If I posted this in GQ, it would surely end up here before long.
There is a book about to hit the shelves exposing the inner workings of various left-wing organizations like the Rainbow Coalition, NOW, et al. The author and title are eluding me at this late hour. (If I remember it, I’ll followup). One of the discussions in the book concerns NOWs silence during the the investigation and subsequent impeachment of Bill Clinton. The main argument is that there was some sort of agreement between the Administration and the leaders of NOW. Does anyone know the details of this agreement, if it even existed? If not, care to hazard an educated guess?
NOW doesn’t have the political clout to open an umbrella. Its membership is fairly small nowadays, it is very divided amongst its members, and its political infighting distracts them from doing much of anything.
It was fairly silent during the Clinton thing (which I found disappointing), but not all its members supported Clinton. Those that did, frequently did so with mixed feelings.
If I remember rightly, NOW claims that they unofficially polled their chapters across the nation and discovered that there was opposition on the order of 8-1 against filing a friend-of-the-court brief in… one of the many sexual harrassment suits or associated cases involving Clinton. I don’t have a cite for that and I’m not sure I believe those numbers, but that’s what I remember NOW’s explanation was at the time.
Despite the ragging they got for it, NOW was also pretty outspoken about the President’s actions. I remember one of their press releases asked the President to drop his “nuts or sluts” defense against the numerous charges which erupted during the course of the Paula Jones hearings. That may have post-dated the actual impeachment, though.
It is also possible NOW simply feels Democractic administrations represent them better than Republican, and
didn’t want to help damage the Clinton administration.
Doesn’t NOW usually support the Dems? (I should check on that). If so, then it could have simply been partisanship.
Come on folks. There are no conspiracies necessary here. The point is that politics makes strange bedfellows…particularly when you delve into the comparison between a politician’s private life and his public deeds.
After all, do you think there was a similar conspiracy necessary to explain why the religious Right supported Reagan over Carter when Carter was a deeply religious man and Reagan never went to church and was quite a playboy in his younger days.
Simply speaking, I don’t think NOW felt it was in the best interests of advancing their agenda for women to tear down Clinton given the abysmal record on women’s issues of most of those who were opposing him. That being said, Sofa King points out that NOW was not completely silent on the issue either.
The “nuts and sluts” denouncement from NOW came after impeachment on Feb 25, 1999 and related to attacks on Juanita Broaddrick. You can read the entire text of the press release here at NOW’s website.
OTOH, a Dec 13, 1998 press release urges support for President Clinton in the impeachment trial.
I suppose I’ll have to wait until the book is released and evaluate whatever evidence is presented. Of course it’s all politics, jshore. I have no conspiratorial leanings. It was a curious twist. I’m merely in the details of the quid pro quo. Was it related to the Violence Against Women Act? Perhaps related to audits?
Tom Waits Patiently - Your comments are neither useful nor necessary.