Huma Abedin is pregnant. Is Anthony Weiner still a liberal hero?

It's hard to be a hypocrite when you believe in nothing.  Hysterical liberal and radical feminist blogger Amanda Marcotte argues that very case:

Prior to this scandal, the media and political operatives had to at least pretend that a politician's sex life had some bearing on the public interest before they picked up the pitchforks. Being an adulterer wasn't, in and of itself, a matter of public interest. There had to be a hook. If you were a social conservative who advocated for using the government to control the sexual behavior of consenting adults, for instance, then you were held to your own standard and your adulteries were considered public business. . . .

But with this Weiner scandal, there's not even the veneer of an excuse in play. Weiner has an outstanding record supporting sexual rights of others, with 100% ratings from NARAL and Planned Parenthood,and has a strong record of support for gay rights.

...The entire rationale for the scandal is that Weiner isn’t living in accordance with strict social mores regarding monogamy, and that’s it. Even the whining about how he lied when initially confronted is hollow. In the past, lying when someone asks nosy questions that are none of their business was considered a socially acceptable white lie.

To Marcotte, sending naked pictures of oneself to barely legal college girls and Vegas blackjack dealers doesn't dent his appeal. Nor does lying about it, repeatedly and vehemently. Why? Because apparently she doesn't accept contemporary mores as a valid guideline for behavior.

Which is problem #1. Most Americans view Weiner's behavior as abhorrent. If the Left views it as acceptable and defensible, how can they expect to receive anything save the pervert vote (and yes, the unions and Jews) in any upcoming election?

And what about the feminist aspect? Debbie Wasserman Schultz claims the Republican party is the anti-women standard-bearer (but who really is the party of rape?); can she continue that lie with a straight face while defending Weiner's wanking off with young girls while his wife is with child?

Ah, yes, that.  Does Wasserman and Marcotte's disdain of American culture go so deep that they deny the dishonor Weiner has committed while is wife is in a delicate state?  Does Weinerism triumph over feminism?  Or are they both secretly praying that a convenient abortion by Huma Abedin will help make things right?  A worthy sacrifice, in their eyes, to the greater good of the Democratic party...

And what of Weiner's ex-girlfriend, columnist Kristen Parker, who took his lies as truth and publicly defended him, thus publicly humiliating herself?  She points out what Marcotte refuses to see:

What has emerged is a picture of a predator trolling the Internet for women—some half his age—with which to engage in cybersex. We know only about the women who were responsive to his overtures. The odds are very high that he struck out with many, and other women were victim to his unsolicited sex talk. Women should be able to “friend” a married—or unmarried—congressman on Facebook or follow him on Twitter without fear of being the recipient of lewd talk or behavior. Just because a woman “likes” your video on Facebook doesn’t mean you can send her a picture of your penis.

Marcotte, if she really held the values she espouses - feminism and anti-male-ism (she previously declared that people who defended the wrongly accused Duke students were "rape-loving scum"), would reject Weiner, for all the hurt he has done to his wife, his female friends, and to God knows how many other honestly innocent girls out there.

That she - and much of the Left - still defends him reveals two things. The American Left is completely valueless and immoral, with no principle too sacred to sacrifice to their one overwhelming, overpowering, uncontrollable desire:

The desire for power.