Day of Reckoning: the time when one is called to account for one's actions, to pay one's debts, or to fulfill one's promises or obligations.
When the Harvey Weinstein story broke about a month ago, I offered that the reason for such a story to break now – after decades of such behavior – might have something to do with the democrats getting tired of telling Hillary to go away.
Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand on Thursday went to a place that few Democrats have dared or cared to go when it comes to allegations of sexual assault: Calling out Bill Clinton.
The initial story on Weinstein broke in the New York Times; this story is in the Washington Post. In other words, this isn’t some wacko like bionic mosquito or some such. Someone is on a mission.
It's difficult to overstate the potential significance of Gillibrand's response to the question about the former president.
As you would expect, Gillibrand is being threatened by Clinton loyalists. I say this is irrelevant – and not only because the democratic party establishment wants to make Hillary go away:
Suddenly, other Democrats will be asked if they agree with Gillibrand's comments that the former president should have resigned.
Stuck between an oval-office desk and a hard place….
If a reasonably large number of Democrats decide to rewrite their view of Clinton's legacy as one that should have ended in disgrace, that turns Clinton from a statesman into something closer to what many Republicans have long alleged.
“Alleged”? You must be kidding.
It may never come to that, especially if other Democrats don't join in Gillibrand's statements about Clinton.
They won’t have a choice. They will have to make a public statement: side with the predator and his (nominally speaking) wife, or protect their own tails.
But in one fell swoop, [Gillibrand] put that debate squarely on the table. And you can bet the Clintons are apoplectic about that right now — especially considering the source.
Any tears out there?