"Young woman" accuses Democrat rep of "unwanted sexual act"--feminists yawn

The Portland "Oregonian" reports that seven-term Democratic member of congress David Wu has been accused of "an aggressive, unwanted sexual encounter" with a "young woman."

When confronted by his senior aides Wu acknowledged having a sexual encounter with the "young woman" but insisted it was consensual.

Well that certainly seems like a reasonable explanation. Nothing to see here, folks. Move on.

Oh, wait...down in the sixth paragraph the paper offers a small detail that might shed some light on the matter: The "woman" was apparently 18 at the time. Wu is 56.

Now: I realize that "unwanted sexual encounter" can mean damn near anything, much of which doesn't rise to the level of criminal behavior. And I know May-December romances do exist. So the only problems I have with this allegation are, first, where's the outrage from NOW and other feminist groups?

Those over 30 may recall how these groups were going ballistic about Oregon senator Bob Packwood, who was accused of kissing and groping 40-year-old female lobbyists. So where's that outrage now?

Only sound I hear is crickets chirping.

Second: The Oregonian published this on a Friday, which is widely known as a way to drastically reduce the attention given to a story that would damage a person or party the paper wants to protect. There's no watercooler chat over the weekend, and most people have a lot on their schedule to distract them. And by Monday the paper can justify refusing to run any more stories on the topic on the ground that it's old news.

Now, young liberals may defend the choice of publication days by saying "Hey, it's news. No one can control when a news story breaks!"

How charmingly naive. Because the Oregonian sat on the story for four days, ostensibly because they were trying to get a comment from Wu.

If Wu had been a Republican, does anyone doubt that the paper would have given him 24 hours and then published with the end line "Representative Wu's office didn't respond to repeated offers from this paper to rebut the allegations or otherwise to comment"?

Bang.

But since Wu is one of their beloved Dems, they cheerily let him stonewall 'em for four days and then did the helpful Friday story-burial.

So, how 'bout it, feminists? Do you have a problem with politicians groping women? Or are you willing to put up with it if the accused is a Democrat? Or would you prefer the "it was consensual" option?

Why do I think there won't be any feminist outrage in this case?

Oh, and just in case you had any doubt: Bob Packwood, who was pressured into resigning his office, was a Republican. That was right about the same time William J. Clinton faced rape claims from two women, groping from a third, and perjury, yet was able to retain his office. All broadcast outlets and all but a handful of newspapers were arguing that he shouldn't even be impeached, let alone convicted--since his perjury was "just about sex", and "everybody lies about sex."

Excuse me, because I don't have a journalism degree so I'm not sure about the terminology: Is it more correct to call the difference between the media's reaction to Wu, Packwood and Slick Willy a "double standard", or just "no standards"?