The Power of Words. On TV, first lady speaks heatedly but casts no light

1/28/98
On TV, first lady speaks heatedly but casts no light

By M. CHARLES BAKST
Journal-Bulletin Political Columnist

       Hillary Rodham Clinton's Today show appearance was masterpiece theater.
       She gave a powerful, crisp recitation of the administration's script: A right-wing conspiracy of enemies is trying to undo through the criminal- justice system the good works of a wronged man whom they could not defeat at the ballot box.
       She brought to her role passion and experience, and if you didn't listen too closely, she was very impressive.
       It can't, after all, be easy to maintain your composure and your story line when you're being asked about your husband's involvement in what may be the tackiest political scandal in American history.
       She is an accomplished lawyer, a fiery loyalist, and you have to admire her. And if she wants to believe that Monica Lewinsky is the tool of ultra- partisan, even kooky, right-wingers, okay, fine.
       But I would venture to guess that most Americans don't see it that way. Independent counsel Kenneth Starr must be thrilled to have Lewinsky around and to exploit her, but she was hardly his invention. He didn't station her in the White House, and if Bill Clinton had an affair with her, that was the president's doing, not Starr's or any alleged Starr co-conspirator.
       Mrs. Clinton is her husband's best defender. But, as with other Clinton loyalists dispatched to the front lines, she trips on her failure to respond to anything resembling a probing question. It is as if these defenders take their cue from the president himself, as in his angry statement Monday. He repeated previous unsatisfactory denials but did it more loudly, as if being louder made it more convincing.
       Let's go to the videotape.
       Today host Matt Lauer asked Mrs. Clinton about the "exact nature" of the relationship between her husband and former intern Lewinsky. "Has he described that relationship in detail to you?"
       The first lady dodged:
       "We've talked at great length and I think as this matter unfolds the entire country will have more information. But we're right in the middle of a rather vigorous feeding frenzy right now . . . The best thing to do in these cases is just to be patient, take a deep breath and the truth will come out."
       Lauer noted that the president has said what the relationship was not. Has Mr. Clinton told her what it was?
       Again, the dodge:
       "Yes, and we'll find that out as time goes by, Matt, but I think the most important thing now is to stand as firmly as I can and say that the president has denied these allegations, on all counts."
       But it is precisely because no one will answer these questions that something seems fishy.
       One of the questions bothering people -- and Lauer brought it up -- concerns presents Mr. Clinton reportedly gave Ms. Lewinsky or she gave him. Were there indeed such exchanges?
       The first lady replied, "I'm not going to comment on any specific allegation, because I've learned we need to put all of this into context . . ."
       Well, what was that context? That's what people want to know.
       Mrs. Clinton said her husband is "extremely generous." In fact, "I've seen him take his tie off and hand it to somebody."
       Yes, but that's hardly what we're talking about.
       What we're talking about is an apparent intimacy between the president of the United States and a 21-year-old intern - she out of hundreds of interns - and whether Mr. Clinton has lied about their relationship, and how it was that this nobody-young-woman was able to get a job interview with America's ambassador to the United Nations and then, as Lauer put it, "a very dear friend of your husband's, Vernon Jordan, recommends her for two jobs in this city, in New York, and he drives her personally to a lawyer's office when she's subpoenaed."
       Mrs. Clinton said blandly, "I don't know the circumstances of any of that, Matt." Again, Jordan is "outgoing and friendly" and helps lots of people.
       Hmm.
       A focused, respectful Lauer asked good questions.
       But though he touched briefly on Mr. Clinton's affair with old Arkansas flame Gennifer Flowers, he failed to ask Mrs. Clinton about it directly, to zero in on how the Clintons went on 60 Minutes to puncture the story, but how Mr. Clinton reportedly confirmed in a recent deposition that he did indeed have an affair with Flowers.
       Yesterday's appearance by Mrs. Clinton may help in some way to swing public opinion the president's way.
       At the same time, the interview, reinforcing Mr. Clinton's angry denial of Monday, heightened the stakes. If the president is found to have been lying to the American people -- perhaps even to his wife -- all these denials are going to amount to something especially self-destructive and cruel.
       A most interesting exchange on Today came as Lauer asked Mrs. Clinton to ponder whether we should ask for a president's resignation if he had an adulterous liaison in the White House and lied to cover it up.
       She replied, "If all that were proven true, I think that would be a very serious offense. That is not going to be proven true . . . when all of this is put into context."
       I feel sorry for the first lady of the United States that her husband has put her in a position -- by his conduct or at least by his refusal to field such questions himself -- in which she has to go on TV and deal with issues like these.
       But if she is going to do it, she needs to be more forthcoming.
       It is tiring to hear Clintonites counsel patience when they are unwilling or unable to help provide us the information we need so we can make up our minds.
       I'm not interested in how lawyers might be preaching caution. At heart, this is not a legal matter but a matter of public confidence.
       If the president is being unfairly smeared, we need to know that.
       But if the president is a turkey, we need to know that too.

Previous editions | About The Providence Journal's Writing Program | E-mail us | Writing-related Web links | Back to main