It’s amazing and — for conservatives — awfully satisfying to witness how quickly the scandal over Alabama Senate candidate Roy Moore has turned into a race to throw Bill Clinton under the bus. Chris Hayes and other liberals have suggested that Democrats are long overdue for a good look at Clinton’s misconduct, while Matthew Yglesias argued in Vox that Clinton should have resigned over the Monica Lewinsky scandal.

On Thursday, Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand — who holds the New York seat once occupied by Hillary Clinton — admitted that Bill Clinton’s resignation would have been the “appropriate” action.

CNN’s Nathan McDermott, however, noted that Gillibrand was ready with praise for Bill Clinton during the 2016 campaign, however:

But wait, there’s more!

The one he cheated on? That was a beautiful speech.

Oh, this Kirsten Gillibrand?

So how does this make Gillibrand any different from all of the so-called feminists who defended Clinton in the ’90s because he was such a “pro-woman” (i.e., pro-abortion) politician? Well, for one thing, The New York Times says “Ms. Gillibrand took a long pause” before answering the question if Clinton should have resigned, so there’s that.

It’s agreed then, that the country would have been better off had Bill Clinton just resigned?


The Washington Examiner’s Becket Adams lets loose:

Poor Sen. Al Franken isn’t being let off the hook as easily as ol’ Bill:

* * *