After waiting five days to put out a short statement on the Harvey Weinstein scandal through her spokesman, twice-failed presidential candidate Hillary Clinton finally personally addressed the issue in a CNN interview on Wednesday. She told host Fareed Zakaria that the allegations against Weinstein make her feel "sick," "shocked" and "appalled," distancing herself from a man she had "known in the past" -- pointing out that "many others" within her political party are also in the same boat.
Notice how, within this short snippet, she emphasizes on multiple occasions that she's not alone among politicians who've counted Weinstein as a friend and major supporter. Because this isn't really just her problem, you must understand. But the fact is, the Clinton-Weinstein nexus was deep, lasting, mutually-beneficial, and thrived until very recently. As in, like, six days ago. John Sexton reminds us of a few facts: "In reality, Weinstein was a bundler for her campaign last year. He hosted not one but two 'star-studded' fundraisers for her campaign last summer. After her loss, Weinstein was invited to the special donor consolation party she hosted in December. Someone she 'had known in the past' is not an accurate description," he writes. Then again, accurate descriptions aren't really her thing. Never change, Hillary. Asked about whether she'll return the gobs of Weinstein cash that have filled her campaign funds over the years, Clinton says that she intends to bundle the movie mogul's money into her annual charitable donation:
Hillary Clinton on Weinstein campaign donations: I give money to charity every year and "this will be part of that" https://t.co/E6CLCi053T pic.twitter.com/LRVOxyxmZg
— CNN (@CNN) October 12, 2017
Say, will that charity be the Clinton Foundation, or one of its offshoots, perchance? And what about this obvious criticism of her proposed gesture?
This is right — HRC says HW $$ will go to 10% she gives to charity every year… shouldn’t it be on top of the 10% in order to mean something? https://t.co/kuInTotZhR
— Dylan Byers (@DylanByers) October 11, 2017
It's still a better plan than the DNC's insultingly ridiculous posture, which entails keeping almost all of Weinstein's money, and "giving away" the rest to political organizations whose missions are directly in line with that of the DNC. A very, very low bar. Finally, we highlighted one of (liberal) celebrity chef Anthony Bourdain's negative tweets about Hillary's response to all of this earlier, but here are few more, for the road:
And I have to say, Hillary's interview with Fareed Zakaria was shameful in its deflection and its disingenuousness.
— Anthony Bourdain (@Bourdain) October 11, 2017
I can assure you that the victims of Mr. Weinstein's three decades of predatory behavior are disappointed too. I'm sitting next to one.
— Anthony Bourdain (@Bourdain) October 12, 2017
The replies from liberals to this thread range from "but whatabout?!?" to, ta da, "misogyny!" By the way, does Hillary have any updated thoughts on believing the stories of all female victims of alleged sexual assault vis-a-vis another prominent man in her life?
