Walter W. Murray, reporter
The Clinton Era might finally be over.
Steve Bannon, the architect of President Donald Trump’s stunning electoral victory last year and head of Breitbart News, said one Democrat’s remarks last week is shaking the very foundation of the Democratic Party.
“Kirsten Gillibrand’s comment about Bill Clinton I think is an earthquake in the Democratic Party, because the Wall Street-Clinton junta that controls the Democratic Party has really been bulletproof,” Bannon told radio host John Catsimatidis.
Gillibrand – who now holds the Senate seat once occupied by Hillary Clinton – last week said Clinton should’ve resigned over the Monica Lewinsky scandal.
Further, she said the former president’s sexual harassment would never be tolerated today.
Bannon said Gillibrand’s move to distance herself from the Clintons shows which way the party is heading.
And it’s AWAY from Bill and Hill.
“I think you saw the first opening shot of the 2020 primary with Gillibrand, who clearly has presidential aspirations,” Bannon said. “She put a shot right across the bow of the Clintons.”
Gillibrand likely will run for president as Bannon predicts. (Spoiler alert: As Northeast liberal who can’t appeal to the heartland, she’ll still lose.)
But there may be another far more cynical interpretation for what she said.
Democrats are having a hard time attacking Republicans over accusations of sexual harassment given Bill Clinton’s sordid past.
So they’re engaging in one of their favorite activities: revisionist history.
In the past, Gillibrand spoke glowingly of how she was “truly honored that President Bill Clinton campaigned for me” in 2006, and has said Hillary Clinton “inspired me to get off the sidelines and truly make a difference.”
By changing her tune… by acting against Bill Clinton in hindsight and pretending she believes he should have resigned 20 years ago… she THINKS the left can gain the moral high ground over Trump and others.
Gillibrand practically admitted as much.
“Things have changed today, and I think under those circumstances there should be a very different reaction,” she told the New York Times. “And I think in light of this conversation, we should have a very different conversation about President Trump, and a very different conversation about allegations against him.”
That’s right. It was fine for Bill Clinton because it was a “different time” and hey, we’re all against it NOW. And that means they’re free to attack Trump and others over it, too.
In other words, like so many Democrats, Gillibrand’s stand against the Clintons isn’t one of courage and conviction.
It’s another “c” word altogether: convenience.
— Walter W. Murray is a reporter for The Horn News. He is a survival expert with decades of experience in prepping and the author of “America’s Final Warning.”