DIFFERENT reactions are possible to Juanita Broaddrick's accusation that Bill Clinton raped her in 1978, but stunned disbelief isn't one of them. No one is sputtering, "Clinton? Force himself on someone? Impossible!" We know by now that with Clinton, anything is possible.In its "Conventional Wisdom" box, the March 1 Newsweek gives Jane Doe No. 5 -- Broaddrick -- a sideways arrow: "Should have leveled (unproven) assault charge in '78 or '92. But sounds like our guy."
Sounds like our guy. Invite himself up to a married woman's hotel room, shove her on the bed, bite her lip so hard it swells to twice its size, rip her pantyhose? Yep, sounds like our guy. Agree to meet Kathleen Willey when she's in a financial crisis, grope her, force her hand to his crotch, mutter, "I've wanted to do this ever since I laid eyes on you"? Sounds like our guy. Send a trooper to fetch Paula Jones, pull her to the couch, expose himself and tell her to "kiss it"? Sounds like our guy.
The president is credibly accused of rape and nobody is shocked. For more than six years, Americans have been pelted with nonstop evidence of Clinton's depravity. By now his low character is so taken for granted -- even by many of those who approve of the way he handles his job -- that nothing he does retains the power to shock.
Actually, that's not quite true. Americans would be shocked beyond measure if Clinton were to admit manfully that the latest awful allegation is true.
But, of course, he never admits to the truth. He denies, he lies, he obfuscates, he perjures himself, he wags his finger at the TV cameras, he tells his aides and Cabinet secretaries that he is being set up, he goes to court with meritless claims of privilege, he goes on "60 Minutes" and bites his lip, he sends his wife to blame it all on vast right- wing conspiracies, he says it depends on what the meaning of "is" is. The truth comes out only as a last and desperate resort. And not always then.
After 21 years, Broaddrick cannot prove her story (though NBC News researchers were able to corroborate key supporting details), and Clinton has not offered an alibi to disprove it.
If the president did rape Juanita Broaddrick in the Camelot Hotel in 1978, he has every motive to lie about it now. If he didn't rape her, she would seem to have no motive for falsely saying he did. The statute of limitations ran out long ago, she is not filing a civil suit, she disavows any interest in a book deal, and she can hardly want the notoriety. It must be clear to her that there is no possibility of Clinton's being punished. And she must know that people who cross Clinton often get their reputations slimed and their worst secrets leaked to the press. So what can she hope to gain?
"I just couldn't hold it in any longer," she told NBC's Lisa Myers. "I didn't want granddaughters and nieces when they're 21 years old to turn to me and say, 'Why didn't you tell what this man did to you?' "
Broaddrick sobbed as she spoke those words. The media, by contrast, have mostly yawned. "Maybe the American public has heard all they want to hear about this and are saying, you know, 'Next. Let's move on to the next thing.' " Thus Dan Rather, whose notion of what makes a story worth covering has apparently changed from the days when he was a White House correspondent tenaciously dogging Richard Nixon over Watergate.
Jonathan Alter of Newsweek waved off Broaddrick's charge as a story "peddled by the same old right-wing enemies of Clinton in Arkansas." Never mind that those old Arkansas enemies of Clinton turned out to be right about the man's character. In this case, the accuser was a Clinton supporter, who got in touch with him in the first place because she thought "he had a lot of good ideas for Arkansas."
And where, in all this, is the feminist sisterhood that flew into a frenzy when Anita Hill accused Clarence Thomas -- also after many years, and with even less proof than Broaddrick has -- of pestering her for dates and talking about a dirty movie? Where are the cries of "I believe Juanita!" and the angry denunciation of men who "just don't get it"? Where are the demands for a congressional hearing? The seething calls to talk shows?
Don't hold your breath waiting; when it comes to Clinton, liberal feminists lost their virtue long ago. As long as he supports their legislative priorities, they don't raise a stink over his mistreatment of women.
And neither, apparently, does anybody else. This all-too- believable woman told her devastating story, and it went straight down the memory hole. He raped you, Juanita? Yeah, sounds like our guy. But what's your point?
BILL Clinton's impeachment acquittal was supposed to let America "move on." We should have known better. With Clinton there is only moving on to the next scandal.Juanita Broaddrick's credible story of being raped by Clinton in 1978 is the latest. Intelligent people knew they hadn't heard the last of scandal, not after six years of Whitewater, Filegate, Chinagate, Cattlegate, John Huang, Johnny Chung, Charlie Trie, Gennifer Flowers, Paula Jones, Kathleen Willey and Monica Lewinsky.
Still, the predatory brutality alleged by Broaddrick seems to have caused even a scandal-benumbed nation to gasp. The president of the United States a rapist? Maybe we haven't lost all capacity to be shocked. But will the shock last?
In legal terms, it's unlikely anything will come of Broaddrick's allegation. Even if the crime could be proved, the statute of limitations expired long ago. Clinton ignored angry protesters, taunting placards and reporters' questions while stumping in Arizona last week for his plan to save Social Security. There's no indication he can't ride this one out as he has all the others.
It took a couple of days, but feminists were stirred by Broaddrick. National Organization for Women President Patricia Ireland called her account "credible" and "devastating." She said she wouldn't seek a White House explanation because "a denial from Bill Clinton or anyone speaking on his behalf has historically been proven to be not worth the air that it takes to say them or the paper it takes to write them."
Clinton, though, knows feminists believe they have no one else to turn to on their issues. More important to him is the deafening silence from congressional Democrats, whose support he needs to refurbish his image via legislation, one more time, for history's sake.
Indeed, as the Wall Street Journal editorialized Friday, the Capitol Hill crew seldom has uttered a discouraging word since Sen. Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut expressed disgust in a floor speech last August -- only to lock arms with every Senate Democrat in voting against both articles of impeachment in February.
To Broaddrick's cry of rape, more silence. The Oklahoman called the offices of 11 senators who opposed Clinton's impeachment (Democrats and Republicans, eight of them women) seeking comment. Silence. None acknowledged their boss saw the NBC "Dateline" interview with Broaddrick. The allegations, first reported on the Journal's op-ed page, have reached the Hill, but no one's talking about them.
Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen may be right. The Clintons may have "vanquished outrage," at least among the country's top elected officials. Republican Sen. Bob Packwood's boorish stealing of kisses from female staffers generated months of rage from the likes of Sen. Barbara Boxer, D- Calif. But Clinton, far beyond the pale, nothing.
As for the American people it remains to be seen whether the initial gasp will be followed by anything more than a yawn. That has been the pattern.
The damage Clinton inflicted on the country and his high office is seen in the public's willingness to condone his misconduct. Still, Broaddrick presents the strongest challenge yet to a tendency to see Bill Clinton's sins and deliberately look the other way.
Juanita Broaddrick's story, if true, means a rapist occupies the Oval Office. Can we live with that, too?
