Greenfield: Why the Democrats Really Turned on Bill Clinton

FrontPage ^ | 11/10/17 | Greenfield

[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.