Democrats.

[kabar]

And Obama still has OFA doing his bidding. What we are seeing is similar to two Mafia families fighting over turf and control. Business is business.

[weston]

Exactly

[Honest Nigerian]

I think this is Bush’s fault. Not joking.
The Clintons should have been investigated and prosecuted at the beginning of this century. Bush seemed to think they would have the decency to leave the lime-light and he was wrong.
And the Clintons seem to have some kind of dirt on so many people; or just the “luck” to see people turn up dead the day of the hearing/trial.
It really isn’t too late for them to be put on trial. “Sending a message” that crime, including treason, will be punished is good policy and good practice.

[Grampa Dave]

But the Clintons just wouldn’t stop. And so the circular firing squad has finally been convened. Its members are hypocritically pretending that they’re purging Bill because they suddenly care about the women he had sexually assaulted over the years.

It only took the Dems an entire generation to figure out that rape is wrong.

[GOPJ]

Her CNN contract was torn up after the debate question leak. (Though if you think CNN was actually surprised that a Clinton ally leaked it to the Clintons, you’re also shocked that there’s gambling going on at Rick's Cafe Americain.

LOL - vintage Greenfield...

[\/\/ayne]

I don’t want any DNC plans to word but I DO want Clintons blamed.

[GOPJ]

The media (Chris Matthews, Mika Brzezinski and the Washington Post) doesn’t suddenly “believe Juanita”. Or rather it always knew that Juanita Broaddrick, Kathleen Willey, Paula Jones and the other women were telling the truth. It didn’t silence them because it thought they were lying. It silenced them because they were telling the truth about its (their) guy. Now Bill Clinton isn’t the media’s guy anymore. He’s a problem.

"No integrity" about the MSM is an understatement... And 'sundance'? You gotta be kidding me that he doesn't 'get' Greenfield... that's hard to believe.

[GOPJ]

You know who Sundance is? Can you share that with the rest of us?

[gogeo]

Brazile’s outrage at the rigging is laughable. Not only was she caught passing a debate question to Hillary, but the only reason she was allowed to replace Debbie Wasserman Schultz is that she was a Clintonista who had served as a Clinton adviser and was promoted to head Gore’s campaign.

Rigging the debate against Trump was different...that's GOOD rigging.

Honor among crooks...

Two men owned a store. One man was working the cash register. As he put money from a customer into the register, he noticed a $20 stuck to another bill; the customer had overpaid. So he was faced with an ethical dilemma.

Would he, or would he not, tell...his partner?

Such are RAT ethics.

[Bonemaker]

I hope you are right.

[newfreep]

Mark Bradman of Florida...and former adult bagboy in a grocery store....not that there’s anything wrong with that.

Jeffrey Lord, a true Reagan Conservative, wrote a column that described “Sundance” - here’s an excerpt:

“Not to wax Levin-esque, but “Sundance”? You’re an idiot.”

https://spectator.org/66006_attack-mark-levin/

[FamiliarFace]

Maybe Obama was supposed to get a cut, but then didn’t.

[Some Fat Guy in L.A.]

Whenever things are going poorly and I am tempted to despair, I just tell myself “Just think.....Hillary Clinton will never be president”. That always cheers me right up.

[Chode]

they're doing it to try and beat the hypocrisy rap for giving their boy a pass while trying to crucify Moore

[DuncanWaring]

That’s how I read it.

[SunkenCiv]

Thanks Louis Foxwell.

If President Hillary Clinton were in the White House, the First Gentleman could work his way through an entire nunnery and every media outlet in the country would praise him as our greatest feminist. If the Clintons had done the decent thing (for the first time in their miserable grifter lives) and stepped away from politics, Bill could have been a bitter, bigoted and befuddled Democrat elder statesman. Just like Jimmy Carter. But the Clintons just wouldn't stop. And so the circular firing squad has finally been convened. Its members are hypocritically pretending that they're purging Bill because they suddenly care about the women he had sexually assaulted over the years... Hillary Clinton's approval ratings are terrible. Every time she goes on television, more people are likely to vote Republican. Her entire existence is a reminder of why the Democrats lost so badly in '16... she insists on sabotaging the 2020 candidates who are her party's best hope to succeed where she miserably failed. Hillary Clinton's book, What Happened, took numerous shots at Bernie Sanders. And her entire book tour appeared designed to sabotage his book tour. Then she began attacking Joe Biden. Both Bernie and Joe, unlike her, are viable 2020 candidates. (Which says nothing good about the Dems.) The media doesn't suddenly "believe Juanita". Or rather it always knew that Juanita Broaddrick, Kathleen Willey, Paula Jones and the other women were telling the truth. It didn't silence them because it thought they were lying. It silenced them because they were telling the truth about its guy... And what the media does "believe" is that the Clintons will continue to be a liability that might cost them victories in 2018 and 2020. The DNC badly needs money. The Clintons are once again posing a threat to the DNC's financial viability. And the Dems have become less willing to lose House and Senate seats to sate the insatiable greed of the grifters from Hope.

This is an unusually good essay (and an unusually large excerpt, sorry). But it may be missing a few pieces.

#OscarsSoWhite, "white privilege", and BLM arose in response to the (correct) impression that the days of unfettered grift and graft by Soetero's foreign-born, unconstitutional, lawless, anti-American regime were coming to an end, and in addition had been merely temporarily tolerated by the rich, not-entirely-white, liberal Demwit establishment which runs most of the media, most foundations, almost all of the entertainment industry, much of academia, as well as multinational NGOs (in which category any reasonable person includes both the EU and George Soros) and even the UN (although the UN exists primarily to undermine, vilify, and destroy Israel; that is essentially the only common ground among so many of the various despotates sitting as equals in the General Assembly). That establishment was biding its time, and its next phase was to elevate a woman (Hitlery, so, really, only an alleged woman) to the Presidency and into a position to continue to reduce Americans to serfdom.

They lost.

The response is #MeToo and "toxic masculinity" and other BS. I won't say it won't end well, because I think it is already ending, hence the various, obviously orchestrated movements, similar to any other movements where prune juice and high fiber cereals have been involved. As the suffrage movement slowly emerged during and immediately after the US Civil War, so said one of my university professors (an old Black Power butt plug or wannabee), white women insisted that slavery would vanish and equal rights for black Americans would be guaranteed, if women could vote, so black civil rights agitators like Frederick Douglass should put their entire support behind women's suffrage. No one fell for it then, or the underlying sexist lie that women are uniquely moral.

It is exactly the argument we've been hearing from Hitlery and other Demagogic Party a-holes for decades now -- but if it were or had been true in the first place, there'd have been no Clinton administration, no one would have kept quiet about Harvey, and Soetero's senate campaign wouldn't have succeeded on the back of forced disclosure of a divorce decree.

[SunkenCiv]

:^) That’s one of the grand slams in his piece.

[ek_hornbeck]

A substantial number of Democrats (e.g. left wing purists like Bernie Sanders) always distrusted Clinton ideologically. He was too willing to pass Republican-sponsored bills such as tax cuts, welfare reform, and the crime bill. On trade and foreign policy, he was basically on the same page as neoconservative Republicans.

Clinton was an opportunist without any particularly strong ideological beliefs. As a result, liberals defended him when he was in office because Republicans attacked him, not because he was especially aligned with the far left's agenda (except on some mostly symbolic social issues). In many ways the Democrats' relationship with Bill Clinton was the same as conservatives' relationship with establishment Republicans like the Bushes: someone to be defended against attacks from the opposite party, but not someone you have much use for otherwise.