noun wrote:Oh, please.
Clinton never publicly portrayed himself as a paragon of morality, or as morally superior to anyone else. O'Reilly, on the other hand, was all too happy to jump all over Clinton for his indiscretion, which, by the way, was consensual. At the moment O'Reilly's little phone chats seem to be a prime example of unwanted sexual harrassment.
You're telling me why the two situations are different (something I already knew). I'm telling you why one played in the media for months and months and months, and one seems to have disappeared already.
That a sitting President was impeached for obstructing justice and committing purjury in a sexual harassment suit is always going to be worthy of greater news coverage than a talk show host being accused of sexual harassment, regardless of the talk show host's position on moral pontification.
You did remember that Clinton's problems also stemmed from a sexual harassment suit as well...right?
But as much as these are different, they will be the same. The accused will continue to maintain innocence until the proof is offered that they are lying. When the tapes are released, this will be big news, O'Reilly will be fired (I'm sorry, he'll resign after settling the case to save his family from having to see the media spectacle that a trial would cause), and that will be that.
But this isn't bigger news than the Clinton situation. That's just plain crazy talk.