An amazing thing happened a while back.

A Newsweek editor confessed - more or less - to being biased about the Paula Jones case.

He said - more or less - that the media weren't very fair in their treatment of Paula Jones.

Basically, the media portrayed her as tramp, he says, and that was not right.

"In media accounts, she tends to be portrayed as a trailer park floozy digging for money and celebrity," writes Newsweek Editor Evan Thomas.

He goes on, "Arguably, the main reason more people don't take her story seriously is that the mainstream media have been skillfully spun by the White House and Clinton's lawyers. By playing on the class and partisan prejudices of reporters, as well as their squeamishness and ambivalence about printing stories about the sex lives of politicians, Clinton's operatives have done a brilliant job of discrediting Paula Jones and her case."

It's amazing enough that a Newsweek editor would write that, but there's an even more bizarre twist to it.

Thomas previously and publicly derided Paula Jones. On a Washington talk show he said that Jones was "some sleazy woman with big hair coming out of the trailer parks." And he's honest enough to point this out in the article. Thomas also referred to Jones as a bimbo and a hick from the sticks.

But now Thomas says he believes Paula Jones and he's regretting all those mean things he said about her.

Why?

Because of what he calls "an influential article by Stuart Taylor in the November edition of The American Lawyer. Taylor accused the press of underreporting the Paula Jones story because of a double standard that let off liberals like Clinton more easily than conservatives like Clarence Thomas."

This from the media elite editor of Newsweek? Fascinating.

I wrote a column long ago about the absence of outrage among liberals concerning Clinton's alleged behavior in that Arkansas hotel room.

Where was NOW then? They rushed to judgment on Clarence Thomas. Anita Hill was truthful. Thomas was guilty. But Paula Jones? A money-grubbing bimbo. Clinton is innocent.

I wrote back then that they're probably both power-abusive harassers that don't deserve the offices they hold.

But I digress.

I ran to the Internet to look for Stuart Taylor's article in The American Lawyer.

I found it.

And now I understand why the media elite editor of Newsweek changed his mind about Paula Jones. The article is the most complete, exhaustively researched piece on the Paula Jones case to date.

After reading it, you have no doubt that Paula Jones is telling the truth about what happened.

And there is something else to consider. Stuart Taylor is no conservative activist. He's a former New York Times legal correspondent. And he mentions in the article that he generally likes Bill Clinton and voted for him.

Taylor's article runs to 14 pages on 8.5-inch by 11-inch paper.

But here are a couple nuggets.

"When (Clinton V. Jones) comes before the U.S. Supreme Court ... all eyes will be on Justice Clarence Thomas. Will a flicker of emotion crease his usually impassive glare as he ponders a she-said, he-said fact pattern so hauntingly reminiscent of his own ordeal five years ago? Will he think of how - in the words ... from Thomas's close friend ... Armstrong Williams, 'Mrs. Clinton went out to San Francisco to present Anita Hill with the woman of the year award. I wonder when she's going to present an award to Paula Jones. And where is NOW. People need to see the hypocrisy here.'

"It was actually an American Bar Association commission on women that presented an award to Hill... Hillary spoke at the August 1992 award luncheon, celebrating Hill for having 'transformed consciousness and changed history with her courageous testimony' against Thomas. Both women were hailed as heroines at that convention.

"Generally overlooked, meanwhile, has been the fact that the evidence supporting Paula Jones's allegations of predatory, if not depraved, behavior by Bill Clinton is far stronger than the evidence supporting Anita Hill's allegations of far less serious conduct by Clarence Thomas.

"Jones' evidence includes clear proof, scattered through the public record, that then-governor Clinton's state trooper-bodyguard interrupted the then-24-year-old state employee on the job on May 8, 1991, and took her to meet Clinton - the boss of Jones' boss - alone in an upstairs suite at Little Rock's Excelsior Hotel, for the purpose of sexual dalliance. The evidence also includes strongly corroborative statements made to me by two of Jones' friends, complete with tellingly detailed, seamy specifics ... that are remarkably consistent with Jones' allegations."

I recommend reading the whole article. The evidence he brings to light is compelling and overwhelming.

The American Lawyer article came out last September. Long before this week's Supreme Court hearing on the Clinton V. Jones case.

And this week, the liberals bent on defending Clinton have taken to the discrediting of Paula Jones with a vengeance.

And their target? Trailer courts.

Clinton adviser James Carville: "Drag a hundred dollars through a trailer park and there's no telling what you'll find."

The phrase "trailer trash" is popping up all over the place in the national media.

Ah, the compassionate liberals. Always eager to ignite a little class warfare.

Just goes to show you. You can't be a sexist, classist, ageist or racist unless you're a conservative. If you're a liberal, you can pretty much say whatever you want. You're compassionate, you see.

But aren't the downtrodden, the low-income, the less fortunate, the "trailer trash" exactly the people our liberal friends claim to care most about?

I think Clinton and his buddies better tone it down. They seem to have forgotton that people who live in trailer courts still have the right to vote. [[In-content Ad]]