Bill Clinton and the Liberal Sexual Harrassment Chickens Come to Roost

I have a hard time hearing the Democrat Left tut-tut about Roy Moore when, twenty years ago, the same Left defended without apology a sexual abuser and serial adulterer. Glenn Kessler compiled a list of women who were exposed to Bill Clinton’s sexual attentions, both willingly and unwillingly. His wife, Hillary Clinton, was his chief enabler when she sat next to him on 60 Minutes after his affair with Gennifer Flowers came to light, and she enabled him all the more when she blamed a “vast right-wing conspiracy” after we learned that he abused his office by his receipt of blowjobs from an intern.

Beyond Hillary’s enabling, the Clinton administration sent out squadrons of operatives to defend the president and impugn Ken Starr and derogate the women whom Clinton had flings with. One of the worst in media was Nina Burleigh, who would gladly fellate the commander-in-chief so that the Big He could advance the Great Liberal Agenda.

“I’d be happy to give him {oral sex} just to thank him for keeping abortion legal,” she said.

I think American women should be lining up with their Presidential kneepads on to show their gratitude for keeping the theocracy off our backs.”

Not long after Clinton’s indiscretions with Lewinsky were made known, battalions of Clinton defenders went on a full-scale political assault against Ken Starr, appearing every single day on CNN and FoxNews to disparage his investigation. Other operatives attacked the Clinton Women, best exemplified by James Carville.

“Drag a hundred-dollar bill through a trailer park, you never know what you’ll find.”

In today’s political environment, damn straight there needs to be a reckoning for Bill Clinton’s sexual misconduct while he served the people of Arkansas and the United States.

Yet let us not forget the sex crimes of which the younger, stronger Bill Clinton was very credibly accused in the 1990s. Juanita Broaddrick reported that when she was a volunteer on one of his gubernatorial campaigns, she had arranged to meet him in a hotel coffee shop. At the last minute, he had changed the location to her room in the hotel, where she says he very violently raped her. She said that she fought against Clinton throughout a rape that left her bloodied. At a different Arkansas hotel, he caught sight of a minor state employee named Paula Jones, and, Jones said, he sent a couple of state troopers to invite her to his suite, where he exposed his penis to her and told her to kiss it. Kathleen Willey said that she met him in the Oval Office for personal and professional advice and that he groped her, rubbed his erect penis on her, and pushed her hand to his crotch.

It was a pattern of behavior; it included an alleged violent assault; the women involved had far more credible evidence than many of the most notorious accusations that have come to light in the past five weeks. But Clinton was not left to the swift and pitiless justice that today’s accused men have experienced. Rather, he was rescued by a surprising force: machine feminism. The movement had by then ossified into a partisan operation, and it was willing—eager—to let this friend of the sisterhood enjoy a little droit de seigneur.

Gloria Steinem and the rest of feminist movement who were oh-so vocal about sexual abuse in the workplace in the 1990s were mostly silent when it came to Clinton’s multiple sexual abuses, or worse.

The notorious 1998 New York Times op-ed by Gloria Steinem must surely stand as one of the most regretted public actions of her life. It slut-shamed, victim-blamed, and age-shamed; it urged compassion for and gratitude to the man the women accused. Moreover (never write an op-ed in a hurry; you’ll accidentally say what you really believe), it characterized contemporary feminism as a weaponized auxiliary of the Democratic Party.

Those who decried Harvey Weinstein and Roy Moore but defended Clinton have a lot to answer for their stinking hypocrisy. For those like Matthew Yglesias who now say that Clinton should have resigned, my response is this: F**k you, because you didn’t say it when it counted, you said it well after Bill Clinton was president and well after Hillary Clinton’s presidential prospects were toast. What I would rather hear is an apology and some semblance of remorse for their defending the indefensible. In this I agree with Ms. Flanagan.

The Democratic Party needs to make its own reckoning of the way it protected Bill Clinton. The party needs to come to terms with the fact that it was so enraptured by their brilliant, Big Dog president and his stunning string of progressive accomplishments that it abandoned some of its central principles. The party was on the wrong side of history, and there are consequences for that. Yet expedience is not the only reason to make this public accounting. If it is possible for politics and moral behavior to coexist, then this grave wrong needs to be acknowledged. If Weinstein and Mark Halperin and Louis C. K. and all the rest can be held accountable, so can our former president and so can his party, which so many Americans so desperately need to rise again.

More here. For the sake of intellectual and moral consistency, and while we’re on the subject of hypocrisy and sexual misconduct, Trump should also answer for some indiscretions his own self. The excuse that “they’re all lying” doesn’t wash, especially when such a response is from a serial liar. It should also go without saying that the conservatives who railed on Bill Clinton’s sexual transgressions but are excusing Roy Moore’s are being hypocritical.

Trending on Redstate Video