Wow, that whole Supreme Court nomination mess went off the rails, didn’t it?

Dr. Christine Blasey Ford says that the nominee, Judge Brett Kavanaugh, attempted to rape her 35 years ago. She was 15. He was 17. It was at a party and Kavanaugh was “stumbling drunk,” according to Ford’s attorney.

Ford doesn’t really remember the date or the location, but she remembered that it happened.

I don’t know if it did or didn’t happen and, frankly, we probably will never really know. People on either side of the argument will make up their minds and that will be the end of it.

Regardless of whether you think an accuser is credible, she deserves to be heard.

But it has been incredible to me to see the level of hypocrisy and the blatant double standards on display over this.

Why, for example, is Hillary Clinton weighing in?

If I were her, I’d stay as far away from politics as possible, especially when it comes to talking about sexual abuse allegations and abuse of the democratic process.

This past week, Hillary was out and about doing interviews. Here’s a quote: “The authoritarian tendencies that we have seen at work in this administration with this President, left unchecked, could very well result in the erosion of our institutions to an extent that we've never imagined possible here.”

Did she mean like setting up a bogus, private email server so she could keep stuff out of the public eye? Or was it her aides smashing Blackberrys with hammers she was talking about? Or maybe it was she and her attorneys deleting tens of thousands of “private” emails from the server before the feds got ahold of it.

Or how about her campaign and the Democratic National Committee paying a foreign national to meet with Russian officials to dig up dirt on her opponent?

Is that what she’s talking about?

Then, she actually said  Kavanaugh’s accuser deserves “the benefit of the doubt” in her accusations against Kavanaugh.

I tend to agree with that notion. But I have a hard time believing Hillary does.

Because far from giving her husband Bill’s accusers the benefit of the doubt, she pilloried them, called them “bimbos” and attempted to intimidate them. Remember that clever characterization of Clinton accusers by Democratic operative James Carville? “If you drag a hundred-dollar bill through a trailer park, you never know what you'll find.”

Classy, eh?

Then there’s the venerable Democrat senator from California Diane Feinstein. She’s the one who knew about the Ford allegation back in July, but waited until the 11th hour to bring it forward in the Senate. She says the victim didn’t want to be identified, but Feinstein could have come forward with the allegation weeks ago. That way, senators could have quizzed Kavanaugh in closed meetings.

Feinstein deems Ford credible and is demanding an investigation to get to the bottom of her allegations.

Again, I agree.

But Feinstein’s position on issues like these have, shall we say, “evolved” over the years.

Back in 1999 she couldn’t have cared less when a sitting president in her party – Bill Clinton – was credibly accused of rape. The Senate was in the middle of an impeachment trial at the time and not one Democrat called for an investigation.

They knew about Juanita Broaddrick’s allegations. Broaddrick told special counsel Kenneth Starr that Clinton lured her to his hotel room by switching the location of a meeting at the last minute. She said she resisted his advances but he refused to be deterred, pushing her onto the bed and forcing her to have sex with him.

They didn’t talk to any of the people who told NBC?news at the time that Broaddrick told them she had been raped by Clinton.

They didn’t talk to Norma Rogers, who said she found Broaddrick lying in the hotel room with a bruised upper lip in a state of shock and crying.

Nope. Didn’t talk to any of these folks. To these powerful Senate Democrats, these people were all just a bunch of Hillary’s “bimbos” who didn’t deserve to be heard.

That’s ancient history, you might say. Things are different now. We’re in the midst of the #MeToo movement, which lends a higher degree of credibility to women who claim they are abused by men.

But that’s not really true either. It kind of depends on who the perpetrator is.

Take Keith Ellison. The Minnesota Democratic Rep. has been accused of domestic abuse.

His then-girlfriend – also a Democrat – says he sent her threatening text messages, screamed obscenities at her and dragged her off a bed by her feet.

Ellison denied the allegations, but admitted he was in a relationship with the woman.

The victim, Karen Monahan, told Fox News – the only network really covering the alleged abuse story – that not only do Democrats not believe her, they are threatening to isolate her over the allegations.

There was no immediate action against the congressman, but the Democratic National Committee said it would look into the matter.

After the DNC “looked into it,” Ellison went on to win the Democratic primary election for Minnesota attorney general. He’ll run in the general election in November.

“I've been smeared, threatened, isolated from my own party. I provided medical records from 2017, stating on two different doctor visits, I told them about the abuse and who did it. My therapist released records stating I have been dealing and healing from the abuse,”  Monahan told Fox News.

No big deal. Ellison’s a rising star. No self-respecting Democrat is going to take her word over his.

That’s why legions of Democrats who have come out urging investigations of Kavanaugh remained silent when Ellison was accused.

I will wrap this up with a quote from Monahan.

“The fact that both parties only care if it scores political points is hypocritical. Do you think a person who has dealt with any form of abuse by politicians is thinking about politics? No. We and our families are trying to heal.”