Home  |   Jihad Watch  |   Horowitz  |   Archive  |   Columnists  |     DHFC  |  Store  |   Contact  |   Links  |   Search Friday, May 25, 2018
FrontPageMag Article
Write Comment View Comments Printable Article Email Article
Their Lives By: Jamie Glazov
FrontPageMagazine.com | Thursday, June 30, 2005

Purchase Their Lives by Candice Jackson in the FrontPage Magazine Bookstore for the special price of $25.95!

Frontpage Interview’s guest today is Candice Jackson, a self-described libertarian feminist, an attorney and commentator from Los Angeles. She is the author of the new book Their Lives: The Women Targeted by the Clinton Machine.

Preview Image

FP: Candice Jackson, welcome to Frontpage Interview.


Jackson: Thank you, it's an honor to talk with you.


FP: What inspired you to write this book?


Jackson: It's bothered me for years that the Clintons escaped with political reputations for being champions of women's rights while so many individual women have accused them of such extreme harassment and even abuse.  After working for the legal organization Judicial Watch I was familiar with the stories of some of these women, since Judicial Watch has represented some of them over the years.  When Bill Clinton announced he was releasing his memoirs, that was the last straw -- I could guess that his autobiography My Life would be missing a few chapters and decided to write a book featuring the lives of some of the women he and his smear team have tried to destroy.


FP: Tell us some of the shocking new revelations of what the Clinton machine did to the women who crossed romantic paths with Bill Clinton.


JacksonIt seems that most people were left with the impression throughout the 1990s that Bill Clinton's behavior toward women was "just" a matter of sexual indiscretion.  What actually happened to these women -- the real core of their mistreatment by Clinton and his team -- had nothing to do with consensual affairs, and everything to do with serious threats of bodily harm, being followed and tracked by private investigators, attempted bribery, and public smear campaigns.  Of course, this type of mistreatment by the Clinton machine only added to the fear and humiliation inflicted on some of these women by Clinton himself -- in the case of Paula Jones, Kathleen Willey, and Juanita Broaddrick, they received this kind of harassment and intimidation after they had already been sexually molested by Clinton.  When you see the pattern of abuse against these women in perspective, it is truly shocking and disturbing.  Of all the women I write about, Juanita Broaddrick perhaps is a victim of the Clintons in the truest sense: she presents a very credible accusation of rape at the hands of Bill Clinton, yet there has been no public outcry or pressure on Clinton to apologize, and the Clinton team simply ignores that horrendous abuse and defends his "record on women's rights."


FP: What do you think this behaviour of Clinton and his people says about their politics? In the book you make some insights into the connection between Clinton’s misogyny and pursuit of power at any cost with his liberal ideology. Can you share some of your wisdom with us?


Jackson:  I don't know about "wisdom," but my political analysis of the Clinton team's misogyny led me to conclude that there are actually principles of liberalism that help promote this kind of mistreatment of women.  For example, liberalism constantly focuses on group rights rather than individual rights.  This approach easily lends itself to mistreating women the way that Bill Clinton did, because as a liberal, he promoted policies that supposedly helped women as a group and if he had to trample on the rights of a few individual women along the way, it was all for the greater good.  Another example I point to is the principle of liberalism that permits political force to be used to accomplish all goals.  That is, liberals say "protect the environment" or "gender equality" are good goals for us to have, but they insist on using political force (laws, regulations) to coerce us all into reaching those goals.  This principle can foster misogynistic behavior toward women.  When your politics say force is an acceptable method to achieve your goals, it's easier to rationalize using sexual force against a woman like Juanita Broaddrick to accomplish your personal goal and force her to submit to you.

FP: What lies in the human heart and psyche that yearns to destroy the former object of one’s desire?

JacksonI'm no psychologist -- just a lawyer -- so I defer to experts on the particular psychological and emotional pathologies that contribute to misogyny in a person like Bill Clinton.  From my study and research into Clinton's behavior toward women, though, I venture to conclude that he is amazingly narcissistic, and expect good feelings and praise to be handed to him whether he's earned it or not.  So, he simply expects that women will respond to his advances, and he may not even perceive himself as an abuser.  And when any woman threatens his political career by coming forward to accuse him, the natural choice is to do whatever it takes to silence and discredit her.

FP: Tell us about the psychology of Hillary, who, as you demonstrate, has been complicit in terrorizing these women.

JacksonWithout claiming a specialty in psychology, my analysis of Hillary Clinton focuses on her public choices and actions with respect to these women who have come forward against her husband.  At all times, for more than twenty years, Hillary Clinton has been willing not only to defend her husband but to participate in the public smears and attacks against these women.  For a supposed strong, independent, feminist women, this behavior is reprehensible.  I have to conclude that she's either as misogynistic as her husband, or she's willing to step on women to protect her political ambitions.  It's probably the latter, and it doesn't add up to the picture of a woman I would want as President.  I'm a libertarian feminist, and I would love to see a female President soon, but electing Hillary Clinton would be a dramatic step backwards for women's rights in this country because she's done so much to contribute to serious mistreatment of women.

FP: What does it mean exactly to be a “libertarian” feminist?

Jackson: The "libertarian" part of this label means that I advocate minimal government intrusion into our lives.  Government should set up basic laws designed to protect our lives and property, and should apply those laws as fairly and equally as possible.  The "feminist" part of this label means that I advocate respect for women and participation of women at all levels of society -- leadership, politics, business, sports, etc.  However, as a libertarian, I don't believe it's government's place to force us to adopt "non-discrimination" regulations, affirmative action measures, or other laws supposedly designed to "help" women as a target group.

FP: What is the psychology of the feminists who support Clinton even after knowing all of these truths? Women’s rights obviously isn’t their interest. Their disinterest in the plight of women under Islamism’s gender apartheid already tells us that. So what are they interested in?

JacksonI spend a lot of time in Their Lives analyzing the so-called feminist groups' reactions to the way the Clintons mistreated women.  The real problem with modern feminism is that it has become exclusively a left-wing club.  Only liberals and left-wingers call themselves feminists these days, but their true interest isn't respect for women -- it's the left-wing agenda.  With Bill and Hillary Clinton, the left-wing agenda (e.g., abortion rights, equal pay for equal work, gender affirmative action) were in good hands, and the way the Clintons actually treated individual women just didn't matter much to feminists.  Part of what I hope we learn from taking a close look at the Clintons' abuse of women is that we desperately need for conservatives and libertarians to embrace a version of feminism that actually calls for respect for women in our society and cares about genuine abuse of women.

 FP: I have always had this creepy feeling upon observing Bill and Hillary Clinton. Deep down, they do not appear to care about anything, about any principle or about any value. What is it that they care about? Just their own power?


Jackson: The Clintons do care about preserving their own power, but I believe they are liberals to the core, and as such, they actually believe that their power is for the greater good.  They will do whatever it takes to protect their political careers -- including trampling on anyone who gets in their way -- not simply because they crave power, but because they truly believe their political careers are for the benefit of "the public" or "the country" as a whole.  It's a paternalistic, narcissistic perspective that invades liberalism in general, and the Clintons in particular.


FP: I know you do not pose as a professional psychologist, but just tell us what you think: in terms of the misogynist character that you reveal to be inside Bill Clinton, what is it that you think attracted – and continues to attract – Hillary to him? This is pretty morbid stuff isn’t it? What does she get out of this and out of all his affairs, etc?


Jackson: I can't comment on how much genuine love and affection Hillary Clinton has for her husband.  She is certainly willing to overlook, and even embrace, his misogynistic, abusive tendencies, which is a puzzle because Hillary is supposed to be such a strong, feminist woman.  I point out in my book that there are decent, charming qualities about Bill Clinton that seduced a lot of women into falling for him, and perhaps Hillary sees some of those same qualities.  There's no doubt in my mind that Bill Clinton is a brilliant man, and his intellect and ambition are probably still very attractive to Hillary.  Of course, they are each better off politically being together than they would be apart.   I'm not in a position to classify their marriage as one of convenience versus true love, but whatever the true nature of their relationship, their behavior toward women should be strongly criticized.


FP: If there was justice meted out to be Bill and Hillary Clinton for all they have done to harm these womens’ lives, what would that justice entail?


Jackson: At this point in time, there are no legal remedies to be had against the Clintons for these women.  The only forms of justice that remain open to these women would be a sincere acknowledgment and apology by the Clintons to each of these women for the specific harms inflicted on them.  That kind of acknowledgment and apology could heal a lot of wounds and even promote a deeper understanding in our society of the need to treat women as individuals worthy of respect.


FP: Imagine if Bush and his wife engaged in this behaviour that the Clintons have. They would probably be severely punished. What do you think it is in our culture that exonerates people like Clinton and his wife from their malicious behaviour?


Jackson: Many factors combine to allow the Clintons a free pass for behavior that would certainly mean the political deaths of conservative politicians.  When it comes to the sad issue of the Clintons' abuse of women, the key factors are (1) the mainstream media's unwillingness to hold the Clintons accountable, and (2) feminist groups' willingness to accept a few female casualties in order to protect the Clintons' liberal political goals.  The rest of us bear some responsibility too; I think one of the reasons the Clintons continue to escape accountability is that too few of us are willing to denounce a leader for bad behavior if that leader is on "our side."  In other words, Democrats and liberals in this country refuse to criticize Clinton for his misogyny because they like him on other issues.  We should be more willing to criticize politicians when they deserve it even if we agree with them on other things.


FP: Candice Jackson, it was a pleasure having you with us.


Jackson. My pleasure, thank you.


Previous Interviews:


Kenneth Timmerman

Humberto Fontova

Brian C. Anderson

Andrew Peyton Thomas

Paul Sperry

Harvey Kushner


Christopher Hitchens


Natan Sharansky


William F. Buckley Jr.


Richard Perle and David Frum


Richard Pipes


Ann Coulter


David Horowitz


Roger Kimball


Stephen Vincent


Christopher Hitchens


Bat Ye'or


Robert Dornan


Andrew Sullivan 

Jamie Glazov is Frontpage Magazine's editor. He holds a Ph.D. in History with a specialty in Russian, U.S. and Canadian foreign policy. He is the author of Canadian Policy Toward Khrushchev’s Soviet Union and is the co-editor (with David Horowitz) of The Hate America Left. He edited and wrote the introduction to David Horowitz’s Left Illusions. His new book is United in Hate: The Left's Romance with Tyranny and Terror. To see his previous symposiums, interviews and articles Click Here. Email him at jglazov@rogers.com.

We have implemented a new commenting system. To use it you must login/register with disqus. Registering is simple and can be done while posting this comment itself. Please contact gzenone [at] horowitzfreedomcenter.org if you have any difficulties.
blog comments powered by Disqus

Home | Blog | Horowitz | Archives | Columnists | Search | Store | Links | CSPC | Contact | Advertise with Us | Privacy Policy

Copyright©2007 FrontPageMagazine.com