Bill Clinton on memory lane
The impeachment anniversary
Bill Clinton on memory lane
Dick Polman, Inquirer National Political Columnist
I'm stuck with a competing work deadline today, so, rather than simply fall silent here, I invite you to stroll with me down memory lane. On this date 10 years ago - Dec. 19, 1998 - President Bill Clinton was impeached. What follows is the newspaper article that I wrote in the immediate wake of that historic event.
I was not yet an opinion columnist, but that day I was permitted to stretch the boundaries of "news analysis" commentary. Given all that has transpired these past 10 years, Clinton's predicament reads like ancient history, and one can argue that his character flaws are trivial, when matched against the manifest policy flaws of the Bush era. On the other hand, if Clinton hadn't behaved so badly, and hadn't lied under oath about it, and hadn't therefore alienated so many culturally conservative Democratic voters, then it's likely that Al Gore would have won the 2000 election. And Bush would have never gotten the chance to screw things up.
So, 10 years ago, my analysis:
If character is destiny, Bill Clinton is Exhibit A.
On the day that the Monica Lewinsky scandal broke, he phoned his ex-pollster, Dick Morris. As Morris later told the grand jury, Clinton said: "You know, I didn't do what they said I did, but I did do something, and maybe I did so much that I can't prove my innocence."
I did do something....Right there, it was clear that Clinton had to make a choice: Come clean with the public, or repeat the denial that he had voiced under oath in the Paula Jones deposition a few days earlier. But Clinton didn't want to make that choice on his own; he wanted Morris to conduct a poll.
Morris complied, and late that night he told the President that most people would require a few months to absorb and accept an admission of perjury. So Clinton made his choice - stonewall. He told Morris, "We'll just have to win, won't we?" And a week later, with help from a friendly Hollywood producer, Clinton scripted his famous finger-wagging falsehood.
At so many critical junctures, Clinton, whether by instinct or calculation, chose deception and recklessness over candor and restraint - in his deposition and grand jury testimony; in his semantic legalese; in his frontal attacks on independent counsel Kenneth W. Starr; in his early refusal to settle the Jones case; and in his willingness to conduct secret trysts with Lewinsky while a sexual-harassment lawsuit was hanging over his head and while Starr and other hostile players were watching his every move.
And so today he finds himself impeached by his political enemies, who control the U.S. House.
Twenty years ago, Richard Nixon looked back on Watergate, during his interviews with British host David Frost, and concluded that while he did have enemies bent on destroying him, "I gave them the sword." Clinton has now done the same. He may still survive as a tarnished president, but it is clear that in the absence of his character flaws, the Impeachment Express never would have picked up speed.
"In essence, he is the author of his own destruction as an effective leader," said presidential historian Robert Dallek, a recent biographer of Lyndon Johnson. "He is an extreme combination of narcissist, politician and lawyer - all in the service of saving his own ass, rather than serving some larger public purpose. This is a pattern of manipulation, obfuscation, self-protectiveness and defensiveness. And now it has trapped him."
Brian Lunde, a Democratic strategist who worked for Clinton in Arkansas during the gubernatorial era, said: "It's all coming home to roost now, his whole way of life and his way of dealing deceptively with people. Before, he got away with his character flaws because he didn't have any legal eagles [prosecutors] watching him. He has finally met his match, and all his old formulas - denying, hoping things will go away - don't apply anymore."
And he cannot extricate himself with the help of his favorite weapon - his golden gift of gab. He has become trapped by his own deceptions, and can no longer talk his way out of trouble. For the moment at least, as Morris said the other day, Clinton is stuck "with the damage of Saturday Night Bill...His character defects are beginning to overtake him."
Those traits, by themselves, are not remotely impeachable. What has put him in the conservatives' crosshairs are the other flaws that analysts view as crucial components of his narcissism - arrogance, a sense of victimhood, and a belief (as his former press secretary Dee Dee Myers said the other night) "that the rules don't apply to him."
These flaws have poisoned his dealings with the courts and Congress. In his persistent attempts to dodge his pursuers on the Lewinsky scandal, he now seems committed to a legal defense grounded on the notion that truth is what he says it is. He never had sex with Lewinsky - as he defines it "in his own mind," according to his lawyers, who also argue that he did not commit perjury because in his own mind he did not believe he was lying.
"This is just an extension of his old habits," said political analyst Larry Sabato, who spent considerable time in Arkansas researching one of his books on political scandal. "He has always been a salesman who believes whatever he says while he is saying it, in order to win over whoever is listening."
A classic example appears in the final pages of the Starr report. When the sex scandal broke, he insisted on his innocence while conversing with aide Sid Blumenthal. As Blumenthal later told the grand jury, Clinton said that Lewinsky was a stalker, that she "came on to me, and made a sexual demand on me," but that he had rebuffed her. And then, painting himself as a victim, he added: "I feel like somebody who is surrounded by an oppressive force that is creating a lie about me, and I can't get the truth out. I feel like the [imprisoned Soviet] character in the novel Darkness at Noon."
His flaws are writ large in those remarks: his reluctance to take responsibility, his willingness to deceive, his tendency to see himself as a victim, and his eagerness to please the audience at hand - in this case, Blumenthal, who might have been expected to appreciate the pointed reference to Darkness at Noon, given his known affinity for political conspiracy theories.
Former national security aide Roger Morris, who has written biographies of Nixon and Clinton, said that the President's bad habits could be traced to his upbringing in Hot Springs, an Arkansas town "where scandal and impropriety was routinely tolerated. People went to church on Sunday and gambled illegally in the clubs on Monday night...
"And Clinton's problem, going back to the Jones deposition last January, is that he still believes this is just a game he can win. All his life he has been a virtuoso at playing with words to mask the whole truth. It's a technique. It's not coming from the heart, it's coming from the head." (Witness his remark to prosecutors, "It depends on what the meaning of the word is is.")
The wordplay in his sworn testimony seems entirely in character if one remembers 1992, and his refusal to answer yes or no to the question of whether he had smoked marijuana. He insisted that he had never broken the laws of his country. It sounded like a no, but it wasn't. Only when later asked about other countries did he admit to having tried it in England - but without inhaling.
Similarly, Clinton-watchers view his behavior in the Lewinsky case, and see discomfiting echoes of previous scandals. His suggestion to Lewinsky about the gifts - that the prosecutors cannot get them if she no longer has them in her possession - sparks memories of what he told Gennifer Flowers in their taped conversations, that his enemies cannot prove anything as long as both lovers deny the truth.
Another key facet of Clinton's character is his tendency to avoid unpleasant truths. It is a trait that he shared with his mother, one that biographers say took root while growing up in an alcoholic home. It is also a trait that has not served him well during this year.
"It is very painful for a narcissistic politician to be self-critical," Dallek said. "And any outside criticism is particularly wounding, so it's often easier to lash out at the critic" - as occurred last Aug. 17, when Clinton was afforded the opportunity to lower the heat on this scandal. Instead, he attacked Starr in his TV address. It was a turning point.
"He bared his arrogance," said biographer Morris, "and that was a big mistake. When someone like him lets the real animal out of the cage, everything can fall apart. Politics is theater, and a smart politician cannot afford to stop acting."
And if character is destiny, Clinton will fight to keep his job. He will not bow to any demands for resignation, said pollster Dick Morris; rather, "they'll carry him out feet first, and [Hillary] will be hanging onto the drapes."
"If his history is any guide," Lunde said, "he could get right back into campaign mode and behave like a rabid dog, as if it's just a matter of gritting his teeth and hanging on in the Senate. But he would still need the Democratic senators to survive. Others can save him, but he can no longer save himself.
"For the first time ever, he is truly trapped. It will be a real test of character to see how he handles it."
-------
Meanwhile, here in 2008, I was a guest today on Philadelphia National Public Radio (90.9 FM), talking for an hour about the latest national political developments. That "Radio Times" broadcast is archived here.
Talvenada- No Cheyney is correct. IN the aftermath of 9-11 we were going into Iraq regardless of who was the president- I've worked at places where sex with interns on the job was regarded as a workplace benefit by both interns and non-interns.— liberal
- lib, if 25 million Iraqis were mad at us don't you think there would be more upheaval than there is now? I think a muslim democracy in the center of the middle east helps our long term interests. Ask the Iraqis if they would like Saddam back or not and the vast majority would say no! Especially the women, kurds and shiites! That is the bottom line!— NEPhilly
- Also re Iraq: s/mike, you're leaving out the neocon rationale Wolfowitz, Cheney, etc.)for the Iraq war entirely; this was the idea that Iraq could easily be made a democratic model state for the middle east, ushering in a new era of friendly fellow democracies in that oil-rich region. This was the principal policy rationale for the war; the WMD stuff and UN theatrics were just makeweights. I remember this well because I myself bought this neocon idea to some degree at the time, which I hate to admit in view of how nonsensical it now looks.— liberal
- Liberal- get me a job there! LOL Back to your point. The shoe thrower does not represent everyone in Iraq. Certainly not the kurds nor the 300,000 that were packed into mass graves under Sadaam Husein. To answer you real question which is would I go into Iraq now with what we currently know. The answer is most assuradely yes. Even more so now. But, by that token I would have found a way to hold Bin Laden when the Saudi's offered him to us in 1996. Bill Clinton claims he could not find a legal reason to hold Bin Laden in 1996. I always found that amusing considering Clinton told us with a straight face that we would have to define what " is " is.
- NE, if our principal disagreement is as to the facts of what the Iraqis think of the US right now, I think the best evidence is on my side. I don't think Iraq is our friend. But of course neither of us, along with the Bush administration and the american public in general, actually knows jack about the middle east, one reason we should have stayed out of there.— liberal
- Liberal- there was a full page ad in the USA Today thanking the United States for the liberation of Iraq. It as sponsored by a kurdish organization
- I think I finally have my hands around this Global Warming. Whatever the weather does it is proof of global warming. I just heard a man from Greenpeace explain that the expading ice at the north pole is proof of global warming. And that the 3 inches of snow this week in Vegas is proof of it as well. Right now it is dark here in South Jersey further proving that there is global warming. Of all liberal behaviors the hysterics on global warming is the most amusing.
- lib, what evidence do you have? One crackpot throwing his shoe at our President. I think that incident proves how democracy is taking hold in Iraq. I doubt that journalist would feel free enough to do that in any other country in the middle east! Again, if 25 million Iraqis were mad at us, I think there would be more turmoil in Iraq and of course it would be being reported by the MSM, don't you think?— NEPhilly
- Talvenada- No Cheyney is correct. IN the aftermath of 9-11 we were going into Iraq regardless of who was the president. ............................. CORRECTION REQUIRED: He said regardless of WMD, not regardless of who was in The WH.— Talvenada
- Talvenada-Yes, Talvenada we should have gone into Iraq. There were a lot of reasons. I will give you one more. If you blew yourself up in Israel guess who would send you family a check for $ 25,000? You guessed it! It was Sadaam Husein.
- Have you ever read the facts surrounding the hijacking of the Achille Lauro in the Mediterranean? This event is regarded as the kickoff for middle eastern terrorism. The mastermind of of the Achille Lauro was found in Baghdad shortly after it's liberation. His name was Abu Abbas. Othwise know as the " old " terrorist. Proving once again that Iraq was a state sponsor of terrorism
- SW MIKE: Reason #1 is the 1997 paper of Cheney w/ Rummy & Wolfie, which said we needed a Pearl Harbor to attack Iraq.— Talvenada
- swedey, you really know how to stretch something. So, the mstermind of the Achille Lauro was found in Iraq, therefore it sponsored terrorism. Timothy McVeigh lived in the USA and blew up hundreds. Therefore, the USA sponsors terrorism. Sound about right? Please stay away from sharp objects.— mike l
- Global warming--how did this ever get to be a liberal or conservative thing? When I did research on this about 35 years ago for a senior paper, there was no dispute about it, political or otherwise. The only difference was that scientists thought then that it would hit about the year 2100, so it could be ignored by the politicians. What has happened is that the use of fossil fuels has increased more than was then expected, and the scientists' moving up of the deadline has collided with the business interests of the energy industry. There's nothing political about this, just some rich oil people worried about losing money. Don't be an idiot and fall for the oil company propaganda about this.— liberal
Cited by the Columbia Journalism Review as one of the nation's top political reporters, and lauded by the ABC News political website as "one of the finest political journalists of his generation," Dick Polman is a national political columnist at the Philadelphia Inquirer. He is on the full-time faculty at the University of Pennsylvania, as "writer in residence." Dick has been a frequent guest on C-Span, MSNBC, CNN, NPR and the BBC. He covered the 1992, 1996, 2000, and 2004 presidential campaigns.
ARCHIVES
All commentaries posted before April 18, 2008, can be accessed at www.dickpolman.blogspot.com.
- American Spectator
- David Limbaugh
- Free Republic
- Glenn Reynolds
- Hugh Hewitt
- Human Events
- John Hawkins
- Matt Lewis
- Michelle Malkin
- National Review
- Opinion Journal
- Power Line
- Red State
- The Brody File
- The Daily Caller
- Town Hall
- Weekly Standard
- Center for American Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- Daily Kos
- David Corn
- Huffington Post
- Media Matters
- Mojoblog (Mother Jones)
- Open Left
- Political Animal
- Salon's War Room
- Talking Points Memo
- Tapped
- The Democratic Strategist
- The Grey Matter
- Unclaimed Territory
- Andrew Sullivan
- Attytood
- Chi Tribune's The Swamp
- CJR's Campaign Desk
- CNN's Political Ticker
- CQ Politics
- FactCheck.org
- Gail Collins
- Howard Kurtz
- Mickey Kaus
- NBC's First Read
- Obit
- Political Wire
- Politico
- Politics Daily
- Pollster.com
- Real Clear Politics
- The Atlantic Wire
- The Fix
- The Moderate Voice
- The Plank
- USA Today On Politics
- Wonkette
