An Open Letter to NOW and Hillary Clinton Supporters

I am a woman who strongly believes every woman is entitled to equal rights and equal pay. I do not believe these issues should be should be tied to a person's gender. I also receive newsletters in my email frequently from NOW, aka the National Organization for Women. I don't support NOW financially because so many of my personal beliefs conflict with their agenda but I do enjoy reading their newsletters and being in the "know" of their stance on current events. After all, they are supposedly and organization dedicated to advancing and ensuring the rights of women. This leads me to a burning question I have: How can an organization devoted to women come out and strongly support a candidate like Hillary Clinton? Indeed, how can anyone who respects women support her?

I am in no way trying to bash those who support Hillary Clinton. I simply do not understand. In fact, I'd personally love to see a woman worthy of respect and admiration sit in the Oval Office. What a wonderful example for our daughters! In my mind, though, I cannot reconcile how Hillary Clinton fits the bill. In fact, Hillary is the polar opposite of the role model I want for my daughter.

Hillary cannot be judged independent of the husband she stands beside and supports, Bill Clinton. The simple act of staying married says she condones his actions. Parading him around for publicity says she condones his actions. Promising to give him power if she is elected, again, condones his actions. Exactly what actions is she condoning and why should the average woman care?

Bill Clinton is known for his flings, his promiscuity. This aspect of Bill Clinton is often the subject of jokes on late night talk shows and comedy routines. Is it really that funny, though? Is there humor in his actions? This man is an abuser of women. He has used his power to intimidate women. And Hillary approves.

Gennifer Flowers is the first woman who comes to mind. Bill Clinton had a 12 year affair with Ms. Flowers. Of course, he vehemently denied the affair. His campaign did everything possible to smear her. They called her names such as "vindictive bimbo" and "liar" while, according to Ms. Flowers, private investigators were interviewing her friends and acquaintances across the country in an attempt to dig up dirt and discredit her. Ms. Flowers saved messages "someone" with Clinton's voice left on her answering machine advising her to say nothing, that the press will ignore stories like this unless someone says "Yeah, I did it with him." In the end, Ms. Flowers was vindicated. Years later, during a deposition in the Paula Jones lawsuit Bill Clinton admitted his affair with Ms. Flowers. So who was the liar? And was the "bimbo" really vindictive or was she simply telling the truth? And since when is it okay for men in prominent positions to resort to that sort of degrading name calling? Does NOW support calling Ms. Flowers a bimbo? And what does that make the man who had the 12 year affair with her? Or the wife of the man who still stands by him?

In a more serious accusation Bill Clinton was accused of forcible rape. Juanita Broaddick was encouraged by a long time friend in a heart felt letter to come forward with the story of her rape upon hearing Mr. Clinton was running for President. Up until that point, Ms. Broaddick had said nothing, trying to put the alleged ordeal behind her. At the time the supposed rape occurred she had confided in this friend and no one else. She was persuaded, with nothing to gain, to come forward. Fortunately for Mr. Clinton the statutes of limitation protected him from criminal charges. At the same time, the FBI interviewed Ms. Broaddick and she retracted her allegations. Does this mean it didn't happen? The media was all too happy to let the story go, as was NOW. Personally, I can't imagine any woman who has been violently raped by a powerful man and is not in a position to press charges wanting to relive her experience for nothing, only to be another woman slandered and demeaned by the Clinton machine. What can be said is the Ms. Broaddick was a woman of sound reputation and strong morals. In addition, she did not have a history of lying nor was there any pattern to her behavior which would lead one to think she was attention hungry. Who would you believe? And would you stay married to this type of man or take his word on any matter regarding his sex life? And one more question, why was it that a woman who recently asked Hillary Clinton about this rape was forcibly removed from the room and escorted off the premises? Will anyone be able ask Hillary the tough questions and also get honest answers?

Kathleen Willey, a former White House volunteer, was another woman who made accusations against Bill Clinton. According to Ms. Willey, during testimony in the Paula Jones deposition, she approached Bill Clinton in the Oval Office one day. She was asking a favor of Mr. Clinton- her husband needed a paying job. It was there that she claimed Bill Clinton groped her, kissed her, and forced her hand to his genital region. In an ironic twist, her husband committed suicide that same day. Do we know if Ms. Willey was telling the truth? No, we do not. It is the word of this "woman" against the word of Bill Clinton. Once again, Bill Clinton denies everything and for some reason people continue believing him. Hillary smiles and stands by her man, again.

Now that leaves us with the two more well known Clinton "women"- Paula Jones and Monica Lewinsky. With Ms. Lewinsky, after much denial (again) he finally admitted to having sexual relations with "that woman". I suppose this is okay, though? I mean, he's only a man. I'm certain Hillary wouldn't be upset if she found out that Chelsea, while interning for George W. Bush, was playing cigar games with him in the Oval Office and lying to the world and Laura about it. Would she still look the other way? I doubt it.

As for Paula Jones, she certainly brought out numerous Clinton lies during the depositions. However, her claim was that Bill Clinton invited her to his hotel room where he flashed her and that her rejection of him affected her job and pay. Naturally, Clinton denied this as well. Did it happen? Again, no one knows for sure except for the two parties present. Ms. Jones's credibility, though, is as shaky as Bill Clinton's. One can't say for sure. One can only guess based on existing and consistent patterns of behavior. Besides, Hillary supports him and that's what matters.

Looking at this history, the way women were treated by Bill Clinton, the undeniable support of Hillary Clinton- how can one be pro woman and pro Hillary? How can her supporters explain this? Is it that Hillary Clinton doesn't care about these women or just these "types" of women? Is rape not worth investigating? Or are Hillary's morals less important to her than the power she hopes to attain by having Bill Clinton as her husband? Or does she not have morals at all? And what kind of role model is she really for girls and women everywhere? What do her personal actions say about the role of the wife in today's society? Put up with anything if he has power and money? Support your man no matter what? And what about the consistent course of action the Clintons take upon allegations? Deny everything, launch a campaign to attack your accuser, and only tell the truth if you are forced to by evidence? Is that the type of character we want leading our nation? Is Hillary the woman who should set the example for women everywhere that they can do anything? Can Hillary Clinton be trusted to do what's right or will she stay consistent with her own pattern of behavior- doing whatever (morals be damned) gives Hillary the most power?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/players/willey.htm