Wednesday, June 18, 2014

To malign Hillary Clinton, right wing channels radical feminism's nutty hostility to due process

Have you read the news about the Hillary tapes? Go read it here. Heaven forbid, she once actually defended an accused rapist when she was a public defender, and a recording has surfaced where she recounted the case.

To score political points, the law and order zanies on the right are suggesting that criminal defendants are not worthy of a defense if the defense doesn't mesh with radical feminist platitudes.

These are the same sort of kooks who joined hands with radical feminist kooks to give us the much maligned Fed.R.Evid. 413, among the most unjust laws on the books.

Hillary Clinton's long record on the national stage furnishes plenty of ammunition for her opponents -- from Whitewater to her tall-tale about landing in Bosnia under sniper fire to the security lapses in Benghazi. Larry David -- no conservative -- mocked her famous 2008 television ad about the phone ringing in the White House at 3 a.m.: "Here's an idea for an Obama ad: a montage of Clinton's Sybillish personalities that have surfaced during the campaign with a solemn voiceover at the end saying, 'Does anyone want this nut answering the phone?'" The last thing Hillary's opponents should do to make their case against her is to channel radical feminism's nutty hostility to due process.

The progressive media and left wing is no less two-faced. When, for example, Julian Assange and Al Gore were accused of sexual assault, left-wingers suddenly became the defenders of due process and fairness, roles they happily abandon whenever the accused are college-age men unworthy of the left's fealty (can you say Duke lacrosse and Hofstra?).

There is too much at stake to entrust sexual assault and the due process owed to men accused of it to ideologues. The kooks on the right and the kooks on the left need to stop using these issues to advance their kooky agendas.