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.
Lets 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.