The Democrats have a Bill Clinton problem: admitting that their defense of the dirt bag back in the 1990s was wrong. From Ann Coulter at anncoulter.com:
At least liberals are finally telling the truth about Bill Clinton — and just 20 years after it mattered! Of course, considering it took the Democratic Party a century to discover that slavery was wrong, two decades is lightning speed for these moral paragons.
While edging up to admitting that Bill Clinton maybe shouldn’t have raped Juanita Broaddrick and flashed Paula Jones, liberals still can’t own up to their utterly hypocritical defense of a president credibly accused of repeated sexual assaults and associated felonies.
Recently, The New York Times’ Maureen Dowd tried to cover up the left’s shameful response to Clinton’s sleazy behavior with the “both sides” argument. According to Dowd, liberals “tried to kill off” Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas “over sex when the real reason they wanted to get rid of him was politics.” And then conservatives “tried to kill off a Democratic president over sex when the real reason they wanted to get rid of him was politics.”
Here are three important differences off the top of my head:
1) Anita Hill’s accusations against Thomas involved words — just words — whereas Clinton was accused by multiple women of being a sexual predator on a scale to rival Harvey Weinstein.
2) The evidence against Thomas consisted of a single accuser, with no corroborating witnesses. The evidence against Clinton included, among other things, multiple witnesses; contemporaneous corroborating witnesses; secretly recorded confessions of the assaults and liaisons from Clinton himself (the Gennifer Flowers tape), Monica Lewinsky (Linda Tripp tapes) and Juanita Broaddrick (two separate tapes by people who wanted her to tell the truth about the rape); a DNA-stained dress; and, eventually, when he had absolutely no other choice, Clinton’s own admission under oath.
To continue reading: Sex in America, Part 2