Salon | Letters to the editor

_______________MAIL ROOM DISPATCH ...

We at Salon relish a good debate, so we decided to publish David Bowman's ode to the joys of binge-drinking alongside Carolyn Knapp's more serious meditation on five years of tenuous sobriety. The juxtaposition was lost on some readers: "Was this an attempt at irony? Humor? Some weird kind of balance?" inquired reader John Mihelic. Most letter writers simply took issue with David Bowman's not-so-serious treatment of the topic.
There was no debating the greatness of Buck Owens' musical career. Chuck Berry's son made an unscheduled cameo in our letters section, applauding Gary Kaufman's tribute to the Baron of Bakersfield. Left Hook columnist Joe Conason shook up a handful of conservatives, who felt his characterization of the GOP as racist to be unfair and unsubstantiated by fact. And Chris Schroen wrote in to complain that Salon's Mothers Who Think section has become a solipsistic playground for hyperactive egos.
Today we turn to the allegations made by Juanita Broaddrick that President Clinton raped her more than 20 years ago. While feminists such as Susan Faludi, Susan Brownmiller and Gloria Allred have roused themselves to voice support for Broaddrick, our readers are more skeptical. A selection of their reactions is published below.

_______________WE BELIEVE YOU, JUANITA (WE THINK) BY CAMILLE PERI, FIONA MORGAN AND DAWN MACKEEN (03/03/99)

Susan Faludi, Susan Brownmille and your other contributors may believe Juanita Broaddrick's allegation that she was "raped" by President Clinton more than 20 years ago, but I emphatically do not. And I'm disgusted with the fact that the media are constantly buying into the most ridiculous charges against this president, assuming in the complete absence of proof that he is guilty of having forced himself on numerous women over the years.
The Broaddrick story looks like yet another escalation of the right wing's campaign to publicize hateful allegations against Clinton and, thereby, destroy him as both a leader and a person. We've already witnessed conservatives championing Paula Jones' weak charges that Clinton propositioned her, followed by Kathleen Willey's already undercut claims that he attacked her sexually. And now comes Broaddrick with the tale of a still more violent approach. The next thing you know, the press will latch onto Jerry Falwell's wacko allegations that the president had people murdered in the past! In the only examined incident of Clinton approaching a woman for extramarital sex, that of the notorious Monica Lewinsky, there was absolutely no mention of any violence, and I don't believe that a president so obviously appreciative of women would want to -- or need to -- force himself on anybody.
Can't we stop listening to destructive gossip about our elected representatives and begin again to deal seriously with real news and the genuine political needs of this nation?
-- J. Kingston Pierce
Seattle
I have no way of knowing whether Juanita Broaddrick is telling the truth about her encounter with President Clinton. It is a well-established fact that one cannot reliably detect a liar by relying on the impression they make -- a fact that many of your contributors seem to ignore, much as they also ignore the inconvenient fact that Juanita Broaddrick perjured herself last year if she's telling the truth now. As a man I would be a little embarrassed about that, but women are apparently entitled to a pass.
Of course, it's no wonder that many a feminist will automatically believe Broaddrick: After all, she's telling the date rape story in one of its canonical forms, just as someone with multiple personality disorder adapts to tell the multiple personality story letter perfect. Maybe Broaddrick's tale is true, but it has sure been packaged for the talk shows.
Women get raped, obviously, but they also tell tales -- especially when it pays, financially or emotionally. Gennifer Flowers has made several hundred thousand dollars tarting up a one-night stand with doctored tapes. Paula Jones, who will never see a nickel from the settlement of her lawsuit, has become mysteriously prosperous. The various other Clinton women are similarly on the take.
-- Jim Harrison
San Francisco
With the exception of Eleanor Smeal, your guest editors have completely missed the point of the Juanita Broaddrick story. Yes, it is unfortunate that women are ashamed to report rape. Yes, it is unfortunate that the victim is often not believed. But these are tangential to the real issue: Why is the press so obsessed with an allegation that can never be proven? Yes, it could be true. It could be false. Would we be a better country if 100 percent of Americans said, "No way! Our president could never have done that!"? I do not think so. We would be a deluded country. There is no way that any of us can ever judge what our elected officials may have done or been capable of in their private lives.
-- McCamy Taylor
Fort Worth, Texas
N E X T+P A G E+| "My husband was accused of rape years ago ..."

_______________MAIL ROOM DISPATCH ...
	We at Salon relish a good debate, so we decided to publish David Bowman's ode to the joys of binge-drinking alongside Carolyn Knapp's more serious meditation on five years of tenuous sobriety. The juxtaposition was lost on some readers: "Was this an attempt at irony? Humor? Some weird kind of balance?" inquired reader John Mihelic. Most letter writers simply took issue with David Bowman's not-so-serious treatment of the topic. There was no debating the greatness of Buck Owens' musical career. Chuck Berry's son made an unscheduled cameo in our letters section, applauding Gary Kaufman's tribute to the Baron of Bakersfield. Left Hook columnist Joe Conason shook up a handful of conservatives, who felt his characterization of the GOP as racist to be unfair and unsubstantiated by fact. And Chris Schroen wrote in to complain that Salon's Mothers Who Think section has become a solipsistic playground for hyperactive egos. Today we turn to the allegations made by Juanita Broaddrick that President Clinton raped her more than 20 years ago. While feminists such as Susan Faludi, Susan Brownmiller and Gloria Allred have roused themselves to voice support for Broaddrick, our readers are more skeptical. A selection of their reactions is published below.
_______________WE BELIEVE YOU, JUANITA (WE THINK) BY CAMILLE PERI, FIONA MORGAN AND DAWN MACKEEN (03/03/99)
	Susan Faludi, Susan Brownmille and your other contributors may believe Juanita Broaddrick's allegation that she was "raped" by President Clinton more than 20 years ago, but I emphatically do not. And I'm disgusted with the fact that the media are constantly buying into the most ridiculous charges against this president, assuming in the complete absence of proof that he is guilty of having forced himself on numerous women over the years. The Broaddrick story looks like yet another escalation of the right wing's campaign to publicize hateful allegations against Clinton and, thereby, destroy him as both a leader and a person. We've already witnessed conservatives championing Paula Jones' weak charges that Clinton propositioned her, followed by Kathleen Willey's already undercut claims that he attacked her sexually. And now comes Broaddrick with the tale of a still more violent approach. The next thing you know, the press will latch onto Jerry Falwell's wacko allegations that the president had people murdered in the past! In the only examined incident of Clinton approaching a woman for extramarital sex, that of the notorious Monica Lewinsky, there was absolutely no mention of any violence, and I don't believe that a president so obviously appreciative of women would want to -- or need to -- force himself on anybody. Can't we stop listening to destructive gossip about our elected representatives and begin again to deal seriously with real news and the genuine political needs of this nation? -- J. Kingston Pierce Seattle I have no way of knowing whether Juanita Broaddrick is telling the truth about her encounter with President Clinton. It is a well-established fact that one cannot reliably detect a liar by relying on the impression they make -- a fact that many of your contributors seem to ignore, much as they also ignore the inconvenient fact that Juanita Broaddrick perjured herself last year if she's telling the truth now. As a man I would be a little embarrassed about that, but women are apparently entitled to a pass. Of course, it's no wonder that many a feminist will automatically believe Broaddrick: After all, she's telling the date rape story in one of its canonical forms, just as someone with multiple personality disorder adapts to tell the multiple personality story letter perfect. Maybe Broaddrick's tale is true, but it has sure been packaged for the talk shows. Women get raped, obviously, but they also tell tales -- especially when it pays, financially or emotionally. Gennifer Flowers has made several hundred thousand dollars tarting up a one-night stand with doctored tapes. Paula Jones, who will never see a nickel from the settlement of her lawsuit, has become mysteriously prosperous. The various other Clinton women are similarly on the take. -- Jim Harrison San Francisco With the exception of Eleanor Smeal, your guest editors have completely missed the point of the Juanita Broaddrick story. Yes, it is unfortunate that women are ashamed to report rape. Yes, it is unfortunate that the victim is often not believed. But these are tangential to the real issue: Why is the press so obsessed with an allegation that can never be proven? Yes, it could be true. It could be false. Would we be a better country if 100 percent of Americans said, "No way! Our president could never have done that!"? I do not think so. We would be a deluded country. There is no way that any of us can ever judge what our elected officials may have done or been capable of in their private lives. -- McCamy Taylor Fort Worth, Texas N E X T+P A G E+\| "My husband was accused of rape years ago ..."