MOMocrats™

Can We PLEASE Forget About the Blue Dress?

I KNEW that no one really cared about Hillary Clinton's schedule.

Not the schedule per se.   The interest was to use it as a tool to go after her.    That's what it looks like today.

Don't believe me?  Then go read this:

Hillary At White House on 'Stained Blue Dress' Day

I knew that MSNBC was out to get Hillary, but I didn't know that ABC was on that anti-woman bandwagon, as well.    That there is some serious "investigative" work by "Brian Ross and the Investigative Team" over at ABC. 

Is there a legitimate news reason to run that story with that headline?  Go ahead -- try to convince me.

Just as I'm sure we as a nation couldn't care less about the innumerable ladies' lunches I'm sure Hillary had during her stint as First Lady, this nation is way past Blue Dress Fatigue.

But here's the thing I don't get -- why is there such an insistence to criticize Clinton for the sins of her husband?    Sure, she thought it was all a right-wing conspiracy, but PLEASE!!!  There is one reason and one reason only to have this headline, and that's to help tank her race.

One's memory doesn't have to be too long to know that when it comes to anything related to sex and elected officials, the perpetrator of the sin isn't the only one the media consider fair game.  Just ask Silda Wall Spitzer.  And Dina McGreevey.

Just promise me this, MSM -- no matter what happens this time around, in the 2012 presidential race stories like this will be buried, just like the blue dress should be. (Thanks to my pal MOMocrat Debbie for alerting me to this craziness).

Cross-posted from Joanne's place, PunditMom.

Clinton, Eliot Spitzer, and Shades of "I Did Not Have..."

It's tempting to read the Spitzer debacle through Monicagate, or to at least wonder what this means for Clinton's campaign.

Do we see in Silda Spitzer's wracked, anguished face hints of Hillary Clinton's from years ago? Will all of this disaster end up reminding voters, especially women voters, how rampant satyrism is among powerful men, which would translate to "bring the woman in and throw the cheating bums out"?

Or is Eliot Spitzer calling to mind Bill Clinton, both radiating shame as they publicly faced up to their sexual peccadilloes? Does Spitzer's moral lapse fuel public speculation of what possible future scandals a First Man Bill Clinton would bring to the White House, shoring up the conviction that both Clintons need to be banished from the White House altogether?

Hard to say what's on the minds of the electorate, or to what extent this will all be a distant memory in Denver at the Democratic National Convention.

We do know that Spitzer, as governor of NY and a superdelegate pledged to Clinton, endorsed Clinton for president. It looks as if Spitzer's resignation is imminent if not already announced. His superdelegate status, nil (Lt. Governor David A. Paterson, the first African American governor of NY and also a superdelegate pledged to support Clinton, will step in). And according to this brief Radar Online posting, the Clinton campaign issued a curt statement and is otherwise emanating a frosty silence on the entire affair, and has erased all visible signs of Spitzer support from her official website.

Cynematic's personal blog is P i l l o w b o o k.

Bill Clinton Campaigns for Oba- er Change

Check out this gem from back in the day 1992. Sounds like an Obama supporter to me!