The American people are great supporters of the underdog. ... While
Clinton was under impeachment and threat of being removed from office,
they refused to get upset about his transgressions. Surprising to a lot
of people, women were bigger supporters than men. But now that he has
been acquitted his approval ratings have tumbled precipitously, while
Jane Doe #5 tells her story.
The Juanita Broaddrick interview by NBC's Lisa Myers was finally
aired on "Dateline" this past week. After the Wall Street Journal made
it a front-page story. Even before the WSJ article the White House had
desperately tried to quash both the NBC piece and a related Fox News
article. The strong-arm tactics which have worked in the past for the
Clintons were reported in the Washington Times and by Judicial Watch.
Advertisement - story continues below
Most reviewers agree that Broaddrick's appearance was very credible
and her story was extremely believable. Even the Washington Post in a
March 2, editorial commented, "Mr. Clinton's word in this realm by now
has no value. That leaves us with an accusation that cannot be
responsibly accepted, nor easily ignored. It is a mark of where Mr.
Clinton has brought us as a country that he cannot begin to ameliorate
Fox News, who has been chronicling the Broaddrick allegations,
commissioned a poll following the NBC "Dateline" segment to ascertain
how Americans reacted to the newest allegations of rape. According to
the Fox poll 60 percent of Americans "said Broaddrick's accusations
represent a pattern of behavior by Clinton," while 62 percent believe
the allegations are likely to be true (59 percent women vs. 65 percent
men). Which goes to show that ordinary Americans really know the score
about this President.
Even Patricia Ireland, president of National Organization for Women
(NOW), commented on Broaddrick's allegation of rape against President
Clinton by stating that any allegation of rape should be taken
seriously. It appears to be only after Clinton has been acquitted that
NOW is attempting to regain its credibility among ordinary American
women. Such an effort will be hard to accomplish. The NOW statements
concerning Paula Jones' allegations and their high profile support of
Clinton during the entire impeachment and trial plainly demonstrated to
all American women that NOW was more interested in supporting Bill
Clinton than advocating strong measures against men who put their sexual
gratification ahead of everything else.
Remember this is the organization that in 1991 supported and
encouraged Anita Hill's testimony against Clarence Thomas during his
Supreme Court confirmation hearings. Her testimony stretched the
believability of what constituted sexual harassment. A re-reading of
journalist Juan Williams' Washington Post article of Oct. 10, 1991
exposes the lengths to which the liberal establishment attempted to
pillory Justice Thomas.
Advertisement - story continues below
In this article Juan, hardly a supporter of conservative causes,
details what he calls, "indiscriminate, mean-spirited mudslinging
supported by the so-called champions of fairness: liberal politicians,
unions, civil rights groups and women's organizations." In fact Williams
discusses Anita Hill and her relationship to Clarence Thomas in detail.
He also tells how the Senate Judiciary Committee staffs responsible to
Sens. Howard Metzenbaum and Ted Kennedy not only made public a sealed
FBI affidavit, but also pressed everyone they could find searching for
allegations of impropriety against Thomas. Even Anita Hill admitted that
the Senate Judiciary staff who originally called her were "interested in
talking about rumors involving sexual harassment." Interestingly, Hill
had been extensively interviewed by the FBI as well as reporters from
the Washington Post and had never accused Thomas of sexual harassment in
those interviews. Even Senator Paul Simon, a virulent opponent of
Thomas' nomination, admitted that although Hill turned down Thomas'
invitations, she "continued to get first rate assignments" and
NOW's hypocrisy in defending Clinton is even more astounding when you
look at some of the legislation they have supported. The 1994
Federal Rules of Evidence, which included Rule 415 is a law that allows
the sexual history of a defendant admissible in civil cases involving
sexual assault and child molestation. This is the rule that was cited by
Judge Susan Webber Wright when she allowed Paula Jones' lawyers to delve
into Clinton's sexual history. After all, Paula Jones had accused
Clinton of sexual assault when she stated he put his hand on her thigh
without her consent.
But this rule is now stretching Anglo-Saxon jurisprudence by allowing
the question of a person's character to become a central part of the
proceedings in both criminal and civil cases. Even former Rep. Susan
Molinari, a prime proponent of the law, admits she didn't anticipate
consequences of its use in civil sexual harassment cases. Of course, the
irony is that Clinton signed this law with great fanfare. It was touted
as a law "for the children."
Bill Clinton will serve out his second term as president of an
America whose citizenry is fully aware of his character and his capacity
for womanizing. One hundred years from now, the high-flying stock market
and a good economy will not be included in his legacy. Americans will
remember him as the president who used his public positions to get away
with assaulting women whenever he could. And no one in today's America
will be shocked if more "Jane Does" come forward with allegations
similar to those of Juanita Broaddrick. The only shocked people will be
the self-proclaimed leaders of women's movement, who are still denying
the reality of the sexual harassment charges against Bill Clinton.