As I recall, Ms. Broaddrick's contemporaneous statements to her friends and relatives were much closer in time than "a few days" later, and there were also the direct, contemporaneous observations of those people of her physical injuries.
I'm not at all convinced these statements would be excluded as hearsay, and, although I would have to go back and look at the facts more closely, my initial reaction is that these statements would indeed be admissible as evidence against Clinton.
The only hearsay exception I can think of that would allow her friends' statements (which were not contemporaneous, as I recall) is the excited utterence exception - but it would be hard to demonstrate that Broaddrick was "excited" much more than 12 hrs. or so after the event.