Gloria Steinem: No Regrets For 1998 Column In Support Of Clinton . . . But Would Not Write The Column Today

For full disclosure, I testified in favor of the impeachment of Bill Clinton before Congress for his lying under oath.  At the time, I was astonished by the blind following for Clinton among not only feminists but professors who abandoned core principles to defend Clinton.
Steinem’s current position is as opportunistic and transparent as her 1998 column.  She says that she would not write the same column today but that she does not regret writing the column.  In that column, she said that it was not sexual harassment for Clinton as Arkansas attorney general to allegedly sexually assault multiple women or, as President,  making advances on women working for him.

“We have to believe women. I wouldn’t write the same thing now because there’s probably more known about other women now. I’m not sure . . . What you write in one decade you don’t necessarily write in the next. But I’m glad I wrote it in that decade.”

What?  I am not even sure what Steinem means by “there’s probably more known about other women now.”  The column was written on March 22, 1998.  That was after all of the women had come forward or been named from Broaddrick to Flowers to Jones to Willey to Tripp to Lewinsky.  It was after after Clinton declared “I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky.” It was after Hillary Clinton denounced these women as little more than “bimbo eruptions.”  It was after the Starr report detailing these accounts.  Indeed, she wrote the column just before impeachment.

In other words, Steinem rationalization is . . .  Clintonesque.

Among the allegations that Steinem knew about at the time was the claim of rape by Broaddrick, claims that respected investigatory journalist Lisa Myers and others found credible.  They did not take the convenient approach of Steinem at the time and now do not have to maintain that they have “no regrets but would not have said the same thing” spin of Steinem.


Of course, such open hypocrisy will have little effect on Steinem or her followers. Indeed, the adoring crowds still following Clinton demonstrate the ability of people to rationalize conflicting positions.  The same phenomenon is apparent in the Roy Moore controversy with people struggling not to believe a remarkably broad collection of women, former neighbors, former colleagues, and security officers.

Steinem once said that “Women may be the one group that grows more radical with age.” Perhaps so, but in Steinem’s case, the same cannot be said for honesty.

61 thoughts on “Gloria Steinem: No Regrets For 1998 Column In Support Of Clinton . . . But Would Not Write The Column Today”

  1. Gloria, I’ll see your “allegations” and raise you a “provable rape in the first degree.”

    Republicans will be fools if they abandon Judge Roy Moore and allow Conyers, Clinton, Hillary the “enabler” and their ilk to persist with impunity.

  2. Public Relations 101: to restore your standing, viciously attack the person (people) your disenchanted constituents hate. Ignore any hypocrisy or claim those claiming such are the real hypocrits.

    Ah, the liberal reputation restoration tour has begun. I bet he doesn’t believe the Clinton women though. Transparent Billy, awfully transparent.

      1. The Clinton’s are has- beens, thankfully but Trump needs to held accountable. The women are not lying.

        1. I hope you’re right, SWM. They, especially Hillary, are not acting like has beens.

      1. Guess he doesn’t like it when Trump is called out on sexual assault. Sexual assault is not a partisan issue.

        1. So Clinton actually abused women and Trump engaged in locker room talk with a no name TV host. Thank you for reminding us.

          By the way, when Trump made the Billy Bush comments he was a Democrat – just like Roy Moore was prior to 1992.

    1. I wonder what we would hear if we recorded a men’s locker room; all men’s locker room’s; the barracks in the military; the local bar; anywhere that men gather.

      You have got to be kidding me.

      The only thing this proves is that the the 19th amendment must be immediately repealed so that women can go back to perpetuating and growing the American population enabling America to end the importation of hyphenates for its population.

  3. Ken: You let Clinton slide on his statement about the meaning of the word “is.” But if you look at a transcript of Trump’s comment, he never said HE grabbed anyone or “I grabbed.” He said there are women who would allow a famous person to do that. He said YOU could do it. In a recent interview, former Baywatch star Suzanne Sommers said many of the women who are now coming forward about Harvey Weinstien knew exactly what they were getting into when they visited him alone. Because HW’s conduct was such an open secret, I thought the same thing from the beginning. I’m glad a prominent female celebrity came forward to justify my thinking.

  4. Camile Paglia on Gloria Steinem:

    “What Playboy doesn’t know about well-educated, upper-middle-class women with bitter grievances against men could fill a book! I don’t regard Gloria Steinem as an expert on any of the human appetites, sexuality being only one of them. Interviews with Steinem were documenting from the start how her refrigerator contained nothing but two bottles of carbonated water. Steinem’s philosophy of life is extremely limited by her own childhood experiences. She came out of an admittedly unstable family background. I’m so tired of that animus of hers against men, which she’s been cranking out now for decade after decade. I come from a completely different Italian-American background — very food-centric and appetite-centric. Steinem, with that fulsomely genteel WASP persona of hers, represents an attitude of malice and vindictiveness toward men that has not proved to be in the best interest of young women today…Steinem is basically a socialite who always hid her early dependence on men in the social scene in New York. And as a Democrat, I also blame her for having turned feminism into a covert adjunct of the Democratic party. I have always felt that feminism should transcend party politics and be a big tent welcoming women of faith and of all views into it. Also, I hold against Steinem her utter, shameless hypocrisy during the Bill Clinton scandal. After promoting sexual harassment guidelines, which I had also supported since the 1980s, Steinem waved away one of the worst cases of sexual harassment violation that can ever be imagined — the gigantic gap of power between the President of the United States and an intern! All of a sudden, oh, no, it was all fine, it was “private.” What rubbish! That hypocrisy by partisan feminist leaders really destroyed feminism for a long time. So now feminism has rebounded, but unfortunately it’s a particularly virulent brand of feminism that’s way too reminiscent of the MacKinnon-Dworkin sex hysteria of the 1980s.”

    From an October interview.

      1. Nick,
        Glad to have posted it. I was hoping for a recent interview or article by Camile on this topic. Perhaps in the next week or two. We can hope! I follow her, too.

  5. She most certainly would defend Bill Clinton again. Leopards don’t change their spots.

  6. Not a surprise to me: Steinem has made her “career” pretending to speak for all women. Anyone on this planet for more than two years, knows that is impossibe. She’s just another charlatan who cashed in on the generational fad of “identity politics.” They’re a shrinking demographic now, living within their small “sanctuary” around San Francisco.

    1. T rump assaulted
      More women than Billy Clinton and it is 20 years
      Later. Yet the T rump sits in
      The oval
      Lyin and blamin da women.

  7. In other words, she’s a hypocrite. A shame her mother hadn’t taken Gloria’s advice and elected an abortion instead of bringing Steinem into this world.

  8. Jonathan, you should read Rep. Mo Brooks’ article on Judge Moore, a former opponent, in Breitbart. Brooks was an Alabama prosecutor and examines the forty year old accusations in detail. Men who commit these acts continue that behavior throughout their lives like Bill Clinton but no evidence of that with Judge Moore.

  9. (music)
    Bumping Bill has up and gone away….
    Waaay hey hey.

    He lives with his wifey poo and wants back in the House.
    We are talking White House, house house.

    Here’s to you Mrs. Robinson…..Jumpin bill has up and gone away….

  10. Another victimizer for profit of women and supporter of Bubba’s Cute Butt as an excuse.

  11. Ethics cease to be ethics when they are used for convenience and opportunism.

  12. Sorry GLORIA. You can’t take a mulligan!


    1. These bloggers here defend da pervert in chief we have now on an hourly basis. Talk about hypocrites.

  13. I have many objections to the acts of President Clinton. He often did not act in the best interests of the American people. That is distinct, maybe, from his bimbo erections.

    1. David Benson – Hillary called them bimbo eruptions, not bimbo erections, Although your phrase is more accurate. 🙂

        1. David Benson – you know that claiming ‘artistic license’ requires an actual artist’s license. And you have to be able to display the license on demand. Since I retired, I quit paying membership dues so I no longer have the privilege. I have my old card somewhere, though.

            1. David Benson – you have to recognized as an artiste by your peers. This usually comes with your college diploma from a school involved in the arts, like mine. How about you? I think you are taking license where you have none. 😉

              1. Two of my children went to art schools. That’s good enough for Turley’s blog.

                1. David Benson – stealing from your children is a poor excuse. Really, David, I am so disappointed in you. 😉

                    1. David Benson – I earned my artiste card, I did not steal it from my children. 😉

                    2. David Benson – It is 5:30am here and 4:30am where you are. Why should either of us be going to bed. Since I started teaching I have always been an early riser. The house is quiet and I can get a lot of work done before I go out the door to work. What is your excuse? 🙂

  14. Steinem has and always will be a hypocrite. To expect more of her is to ask for a complete personality change. She will still defend and vote for Hillary, even though Hillary did her best to destroy the women that Bill went to bed with (consensually or non-consensually).

  15. Total hypocrisy, total frauds, Ms. Steinem, both Clinton’s, Roy Moore and actually, most politicians, habitual liars, at least that is my opinion of them. Sir, I am going to reblog this article for you.

Comments are closed.