The hypocrisy of the Democrats and the #MeToo movement has been on full display in the wake of the Tara Reade allegations against Joe Biden, and Wednesday was no exception.
Now what exactly was the renowned feminist's justification for saying she flat out believes Joe Biden sexually assaulted Tara Reade but will vote for him regardless?
Hirshman explained that she was essentially sacrificing Reade and her story - even though she believes her - because of the supposed "good Mr. Biden can do," most notably by beating the big bad orange man President Donald Trump.
Hirshamn writes:
So what is the greatest good or the greatest harm? Mr. Biden, and the Democrats he may carry with him into government, are likely to do more good for women and the nation than his competition, the worst president in the history of the Republic. Compared with the good Mr. Biden can do, the cost of dismissing Tara Reade — and, worse, weakening the voices of future survivors — is worth it. And don’t call me an amoral realist. Utilitarianism is not a moral abdication; it is a moral stance.
This is from the same woman who, in a 2019
Politico Magazine article, bashed Biden and his "touching problem," saying it was "about as disqualifying a history as I can imagine" in regards to his qualification to be president.
How far will it go in making excuses for Joe Biden?
