Remembering Clarence Thomas and Anita Hill, 20 Years Later

Is Jamie of DC Jamie Stiehm or another Jamie? If it is Jamie Stiehm my head really wants to explode because of your response to me about Bill Clinton in your post about Anita Hill and Clarence Thomas. I reminded Jamie of an earlier post of how she claimed Joe Lieberman was grandstanding by not being Bill Clinton’s friend about the impeachment hearings after Bill got his rocks off in the oval office with Monica, plus all of the other accusations (rape, exposing himself, other affairs) and how the accusations against Clinton were much worse than the accusations against Thomas. Jamie’s response to me was”Lieberman is a bit of a grandstanding opportunist, and that was a moment when the president really needed his friends. “Even if this is not Jamie Stiehm, if it a Bill Clinton supporter the level of liberal hypocrisy is unbelievable. But Jamie carried on about how Bill Clinton needed his friends during that time, but what is more of a powerful man preying on a woman, than the president of the United States with a 20 year old starry eyed intern? Once again if it is Stiehm, the quote” Powerful men who prey on women and children rely on a code of loyalty and silence to protect them. To be a bystander is unforgivable.” is an unbelievable level of hypocrisy, and verifies a belief that I have held for a long time that liberals lack the chromosome that gives any logical thought. By that quote Lieberman was doing exactly what he should have done, and it sounds like it was Jamie is grandstanding.

kewaal of GA 3:01PM November 12, 2011

I was going to respond to your latest post, but since you responded to me here, so will I. You have done it again, stating the president needed his friends. My problem with liberals and Bill Clinton is not just the Monica Lewinsky, but also the accusations from Paula Jones and Juanita Braddwick. NOW jumped all over the Clarence Thomas issue, but when Paula Jones was making her accusations, NOW said they had moved on to other issues. In other words s they would destroy a conservative for accusations of making crude remarks, but would not say anything against a liberal for accusations of exposing himself. Now as far as Lewinsky, you have a starry eyed young intern who is getting attention from the president. That is someone of power taking sexual advantage of another person, even if it was consensual. I still have doubts about Anita Hill, if for no other reason than if Thomas was such a horrible person, why did she follow him to his next job. I think there was revenge for something in her actions.

Now back to the Monica thing, Clinton was not impeached for getting his rocks off in the Oval Office as liberals like to portray it. He was impeached for lying to a Grand Jury. That is against the law, do you not believe in the law? Once again you have someone accused of worse acts than Thomas was, with Jones and Juanita Broaddrick and Monica, regardless whether it was consensual or not, he took advantage of a starry eyed kid, and your main complaint is that Clinton needed his friend Lieberman to stand by his side. Maybe Jones needed the help of NOW, even though they say they had moved on to other issues (If it had been a conservative, I think they would have jumped all over it). One thing I will say about Starr, I am sure he believed the tax evasion accusations, but since he could get enough proof for a charge (largely thanks to Hillary and others obstructing the investigation) he went after Clinton for charges he could prove. You like they went after Capone for charges that could be proven.

kewaal of GA 9:26AM November 10, 2011

The same time Anita Hill was going through her hearings, I suffered a considerable amount of similar adverse treatment at work and I didn’t know what to do. Because of Anita Hill I learned it was against the law what they were doing to me. I documented everything and filed a complaint with the EEOC and every single person who has made me suffer got what was coming to them. Thank you, Anita Hill, for saving me.

L. Thomas of FL 10:00PM November 02, 2011

This is amazing to me, read these words:” The reason President Clinton was acquitted at his impeachment trial in the Senate for a fling with Monica Lewinsky was because he built bonds of loyalty, teamwork and camaraderie with Democrats in both houses of Congress. Not one of them came forward on the floor to speak against him, except pious Sen. Joe Lieberman, who suggested a censure. He was utterly alone in his opportunistic little ploy. Clinton's true friends all stood by him in the Senate—because he was their president.”

These are Jamie’s word from a previous column, where it sounds to me like she was saying Clinton’s harassment was ok, because he had friends and he was the liberal’s friend. And that Lieberman was being a jerk for actually believing the accusations against a fellow liberal. So does this mean if you are a popular liberal there should be no recourse for actually perform sex acts that could be harassment, but if you are a conservative and the only accusation (and it was one person’s word against another) is that you made crude remarks, then you should be crucified. If Thomas made the remarks, I am not taking up for Thomas, but once again I have always wondered why Hill followed him if he was so horrible. My real point is why all the pit for Hill over allegedly listening to crude remarks, and all of the praises for Clinton when there were accusation of rape, a proven sex encounter with an intern, and accusations of exposing himself? Gee, could liberals have a double standard?

kewaal of GA 11:11PM November 01, 2011