Is there anything in the news more farcical than liberals and feminists saying it’s time for “a reckoning with Bill Clinton”? Clinton was credibly accused of severe sexual misconduct by several women. One of them, Juanita Broaddrick, alleged that Clinton raped her. Her claim was highly credible, inasmuch as she complained contemporaneously to five people.
Clinton also admitted, after brazenly lying about it, to having sex with Monica Lewinsky. The White House intern was barely out of her teens at the time.
If Roy Moore, against whom no allegation of sexual misconduct has been conclusively established, is unfit to occupy one of 100 Senate seats, then surely Bill Clinton was unfit to serve as our president. Yet Democrats and feminists rallied to Clinton’s defense, while shrugging off, if not applauding the fact that the Clinton machine — spearheaded by Hillary Clinton — demonized Clinton’s female victims.
Did any Democrat or liberal media type say “I believe the women”? If so, I don’t recall it.
During Clinton’s post-presidency, Democrats and feminists continued to ignore his predatory sexual history. Even now, when that behavior is mentioned some (like Ruth Marcus) accuse those who bring it up of “what-about-ism.”
Let’s be clear. Responding to the allegations against Roy Moore by citing Clinton isn’t a defense of Moore. It’s an indictment of Clinton defenders for intellectual dishonesty. Unless Ruth Marcus will admit to intellectual dishonesty, she needs a substantive answer to the “what about” question.
Some on the left realize this. That’s why they call for a Bill Clinton “reckoning.”
But such a reckoning two decades after the fact won’t cut it. Does anyone believe there would be such a reckoning if Hillary Clinton had won in 2016? I don’t. Bill Clinton can be “reckoned with” now because the Clintons are a long way from power and many on the left want to keep it that way.
Does anyone believe there would be a Bill Clinton reckoning if Roy Moore hadn’t credibly been accused of serious sexual misconduct? Given the timing of most of the reckoning talk, I don’t.
It’s true that Harvey Weinstein had his reckoning before Moore was accused (but only after major obstacles to it were overcome). But Weinstein isn’t Bill Clinton. Sure, he served the left, but others in Hollywood can provide that service. Surely, there are one or two male tycoons, or potential tycoons, in Hollywood who haven’t sexually harassed anyone. Or, here’s a thought — how about a female Hollywood tycoon?
Bill Clinton, by contrast, was indispensable until recently and his legacy is still of marginal interest to many liberals.
I’ve heard it said that if the Clinton sex saga of the 1990s were to occur in 2017, it would play out very differently. Nonsense. Sexual harassment was a major issue in the 1990s and feminists had already staked out the “I believe the women” position. Or have you forgotten the Clarence Thomas-Anita Hill drama of 1991?
When political power is in the picture, Democrats and feminist “believe the women” only when they accuse political enemies. This was true in 1990s and it’s true today.
Notice: All comments are subject to moderation. Our comments are intended to be a forum for civil discourse bearing on the subject under discussion. Commenters who stray beyond the bounds of civility or employ what we deem gratuitous vulgarity in a comment — including, but not limited to, “s***,” “f***,” “a*******,” or one of their many variants — will be banned without further notice in the sole discretion of the site moderator.