More than eighteen years ago, a Congresswomen from the San Francisco Bay area led a group of her Democratic female House colleagues in marching across Capitol Hill to demand a delay in the confirmation hearings of then-Judge Clarence Thomas. That woman, a Ma’am Barbara Boxer, was upset because that good man had, in a conversation with a female co-worker, supposedly made references to pubic hairs on a can of Coke and talked about a pornographic movie.
The person, a Miss Anita Hill, leveling those lurid accusations could find no one to corroborate the crime.
Well, seven years later, Ma’am would find herself in the Senate, with a man from her party in the White House. That man, a Mr. Bill Clinton, would stand accused of sexual indiscretions, all corroborated and all of which, unlike those leveled against Mr. Thomas involved physical contact. It wasn’t just Monica Lewinsky. That Democrat groped one woman in the White House while another woman accused him of raping her when he was Attorney General of Arkansas. Unlike Miss Hill, Juanita Broaddrick had corroborating evidence.
And as this information came out, you’d have expected a woman like Mrs. Boxer, so concerned about a Republican’s supposed boorish conversation would, upon learning of the aggressive actions of the then-President of the United States, have stormed the White House gates. But, not our Ma’am. She was silent, never chastised the Democrat, even thanked him after winning reelection in 1998.
Given Ma’am’s obvious double standards, you’d think the media might ask her why she was so upset about a Republican’s conversation, but indifferent to a Democrat’s behavior.
Seems for this woman, partisan politics trumps all else, even the welfare of her fellow females. And she styles herself a feminist. Let’s hope that in this era of new media, Ma’am’s constituents learn of her double standards and her partisan zealotry. The MSM certainly hasn’t done its job about telling the truth of this hypocrite.