War on sexual predators might be different under President Hillary


Would the war against preying on women be blazing so fiercely had Hillary Clinton been elected?

When I interviewed women in Hollywood about the ugly Harvey Weinstein revelations in The Times and The New Yorker, they told me that feelings of frustration and disgust at having an accused predator in the White House instead of the first female president had helped give the story velocity.

When I talked to Susan Fowler, after her blog post about sexual harassment at Uber that toppled its CEO, Travis Kalanick, she said that before Donald Trump’s election, women in Silicon Valley were speaking up but no one was listening.

“I think it was different this year because Trump won and people felt powerless,” she said. “I know I did. I felt super powerless. Because I felt, with Obama in the White House, I could just take for granted that good people were in charge.”

It is also interesting to speculate: If Hillary were in the Oval, would some women have failed to summon the courage to tell their Weinstein horror stories because the producer was also a power behind the Clinton throne? As Janice Min, the former editor of The Hollywood Reporter, told me, when Barack Obama stepped off a stage and into Weinstein’s arms for a big hug after giving a $400,000 speech as an ex-president in the spring, it sent a signal that the ogre was in a protected magic circle.

And, finally, would Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand and other liberals still be saying in the past few days that Bill Clinton should have resigned the presidency over his own sexual misdeeds if he now occupied the first lady’s quarters and reigned over a potent Clinton political machine?

Or would feminists and liberals make the same Faustian bargain they made in 1998: protect Bill on his retrogressive behavior toward women because the Clintons have progressive policies toward women? So what if a few women are collateral damage, they might ask — again. Wouldn’t you rather have Bill and Bill’s enabler, Hillary, than Donald?

You may wonder why in the year 2017, after so many graphic and scalding national seminars on sexual predation over the last 26 years, we are still trying to come to terms with it.

Perhaps because in those earlier traumatic sagas, both the left and the right rushed in to twist them for their own ideological ends. The stench of hypocrisy overpowered the perfume of justice.

First, with Clarence Thomas, a feminist lynch mob tried to kill off a conservative Supreme Court nominee over sex when the real reason they wanted to get rid of him was politics. Then, with Bill Clinton, a conservative lynch mob tried to kill off a Democratic president over sex when the real reason they wanted to get rid of him was politics.

Institutional feminism died when Gloria Steinem, Madeleine Albright and other top feminists vouched for President Clinton as he brazenly lied about never having had a sexual relationship with “that woman” — Monica Lewinsky. The Clintons and feminists were outraged when Thomas’s supporters painted Anita Hill as “a little bit nutty and a little bit slutty.” Yet that was precisely the Clintonian tact when women spoke up about Bill’s misbehaving.

Time and again, Hillary was a party to demonizing women as liars, bimbos, trailer trash or troubled souls when it seemed clear they were truthful about her philandering husband. She often justified this by thinking of the women as instruments of the right-wing conspiracy.

As I reported in ’98, even some veteran Clinton henchmen felt a little nauseated about the debate inside the White House on a slander strategy for Lewinsky: Should they paint her as a friendly fantasist or a malicious stalker?

Following the Clintons’ lead, Trump dismissed the more than dozen women who stood up to accuse him of sexual transgressions as politically motivated liars.

Are the liberals who now say Bill should have resigned because they want to clear the decks to better go after Trump, thinking that sex may be a more effective weapon than Russia to bring him down?



Reader Comments ...


Next Up in Opinion

Palm Beach Post Editorial cartoon: Jan. 16
Palm Beach Post Editorial cartoon: Jan. 16

CARTOON VIEW MIKE LUCKOVICH
Letters: Tax cuts will spell success for Republicans

The lines are clearly marked. The Democrats call the Trump tax cut a disaster that will benefit only the wealthy and big corporations and increase the national debt. The Republicans call the tax cut a great economic stimulus that will bring back jobs and wealth by encouraging industry to return to America, create new businesses and give the average...
POINT OF VIEW: Tweeting damages Trump’s presidency. So why do it?

In reflecting on America’s politics of the last year, it is impossible not to conclude that the president’s tweeting has been momentous. So far, I am unaware of any organization that has quantified exactly how much damage President Donald Trump has caused by tweeting, but I think some substantial percentage of his problems and negative...
POINT OF VIEW: Another use for the state’s Sadowski Housing funds

There may be a better use for the state’s Sadowski Housing Trust Fund revenue than handing it over to local officials. While Palm Beach County Commissioner Paulette Burdick has a point about the need for affordable housing, which the fund was meant to provide, I have little faith that the counties and cities in need of affordable housing will...
Letters 2018 ballot box is best way to impede Trump’s power

Ballot box way to impede Trump Please let’s stop talking about impeachment. It’s not going to happen. Even if it did, consider who’s waiting in the wings. The only solution to President Donald Trump is to trounce the GOP in the 2018 elections ( which may reduce the travesties being performed) and then get rid of Trump, et.al., in...
More Stories