Watching Hannity
I believe Juanita Broaddrick. I think a lot of people would believe her if they would listen to her, which is why a lot of people won't listen to her (i.e. Eleanor Clift & Susan Estrich.) But I think Sean Hannity's interview of her last night on Hannity & Colmes was a mess. Sure, he asked a few hard questions, although without anything in the way of followup (if he would follow up on her denials and reasons for not coming forward, for instance, then Susan Estrich wouldn't be able to dance so beautifully on the edge of proclaiming whether or not she believes Broaddrick.) I hadn't heard the bit about Hillary Clinton approaching Broaddrick at the fundraiser soon after the rape. That was chilling stuff. (I believe that Hillary would have behaved the same way if she believed Broaddrick was merely another of Bill's trysts, so I don't think she knew about the rape at that time.)
But Hannity really stepped in it (and his show's producers should have cut this crap) when he started asking her opinion of the Lewinsky segments in Hilary!'s memoir. Surprise, surprise: Juanita Broaddrick's opinion of that obvious self-serving pack of lies is the same as anybody else who's been paying attention for the last decade or so. I kept expecting another bombshell and when it didn't appear I was embarrassed for both Sean & Juanita.
But at least it was better than Barbara Walter's hour-long french kiss of an interview with Hillary!.
This isn't ultimately about whether folks believe Juanita Broaddrick, I think. Eleanor Clift's cold reliance on the lack of a rape trial and Susan Estrich's head-in-the-sand recitation of rape statistics mask a cold, hard fact: whether you believe Broaddrick or not, the question remains: Why is the Democratic Party so determined to protect and coddle a person against whom an allegation like this is utterly believable?