From the weekly “conversation” between Bobo and Gail Collins*:
Do you think Cain can be excluded from the presidency based on what we know so far, given the Clinton standard? My impression, for what it’s worth is that no, he can’t. Even if everything that is alleged is true, this is less egregious than Clinton.
That’s from Bobo, of course. Clinton shoulda kept it in his pants. But if the allegations about Cain are true (about which I am agnostic, ‘cuz it wouldn’t surprise me if this were true, but this could also very well be quality ratfucking), he’ll have committed a crime. Clinton didn’t do anything illegal until he lied about it in court. No matter how outrageously stupid Clinton’s act was, it wasn’t illegal. Cain, if this is true, sexually assaulted
some two(?) poor women. I guess you can ague that this is less “egregious” than what Clinton did with his terrible Clenis, but it would definitely be more illegal (in terms of the act, o’ course, not the perjury).
OK, this is also great:
The allegations have caused many Republicans to rally around Cain on liberal media/high-tech lynching grounds. Opposition to Politico seems to arouse stronger passions among Republican primary voters than any violation of a gentlemanly code of behavior.
Yeah, Bobo must be shocked at this. It’s not like he was actively attempting to tap into this very sort of reactionary tribalism in his last column.
*No, I don’t know why I do this to myself.
Update: I see this passage also raised ABL’s eyebrows. Check her post out.