The so called "war on women" is a phony ginned up controversy that Democrats hope to ride to majorities in the House and Senate all the way to November. They will say it is all the evil doings of those rascally Republicans. They just don't like women! They don't want them to get an education, don't want them to get jobs, they certainly don't want them to be paid the same as men for doing those jobs. They don't want them to own their own homes. Blah blah blah.
Liberals would have you think that this war on women is a recent invention. But is it really? Could it have started just a bit earlier? Could it have started in 1998? Could the first casualties be women that have been largely forgotten about? Well, yes.
Last week saw the resurgence of someone named Monica Lewinsky. Sixteen years have passed since the 24 year old White House Intern became a household word. An ugly, household word. Lewinsky is featured this month's issue of "Vanity Fair" magazine. She says it is time to "burn the beret and bury the blue dress".
The relationship between President Bill Clinton and Lewinsky surfaced during an investigation into a sexual harassment claim by Paula Jones. Jones had been a state employee during Clinton's term as Governor of Arkansas. As soon as the story became a national scandal, the Clinton search and destroy spin machine went into overdrive. Lewinsky was portrayed as a stalker who was obsessed with Clinton and would not leave him alone. First Lady Hillary Clinton characterized Lewinsky as a "narcissistic looneytoon". Everything about Monica Lewinsky's life and character was put into the Clinton shredder. Now 40 years old, she has not been able to be employed, had to go to Great Britain to earn a degree, and maintains that even though she regrets the relationship, it was entirely consensual.
Monica Lewinsky became known to the world however, because there was a pattern being established. A pattern of women who came in contact with Bill Clinton, and ended up being groped, molested, and in the case of Juanita Broaddrick, possibly raped. Bill Clinton had quite a dubious track record during his days as Governor. State Troopers told stories of how they procured what would be commonly known today as "hook ups" for Clinton.
So was it Hillary's job back then, not only to appear as the doting First Lady of Arkansas, but to make sure that if any of these women, any of these "procurements" decided to go to the press with their tales of exploits with the Gov, that they would be summarily destroyed, their lives ruined just so Bill Clinton's horn dog status was not discovered? And just so we are all on the same page, it is the Republicans who are waging a war on women?
The answer of course, is yes. Hillary Clinton may be a whole lot of things, but one thing she is not is stupid. She and her husband are the poster children for calculating politicians. But even before Bill's political career began, she knew just exactly what kind of man she was marrying. Was her own ambition so great that she was willing to take charge of any and all "bimbo eruptions" that went on? That answer also appears to be yes.
So the question remains, is Hillary Clinton a willing participant in this war on women? It seems pretty incredulous that a woman, especially one who is a member of the Party who claims to champion the rights of women everywhere, would be so quick to destroy the women who were the unfortunate victims of her husband.
Paula Jones, Gennifer Flowers, Kathleen Willey, Juanita Broaddrick, and ultimately, Monica Lewinsky may very well have taken the first shots fired if there is a "war on women". Certainly their lives have never been the same since their encounter with the Clinton machine.
Maybe the Democrats should rethink this whole war on women. When you think about it, it might even go further back than the Clintons.
Mary Jo Kopechne could not be reached for comment.
Liberals would have you think that this war on women is a recent invention. But is it really? Could it have started just a bit earlier? Could it have started in 1998? Could the first casualties be women that have been largely forgotten about? Well, yes.
Last week saw the resurgence of someone named Monica Lewinsky. Sixteen years have passed since the 24 year old White House Intern became a household word. An ugly, household word. Lewinsky is featured this month's issue of "Vanity Fair" magazine. She says it is time to "burn the beret and bury the blue dress".
The relationship between President Bill Clinton and Lewinsky surfaced during an investigation into a sexual harassment claim by Paula Jones. Jones had been a state employee during Clinton's term as Governor of Arkansas. As soon as the story became a national scandal, the Clinton search and destroy spin machine went into overdrive. Lewinsky was portrayed as a stalker who was obsessed with Clinton and would not leave him alone. First Lady Hillary Clinton characterized Lewinsky as a "narcissistic looneytoon". Everything about Monica Lewinsky's life and character was put into the Clinton shredder. Now 40 years old, she has not been able to be employed, had to go to Great Britain to earn a degree, and maintains that even though she regrets the relationship, it was entirely consensual.
Monica Lewinsky became known to the world however, because there was a pattern being established. A pattern of women who came in contact with Bill Clinton, and ended up being groped, molested, and in the case of Juanita Broaddrick, possibly raped. Bill Clinton had quite a dubious track record during his days as Governor. State Troopers told stories of how they procured what would be commonly known today as "hook ups" for Clinton.
So was it Hillary's job back then, not only to appear as the doting First Lady of Arkansas, but to make sure that if any of these women, any of these "procurements" decided to go to the press with their tales of exploits with the Gov, that they would be summarily destroyed, their lives ruined just so Bill Clinton's horn dog status was not discovered? And just so we are all on the same page, it is the Republicans who are waging a war on women?
The answer of course, is yes. Hillary Clinton may be a whole lot of things, but one thing she is not is stupid. She and her husband are the poster children for calculating politicians. But even before Bill's political career began, she knew just exactly what kind of man she was marrying. Was her own ambition so great that she was willing to take charge of any and all "bimbo eruptions" that went on? That answer also appears to be yes.
So the question remains, is Hillary Clinton a willing participant in this war on women? It seems pretty incredulous that a woman, especially one who is a member of the Party who claims to champion the rights of women everywhere, would be so quick to destroy the women who were the unfortunate victims of her husband.
Paula Jones, Gennifer Flowers, Kathleen Willey, Juanita Broaddrick, and ultimately, Monica Lewinsky may very well have taken the first shots fired if there is a "war on women". Certainly their lives have never been the same since their encounter with the Clinton machine.
Maybe the Democrats should rethink this whole war on women. When you think about it, it might even go further back than the Clintons.
Mary Jo Kopechne could not be reached for comment.
