So on what basis do liberals argue that Associate Justice Clarence Thomas’ personal conduct was no vile that he not qualified to sit on the Supreme Court, but B.J. Clinton’s personal conduct should both be defended and lauded?
Monica Lewinsky has been rescued from her safe house and thrust back in the news, from Rebecca Traister, New Republic [1]:
[Gender] feminist exchanges got clogged up and confused around Bill Clinton. In the years after Anita Hill’s testimony against Clarence Thomas helped to hammer the meaning of the term “sexual harassment” into an American consciousness, feminists—who loved Bill Clinton, the president who’d signed the Family and Medical Leave Act, was friendly to reproductive rights, put Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the Supreme Court, and had a dazzlingly accomplished wife and partner—stayed comparatively silent when he was accused of sexual harassment by Paula Jones and was discovered having had a relationship with the White House intern.
It is all about killing unborn babies. Support the right of mothers to kill their yet to be born children and liberal cows of feminism will worship at your feet, or even a couple feet higher.