On Thursday, The Los Angeles Times published a 3,700-word front-page article in which six women accused Arnold Schwarzenegger of humiliating them with crude pawings and taunts. At the last minute, will the Barbarian be turned back at the gates? Don't bet on it.
For the charges to sway the recall at this late date, it will take more than the ad campaign being mounted by women's groups. Politicians and the press would have to treat the story as a major scandal with potentially devastating consequences for California, the nation, morality and Western civilization. One wonders what would happen if even a fraction of the energy expended on Bill Clinton's sex scandals was applied to Mr. Schwarzenegger.
Instead, reaction as been strangely subdued. Thursday night's "Hardball" was typical. Chris Matthews, who chose the curiously sweet, rather affectionate word "fondling" to describe Mr. Schwarzenegger's behavior, seemed mostly interested in getting Senator Dianne Feinstein to compare the actor's grotesqueries to Mr. Clinton's affair with Monica Lewinsky. The senator was so intent on being statesmanlike that she didn't even point out that Ms. Lewinsky — unlike the the women in The Los Angeles Times article — volunteered herself.
...
Why is it so hard for commentators to come right out and say: here is a man who seems to have a long history of contempt for women, who uses his celebrity to get away with sexual humiliation — why does he belong in public life? Would that sound too square, too P.C., too, um, feminist? From the newsstand crammed with leering lad magazines like Maxim to all-male, all-the-time talk radio to the self-congratulatory misogyny of "The Man Show," aggressive male chauvinism is back in style, and Mr. Schwarzenegger is its standard-bearer.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/05/opinion/05POLL.html