Liberals, Bill Clinton apologists, and Roy Moore apologists

This isn’t just about 1999. Where was “I believe Juanita” last year? Yglesias said it best: “Attacking Bill was, by extension, an attack on Hillary — an attack that most people in leading positions in American progressive politics had no desire to make.”

That’s right. Being sharply critical of Bill Clinton for sexual harassment, sexual assault, and rape was considered bad form by liberals in the same way that volunteering criticism of George W. Bush’s mistakes in Iraq is considered bad form by establishment Republicans. Clinton’s victims were known. The culture didn’t change in the sense that Yglesias, Rosenberg, Hayes, and Goldberg suddenly learned that rape is bad. They knew. What changed was that forthrightly attacking Bill Clinton was no longer giving aid and comfort to the enemy. And by enemy, they meant not rapists, but Republicans.

If our liberal journalists want to know what kind of person sticks with Roy Moore regardless of the recent revelations, they don’t have to go on a safari to rural Alabama. They can just look in the mirror and see someone who stands by a sexual predator as long as it is their sexual predator in a key position of power.