If you search Daily Kos diaries from January 1 2015 until the latest available through the search function today, which was at least until February 3, 1016, you will (or at least a few hours ago would have) found six diaries that mention the name “Juanita Broaddrick.”[1] This will add to that total number — if it lasts. I suspect that it will not, given Markos’s diktat that we will no longer discuss who should win the nomination after March 15 — by an astonishing coincidence, the last day before the primary calendar shifts from favoring Hillary to favoring Bernie.
[1] I tried searching Daily Kos starting from a decade ago, and then from a few years since. It came up with 0 results; not even these six. You can still search this site using Google’s “site:dailykos.com _search terms_” syntax, of course — and you should!
I want to memorialize those six diaries while doing so is still possible, and then offering my own perspective. Note that in discussion I will have to take the non-PC position that “women DO sometimes lie about rape and sexual assault.” I do so here when it supports Hillary. My justification for doing so is that Clinton supporters have done, and the Clinton campaign will have to do, the same thing, so the normal feminist rules already don’t apply. 1) “On Donald Trump’s Threat” by disinterested spectator
Tuesday Dec 29, 2015 · 10:48 PM ESTFrom what I have seen on talk shows and have read online, it seems that most people think that Donald Trump is threatening to bring up Bill Clinton’s adulterous affairs if Hillary attacks Trump for sexism. A few have noted that Trump’s divorces can be thrown back in his face if he makes such an attack.
But let us not forget the kind of man Trump is. He will not be content to talk about Monica Lewinsky, Paula Jones, Kathleen Willey, and the related charges of sexual harassment, perjury, and obstruction of justice, though he will probably mention these women and those charges as a way of warming up his crowd. If Trump gets the Republican nomination and Hillary accuses him of sexism, he will go for the jugular. He will bring up the rape of Juanita Broaddrick. And as he recounts what Broaddrick alleged, it will lose nothing in the telling. He will go into graphic detail about the way Bill Clinton allegedly held her down, biting her lip to keep her from trying to get away, and then telling her to put some ice on her swollen lip as he walked out the door.
Many have argued that Hillary should not be held accountable for the sins of her husband. But the association of ideas is a more primitive form of thinking than reason and nice moral distinctions, which is why Caesar’s wife must be beyond reproach.
However, there is a deeper problem that Hillary must confront that cannot be dismissed simply by saying that it is unfair to hold a wife responsible for her husband’s behavior. At some point during the campaign, Hillary will be asked this question: “Do you believe Juanita Broaddrick?” It is unthinkable that she will say, “Yes, she is telling the truth. Bill raped that woman.” Therefore, she must say that Broaddrick is lying. This will put her in an untenable position.
One aspect of the war on women with which Republicans are often charged is their tendency not to take women seriously when they claim to have been raped. We Democrats often argue that women are afraid to come forward when they are raped, fearing they will be vilified, accused of being a slut, of wanting attention, of lying. We further argue that we must encourage women to come forward when they have been sexually assaulted and not let the men who violated them go unpunished. And I am sure that Hillary would agree with all that, in general.
But what will she say when asked, “Why don’t you believe Juanita Broaddrick?” And I don’t mean, what will she say if asked that question on Meet the Press? I mean, what will she say when Donald Trump asks her that question during a presidential debate?
Hillary should back down from Trump’s threat and refrain from accusing him of sexism, however deserved the charge may be. He is too dangerous.
I find this diary useful but flawed, for the following mix of reasons:
Trump and his supporters will bring up Bill Clinton’s alleged attacks on women and Hillary Clinton’s alleged complicity in covering them up, regardless of what the Clinton campaign does. That’s why the conclusion that Hillary shouldn’t accuse Trump of sexism is absurd. The author is right to distinguish Monica Lewinsky (consenting adult), Paula Jones (probably consenting favor-seeker), Kathleen Willey (probably consenting favor-seeker), and I’d add Gennifer Flowers (definitely consenting favor-seeker) from Juanita Broaddrick. While his involvement with the first four do bother me in various ways and to various degrees, they don’t bother me anywhere near as much as the alleged rape of Juanita Broaddrick. Nor do they even potentially implicate Hillary Clinton herself in anywhere near the same way or extent. The author is right that the tale of Juanita Broaddrick — which anyone with a feminist bone in her or his body will recognize was NOT settled back in the ‘70s, ‘80s, or ‘90s, or since — will singe off people’s eyebrows when they read or hear it. (Or, given the Republicans, see it reenacted in both live-action and anime forms.) We don’t need to bring the sexist “Caeser’s Wife” standard into this. We can just employ the “Broaddrick’s accusations” standard. The author is wrong that Hillary won’t be able to evade the question “Do you believe Juanita Broaddrick?” She’s been ready for that for years and you can already see it in her defenders’ comments (of which I was once one) when it comes up. She’ll say “I believe her affidavit filed during the Starr investigation that says that it didn’t happen.” She may add “at that point I considered the matter settled and haven’t attended to anything appearing after that.” This will not be true, but will be expressed in a carefully measured, sympathetic, tone that she will have practiced about 10,000 times to make it look good, because it will be the most important thing she says during the campaign. No eyes-unfocused “Bernie voted for the CFRA” recitation for this one; she has to pull it off as well as her husband did at his best. That affidavit — submitted when Broaddrick did not want to be dragged into the Starr investigation and later recanted by her despite that that act could have led her to be charged with perjury and that she continued keeping quiet about the matter for the next 15+ years — would be rejected by any feminist analyst in any other circumstance than this. And THAT is going to lead to the problems that the author describes. And it will not only drag her down, but also her defenders.2) “Juanita Broaddrick returns to attack Bill & Hillary” by TheNewsTicker
Wednesday Jan 06, 2016 · 6:32 PM EST This person, who was new to the site (as I am very much not) and who was immediately bojo’ed, simply posted a pair of tweets. One was from Hillary Clinton and one was from Juanita Broaddrick, with the statement preceding Hillary’s “This tweet looks more and more poorly thought out every day.” This does indeed mark the day when Juanita Broaddrick moved from being what everyone knew was a hypothetical problem for the Clinton campaign to a real and significant one — and you still, at this point, don’t know why. xI was 35 years old when Bill Clinton, Ark. Attorney General raped me and Hillary tried to silence me. I am now 73....it never goes away.
— Juanita Broaddrick (@atensnut) January 6, 2016I was 35 years old when Bill Clinton, Ark. Attorney General raped me and Hillary tried to silence me. I am now 73....it never goes away.
— Juanita Broaddrick (@atensnut) January 6, 2016
17,240 Retweets 11,045 likes xEvery survivor of sexual assault deserves to be heard, believed, and supported. https://t.co/mkD69RHeBL
— Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) November 23, 2015Every survivor of sexual assault deserves to be heard, believed, and supported.hrc.io/… 8:09 PM - 22 Nov 2015
1,376 Retweets 2,460 likesIt’s the comments, though, that are truly worth reading. They will prefigure the ones that will appear below (if this diary remains up for enough nanoseconds for it to be read.) Let’s review some:
Bobs TelecasterJan 06 · 06:36:33 PMRedstate = that away -->
No, this isn’t right-wing propaganda. One can calmly, coolly, and rationally sift through the evidence — including ample evidence of Broaddrick having reported the rape to others at the time and a truly stomach-churning report of her meeting, a short time later, with Hillary, and her recounting of what Hillary said to her. (THAT is what makes this not just a “Bill problem” but a “Hillary problem” as well.
If you don’t want to read the evidence, discussed below, then that’s on you — but then it becomes your responsibility if Broaddrick, now that she’s finally decided to speak openly about the traumatic matter, is judged to be credible by the public. Bojoing me away won’t stop it — including on the left.
SnappleMan, I don’t know. I pretty much loath the Clinton’s but even a casual perusal of the facts of that case say that there aren’t very many facts and the ones there are conflict with each other. This goes squarely into my “innocent until proven guilty” category.
Perhaps if she wanted anyone to believe her she shouldn’t have filed an affadavit saying the rape story was not true.
Perhaps a less casual perusal of the facts would be in order. There are plenty of relevant facts — and what they conflict with is less “each other” than with our societal notion of how a woman would be expected to behave when she is raped by a powerful figure. We as a society are a lot better about that now than we were in 1978 (or even in 1997). You will be in the position of having to argue that “if he had really raped her she wouldn’t have attended the later fundraiser where she conversed with Hillary”; you will be in the position of saying that there’s no way a woman could lie under oath to have her traumatic story dragged out in public by an unscrupulous prosecutor like Kenneth Starr. This IS the coming Republican line of attack against Hillary — and has been long before I wrote this diary. THIS is the swift-boating we can expect to see this July. You should be VERY SURE of your facts before you dismiss her credibility out of hand.
And you aren’t. “If she wanted anyone to believe her she shouldn’t have filed an affadavit saying the rape story was not true.” That’s going to play REAL WELL later this year, against Broaddrick’s appearances telling her story on 60 Minutes and NPR and CNN, isn’t it? ARE YOU SURE? We have ten days left to find out — if that — before it can no longer be discussed.
rssraiThen why did Broaddrick sign an avadavat saying she was not raped. Not only that, but she couldn’t remember where the rape took place or what day or time it happened.
Draxinum rssraiYou have two questions, here are two simple answers:
1) It’s been well documented that rape victims are pressured to not make charges and go along to avoid having their personal lives destroyed.
2) People who undergo traumatic events often make mistake on details their brain doesn’t think are important to the event.
Also, even if that’s not what happened, rape victims omit details they think think are irrelevant but would embarrass their family or make them seem unbelievable. (Some victims believe if they say how much they drank, or where the assault took place, they’ll be blamed as enticing the man)
The alleged rape took place in her hotel room. The timing can be established extrinsically. How hard do you want to push, Kossacks, in favor of rssrai’s comment as opposed to that of Draxinum (who is currently on suspension)?
TanzikI might have found Broaddrick’s story at least semi-plausible (rape victims often continue to associate with their abusers, and often mess up things like time and date) until she said that Hillary came along and told her not to tell anyone about how Bill raped her. This presupposes that Bill told Hillary, which is, to say the least, highly improbable. More important, it’s the kind of thing only a true Clinton hater would suggest is possible — that Hillary is so evil she would overlook Bill’s raping another woman all for the sake of political power. It’s the kind of thing that someone who believes Bill and Hillary killed Vince Foster would say.
Recommended 8 times Flag jqb Tanzikuntil she said that Hillary came along and told her not to tell anyone about how Bill raped her.
She never said any such thing. What she did say was that HRC said “I just want you to know how much Bill and I appreciate what you do for him...Do you understand? Everything that you do.” Broaddrick interpreted this as thanking her for keeping quiet. Such an interpretation may not be correct, but is understandable if Broaddrick was in fact raped by WJC.
So it’s going to come down to the public’s assessment of Broaddrick’s credibility in reporting what she alleges that Hillary said. I don’t know this next to be true, as I haven’t read all of Hillary’s possible comments on the topic, but he counsel probably hopes that Hillary is locked by previous statements into denying any memory that such a conversation ever took place. That’s the simplest answer.
That conversation above continued getting interesting, in the former commenter reported more of Broaddrick’s comments to prove the point that Broadrick must be lying! See what you think:
Tanzik jqbShe added this detail to Drudge: “ I started to turn away and she held onto my hand and reiterated her phrase -- looking less friendly and repeated her statement — 'Everything you do for Bill'. I said nothing. She wasn't letting me get away until she made her point. She talked low, the smile faded on the second thank you.” It doesn’t matter what exact words Hillary allegedly used. The point is, Broaddrick’s interpretation is that Hillary was telling her to keep quiet about the alleged assault, meaning, as I said, that Bill would have to have told Hillary, who would have to be evil enough to go along with Bill’s rape for the sake of power.
Recommended 0 times Flag jqb TanzikYou have added nothing to what I wrote. As I said, her interpretation may not be correct, but is understandable if Broaddrick was in fact raped by WJC. Clearly Broaddrick was disgusted by what she thought Clinton was saying. The notion that such a reaction in and of itself casts doubt on Broaddrick’s veracity is absurd, illogical, and grossly intellectually dishonest. I would note that lots of people at this site daily proclaim HRC to be evil and power hungry. They are in the throes of an ideology but they sincerely believe it. For someone who was raped by a politician (I’m not claiming to know that she was) to believe that his wife — also a very political person — is colluding in covering up the rape for selfish reasons is not at all a stretch; such things happen all the time. Even outside of politics, wives and other family members protect abusers and tell abused children to shut up all the time. This is the reality that HRC’s tweet above reflects, and kudos to her for saying it and making a career of saying it. But the flip side is that this idea that Broaddrick’s accusation paints HRC as being so “evil” as to be implausible is manufactured nonsense that is driven by partisanship, not fact or reason, and this is the last that I will waste my time on such BS.
That’s what we’ll be talking about on the 12th anniversary of Kerry’s being swiftboated.
(My own tentative belief, for what it’s worth, is that Hillary was aware of Bill’s being sexually involved with and sometimes grabby with other women — and that she put up with it, which is more a tragedy than a true failing. She was her husband’s political partner and his primary fixer. But my guess is that she was told something like that “he got out of line” with the woman in question — not that he had raped her. This interpretation would exonerate her from the worst implications — but it would open up so many sad questions of what she did with her husband back before he has at least relatively reformed. (I don’t believe that he is the same man today that he was in 1978. Just my opinion.) It’s a sad tale and she doesn’t deserve it — but neither does Juanita Broaddrick, once determined to set the record straight, deserve to be called a liar over her story.)
How is it going to play with the public? I’m not optimistic.
I see it as similar to the situation with her email server. The truth, I suspect, is that a private server was the best of available options because she knew that if she used a government server the “Vast Right Wing Conspiracy” (including some in the NSA, CIA, and/or FBI) would have intercepted her emails and leaked them selectively and at the most damaging possible times. But she can’t — or at least won’t — say that. So instead she has to defend more difficult ground that makes her seem less candid and human.
3) “Poll Shows American People Know Bill Clinton More Respectful to Women than Trump”
By DerekJack30 Monday Jan 11, 2016 · 1:11 PM EST
As Fox News gives Donald Trump gasoline to pour onto the fire with which he’s playing (Bill Clinton’s personal and substantively inconsequential foibles), they tried another one of those polls meant to tell some kind of story like Quinnipiac and their “liar” poll last summer.
Half of Americans, 50 percent, say Clinton is more respectful of women, according to a Fox News poll released over the weekend, while 37 percent say Trump is more respectful of women. …
Among women, 55 percent hold Clinton above Trump, while 31 percent say the billionaire is more respective of women than Clinton. Men rate the two fairly equally, 44 to 43 percent.Nice try Fox. So its basically only Fox and Trump, not even Trump’s competitors in the GOP primary who wanna bring up bullshit, including the lies of Juanita Broaddrick, who they brought back from the woodwork.
Bill Clinton respected and respects women because not only did/does he believe in a woman’s right to choose (even in late term), he implemented the VAWA, put more of them in his admin than ever before, and has had a marriage to a strong, intelligent woman named Hillary that has lasted longer than many others, including Trump’s previous ones, Gingrich and his wives, Ronald Reagan and Nancy Davis, or even Al and Tipper. Nice try, Donald.
[Emphasis Added]. Just two reactions to this one:
I don’t take nearly as much solace in Bill Clinton being considered by men to be almost exactly as respectful to woman as Donald Trump, nor even his being considered by women to be just 24 points better — especially given that the question involves the present day (that’s what the meaning of “is” is) rather than 1978. That’s a pretty low bar. I’ve highlighted to link to the Salon.com story, from a week after the President’s (rightful) acquittal by the Senate after his impeachment, defending a President at the moment he could turn from defense to offense. It is often trotted out, as here, in defense of Bill Clinton. To prepare yourself for July, I want you to read it. I want you to read it critically. I want you to ask yourself whether still-fanatical Hillary defender Joan Walsh even tries to come close to proving that Juanita Broaddrick lied. While you’re at it, try reading this Salon story from six months earlier, which provides the best arguments for both sides, and is not from as “in the bag” of a source as Walsh. That — make that half of that — contains your talking points for this July, for you to use against the other half of what’s at the link. Do you find the 1½ pro-Clinton articles overwhelmingly convincing — especially in light of Broaddrick’s over 16 years of (relative and perhaps even complete) silence since then, including during the 2008 campaign? Are you confident that the public will think so as well, when they are exposed to all available facts? Because you’re gambling the Supreme Court on them.4) “CSGOPOTD: Katherine Prudhomme-O'Brien”
By republicinsanityWednesday Jan 13, 2016 · 7:44 AM EST
I’ll just post one paragraph here about a loose cannon in the GOP:
By the time Prudhomme-O’Brien went after a Democrat again, though, she managed to end up being threatened with arrest for showing up at Clinton appearances and demanding to know everything she knew about her husband Bill’s encounter with Juanita Broaddrick from three decades earlier. (The one Hillary wasn’t at, can’t speak to, and shouldn’t really have to.) The New Hampshire Union-Leader actually gave her the moniker of “New Hampshire’s Most Annoying Voter”, after all of these revolting and obnoxious exploits.
Some people argue that the Republicans really want to run against Bernie Sanders, which is why they keep running ads against Hillary Clinton (even though they’ve more recently take off after Sanders as well.) I disagree. They haven’t yet his Hillary with a lot of the most damaging stuff — this included. You might ask: why are they failing to go after Hillary with the sorts of attacks that this loose cannon used? Why didn’t they follow up on this? Maybe they’re both convinced that there’s nothing to the story AND convinced (for once) that if true that even matters to how useful it would be to them. Or maybe they’re just waiting until the summer’s “silly season,” when the time is right. Obviously, I find the lack of barking from this particular dog reason to favor the latter view.
5) “NY Times: ‘Hillary Clinton's Responses to Bill's Sex Scandals Threaten to Erode Strength With Women’" By BvueDem
Wednesday Jan 20, 2016 · 11:37 AM EST This fifth diary was really unpopular. 16 recs, 165 comments — not the ratio one wants. (But sometimes one must risk it.) The commenter has continued publishing, but is now on “NR” status. Here we go:This is an issue for Hillary’s campaign and things will get much worse if she wins the Primary. Hillary’s supporters need to acknowledge the problem, not try and duck it, deny it, Flag or shut down those who raise it, etc. The #1 lesson in politics is to own up to any scandal, not to try and suppress it. Get it out, everything, all the facts, as soon as possible. Doing so before the Primary election will only be to Clinton’s advantage in the General, if she wins the Primary.
The New York Times is not Fox News, not Red State. Journalist Amy Chozick is not a right-wing hack. Her sources, including published books by Bill Clinton’s former Communications Director George Stephanopolos and Carl Bernstein (of Watergate fame), are not a right-wing conspiracy. Here’s some of what the NYT article, from today Jan 20, 2016, by Amy Chozick, says:
You’ll have to go see the original story by Chozick (or just the section excerpted) on your own. It’s about the sex scandals in general; Broaddrick only appears in a photo of her crying, captioned “Juanita Broaddrick alleges that Bill Clinton raped her.”
Some comments:
middleagedhousewife wilderness voiceJan 20 · 11:52:00 AM
I’m considering flagging it, myself.
...and Juanita Broaddrick [have] re-emerged in the news mediaGoogling Juanita Broaddrick leads me to fine “news media” such as The Blaze and Breitbart.
Really, go after Hilary on issues, not BS Bill Clinton sex scandals from 1978.
Seriously: OF COURSE The Blaze and Breitbart will cover it! That means that it’s critical and lurid; it does not mean that it’s untrue. If it’s ONLY them covering it, that’s a sign of a problem — but that’s why one looks to other sources in this sort of case, right?
Later on the author gets into another source-rich interchange, with more facts for you to enjoy:
BvueDem middleagedhousewifeYou can watch the full Dateline NBC interview with Juanita Broaddrick by Lisa Myers in 1999. It’s only half an hour long, worth watching if you haven’t seen it. NBC Dateline is not Breitbart. Lisa Myers is not James O’Keefe.
Recommended 0 times Flag Ellid BvueDemAnd you need to stop. This is awful.
Recommended 1 time Flag BvueDem Ellid?? What is awful?
Bill’s criminal behavior, if true? Agreed, but that’s not the issue, it’s Hillary’s response to it that is of concern.
Or the hypocritical double-standard in dealing with accusers of the Clintons versus everyone else (e.g. Bill Cosby)?
Or Lisa Myers’ interview?
Or are you saying Juanita Broaddrick is a liar?
(Yes, she once signed an anonymous affidavit under subpoena, as Jane Doe #5, after refusing to testify in Paula Jones’ lawsuit against Bill Clinton, saying that unspecificed allegations of sexual advances from Bill Clinton in the late 1970s were untrue. She has explained why — including fear the Clintons would somehow come after her, and that “Requiring my testimony at a deposition in this matter would cause unwarranted attorney's fees and costs, disruption to my life and constitute an invasion of my right to privacy.” But she testified to the FBI that Bill Clinton raped her.)
I didn’t make it through all of the comments. They were not up to classic DKos standards.
6) “Hillary's Support Among Women: Declining and Generational Divides”
By Chaoslillith Wednesday Feb 03, 2016 · 10:01 AM EST This one actually got a lot of recommends, perhaps in part because its two mentions of “Broaddrick” were tucked in at the bottom. And it’s author still has full mojo! I wonder if we’ll be able to see anything like this eleven days from now?In Conclusion
If people want additional sources to review, here’s one that talks about what Broaddrick has been saying since she became active again— for the first time desiring to tell her own story on her own terms — on January 6, 2016. Do you know why I’m writing this? Because I defended Bill Clinton’s reputation throughout the ‘90s — from Gennifer, through Paula, through Monica, through Katherine — certainly all of the way through impeachment. I don’t recall when I was first exposed to the Broaddrick allegations, which I’m sure that I suppressed or ignored during the pitched battle of impeachment. But I do remember when my feelings about them changed. I recall reading a column by Christopher Hitchens (whom I only partially admired), it too in Salon, which made the fiercest attack on the Broaddrick matter that I had yet seen. And I felt sick about it. I felt like less of a feminist — although still more of one than the many feminists around me who had so easily sacrificed their stated beliefs about how sexual assault works in real life to the bottom line of supporting their man. (Or, as it turns out, their woman.) I don’t like what the Clintons did to John Lewis. I don’t like what they did to Gloria Steinem. I don’t like what they did to Dolores Huerta. Somehow, contact with them leaves good people — great people, in fact — besmirched. And while I expect that I will vote for Hillary in the general election if I have to, I am not going to live a lie on behalf of the Clintons. At some point, one must say no. I hadn’t made up my mind whether to write about Juanita Broaddrick. But Markos’s deadline has forced my hand. So thanks for that, at least.