1999 Archive
Back to Main Back to Archive

BROADDRICK RAPE TALE NOW A MATTER FOR DEMOCRATS

March 06, 1999

Wow! Wasn't that a short vacation from the Clinton scandals? I had hoped for more of a respite from the sordid revelations of the past year but last week NBC aired an interview with Juanita Broaddrick and the scandal machine kicked in again.

This Arkansas businesswoman claimed that William Jefferson Clinton, then Arkansas Attorney General, raped her in 1978 when she was in Little Rock for a business conference. Once again the cable TV talk shows were replete with Democratic and Republican strategists spinning their versions of what happened so long ago. Unsurprisingly, the Republican pundits found her credible and the Democrats did not.

What is surprising however are the unbelievable explanations that the Democratic pundits are giving for their position. They assert that since Ms. Broaddrick could not remember the time and date of the alleged incident 21 years ago it never happened. They insist that such a traumatic event would have been engraved in her mind. In addition some asserted that Juanita's tears were insincere given the number of years since the alleged incident.

I had a conversation with my best friend, who was a victim of date rape that robbed her of her virginity many years ago. She told me that she had forgotten the date of her rape because she just wanted to erase the incident from her memory. She found Ms. Broaddrick extremely credible because she, too, was ashamed for having allowed herself to be put in that vulnerable position.

The debate right now is whether or not the Senate impeachment vote would have been impacted by this revelation. Actually it would have made no difference because this rape allegation is not news. The Republicans knew of Juanita Broaddrick during the 1992 Presidential campaign. If Lee Atwater, Bush's 1988-campaign manager were still in charge, he would have used this information aggressively and Bush would probably have been reelected. Bush, however was too much of a Patrician and so uncomfortable with the previous Willie Horton debacle that he refused to run a character assassination campaign. He was crucified for simply calling Clinton and Gore ``Boobs.'' Imagine if he had charged Clinton with being a rapist!

David Letterman quipped in a recent monologue that in the next election we must insist on a background check for the next President. The Republicans insist that they did and nobody paid attention because the media wanted Clinton to win. Am I the only one who finds it frightening that opinions can be determined by selective news coverage? Is this any different from the days of Pravda and Tass, the Russian newspapers that filtered all news to the Russian people?

Now that the media is disenchanted with Clinton, they will systematically report all the details of the lewd rumors and allegations that were ignored in '92. Remember the illegitimate Clinton baby charges that were debunked a few months ago? A tabloid had published pictures of the young boy along with a story of the allegations during the'92 campaign but the major news organizations refused to pick up the story. Why release the discredited story now unless it's to sell newspapers and hype up ratings?

We have just heard from Jane Doe #5. How long will it be before we get the juicy details of Jane Doe # 1,2,3 and 4? A routine query on an Internet search engine will turn up details of alleged Clinton assaults at Oxford, Yale and the University of Arkansas. Stay tuned folks, this will drag out for the next 18 months unless the unthinkable happens and Clinton resigns which is highly unlikely. Perhaps the `` huge right wing conspiracy'' against Clinton exists because they know all the little details about him that the public is just learning about and can't stand the idea of such a man in office.

One interesting thing that the Broaddrick interview has confirmed is that Ken Starr was not the sex-obsessed fiend that he was purported to be. His interest in Juanita's case was limited only to the possibility of advancing his case of perjury and obstruction of justice. During his investigator's questioning Juanita was said to have broken down and admitted the rape incident but insisted the White House had not influenced her in any way. Once this fact was established Starr did not pursue the matter further. He was required to report every part of his investigation and this allegation was included in the extraneous material available to Congress but not in the infamous Starr Report.

I do believe that this assault allegation played a part in swaying some acquittal-leaning Republicans to vote impeachment. Learning that the White House might house a possible rapist may well have been the impetus that persuaded them to change their minds. Democratic Senator Harkin has reportedly stated that had he known about this latest scandal he would have voted guilty. Since there was nothing to prevent the Senators from examining this material during the trial it looks like Harkin is simply posturing for an upcoming election.

In the meantime, what are we to do with this unseemly mess? We can't do anything but hope that in the future the media will be more even-handed in their coverage of news. This means that if they choose to link Republicans like Trent Lott and Bob Barr with white supremacist organizations then they should as widely broadcast what Meg Greenfield of Newsweek reported recently. That the revered Democratic Senator from Virginia, Robert Byrd, was a member of the KKK in his youth.
Let’s end yellow journalism and promote objective news coverage. Let the public make up its own mind after presenting us with all the salient facts about all the candidates.

In any event, the Republicans should opt out of any upcoming controversies. They've already gone to the mat and been thoroughly trounced. Let the Democrats be the moralists for a change. It will be about time.


Copyright (c) Alicia Colon 2005