Originally published February 22, 2008
You just have to love The New York Times. Juanita Broderick accuses Bill Clinton of raping her when he was a Governor. The Times sits on the story for half of eternity, finally printing the piece by burying it somewhere equal to the cooking section and the want ads. This is accompanied by years of editorials scolding those stuffy, Puritan like Republicans for being obsessed with sex and turning their obsession toward the impeachment of President Clinton. After all, the private sex life of our President does not affect his ability to lead. Oh sure, he had affairs from time to time, but they were in the fine tradition of John F. Kennedy and Franklin D. Roosevelt.
For the record, everyone knew about Clinton’s affairs before he took office. I think its safe to say that even back then we were more worried about his wife than his mistresses. When Paula Jones sued Clinton for sexual harassment, then and only then did the name of Monica Lewinski surface. Paula’s attorney used Monica’s name to establish a pattern of behavior. Many, who did not condone Clinton’s affairs, conceded that we had no right to pry into a man’s private life. Whether or not Paula Jones should have sued the President while he was in public office, whether or not our nation needed that distraction, is a fair question. Be that as it may, the lawsuit did happen and Clinton was faced (justly or unjustly) with a question. His taking the stand may have been an unfortunate situation but it was still a reality and his lying under oath was a part of this reality, the ONLY part for which Clinton was impeached. Now mind you, if the Broderick rape accousation had come out back then, obviously, this in its own rite would have merited obsession. Her story surfaced after the impeachment however. Republicans, only knowing about the lesser allegations of other women took no interest until the act of perjury, perjury from a man who swore to uphold our constitution. So let’s keep the record straight and let’s stop with the historical revision. The Republicans have been no more obsessed with sexual stories than anyone else.
Oh, well. Historical revision has become The New York Time’s middle name. So be it. Let’s just take them at their word. “Sexual encounters should not bother us where the President is concerned.” OK then. Allow me to add it all up: As far as the leading newspaper of the world is concerned, Clinton’s affair with Jennifer Flowers does not concern them. Clinton’s encounters with Monica (not exactly sex because, as with the joint of his youth, he smoked, but he didn’t inhale) doesn’t concern them. The accusation of sexual harrassment from Paula Jones doesn’t concern them. Juanita Broderick actually accusing the man of rape (and corroborating her story, incidentally) doesn’t concern them. Oh yeah. I almost forgot: And lying under oath doesn’t concern them. But when some unnamed assistants of John McCain thought that maybe, just maybe, there might possibly be a slight, subjectively interpretive look of impropriety between him and a female lobbyist, even though there is no hard evidence, even though the woman herself vehemently denies it, well still, it sort of, kind of, looks like he allowed her favors, as evidenced (maybe) by a letter from McCain’s people asking her to stop saying she has special influence because she doesn’t. THIS CONCERNS THEM!!!
The New York Times was once a great paper. I’m not saying there shouldn’t be a place for it today. There should: The Smithonian Institute. As for news? Stick to the blogosphere.