Contrast Clinton coverage with Gannon...snicker time or serious stuff?

[peacetalksforall]

All the MSMs feeding us Clinton stuff to assassinate his character in the 1990's delivered their words with an accompanying performance of body language and tone.

They would snicker, roll their eyes, look down and bat their eyes with a display of modesty or moral disgust, they would place their arms on the desk and clasp their hands in a prayerful-judicial manner, ask how they were going to explain it to their children, call on countless guest experts to back them up. They called on everyone from clergymen to psychologists and of course, there were hundreds of politicians talking about the disgrace to the country. They even brought out the young Republicans. (I specifically recall the young Michelle Malkin saying that Clinton was a product of the decadent 1960s). They even overdid their part in telling us how Bush would bring honor and dignity to the WH to the point of telling us repeatedly about 're-dignifying' the Oval Office with suits and ties and how Bush wouldn't be late for appearances. And finishing it off with stories about dirty saying written all over when the Clintons left the WH, plus the thefts of government property (which GAO denied).

Contrast that with what they are going to do about their Gannon boy.
If they play the disappearring game they won't have to decide how to perform and who to bring on as guest experts. There won't have to be equal displays of shock and disgust.

Are we going to let them blow this away as a liberal attack and ignore it all together?

[Nimrod]

1. We can play their game

Liars re: Clinton: "It's not about the sex, it's about the lying".

Ourselves re: Guckert: "It's not about the sex, it's about the criminal activity".