Why do children pick the most awkward moments to show an interest in public affairs? “60 Minutes” was on and, suddenly, my 8-year-old son was picking up every word.
“Dad?”
“Yes, son.”
“Who is that lady talking about?”
“Uh, she’s talking about the president, son.”
“President Clinton?”
“Yes. She used to work at the White House.”
“Did he do those terrible things she says he did?”
“Well, we don’t know for sure. He says he didn’t. She says he did. Nobody else saw anything.”
“But she just called President Clinton a liar! Why did she do that?”
“Liar” is still a serious word in our son’s vocabulary. Very serious.
“Well, she’s upset, I guess,” I explained. “But, it is her word against his. We’ll have to wait and see what happens when we get more information.”
By now, the subject was becoming too heavy to hold his interest. He returned his attention to his toys. Mentally he simply tuned Washington out. So, I gather, has most of America.
The “60 Minutes” program that featured Kathleen Willey’s account of a crude pass Clinton allegedly made at her near the Oval Office made Page One news, and justifiably so. But two days later, the president’s approval ratings, as measured by Gallup for CNN, went up again, just as they did after the Monica Lewinsky flap. Scandal, it would appear, is actually good for this president’s appeal.
But only to a point. While his job approval ratings went up slightly, his personal approval ratings slipped by about the same amount. As for credibility, when the scandal first broke 43 percent believed Willey, compared to 40 percent who believed the president.
In other words, we Americans appear to like the job the guy is doing, even if we are not crazy about his accounting of his personal life.
I understand these mixed emotions. There is little joy in Clintonville these days. Many of the president’s supporters who had hoped for a new and less cynical political era feel their hopes somewhat dashed, forced to embrace a man with feet of clay, if only to ward off their common political foes on the conservative side.
As a father trying to teach proper lessons to his son, I felt a growing anger at Clinton as I watched Kathleen Willey. It was a mixture of anger and disappointment similar to that which I felt when the earlier controversies over Monica Lewinsky broke.
But I felt even angrier at Kenneth Starr, the special prosecutor. Willey, we must remember, was a reluctant witness. She seemed content to get on with her life until Starr called her before the grand jury that was initially assembled to investigate Whitewater, an Arkansas scandal to which Willey had no connection.
She told CBS interviewer Ed Bradley that she didn’t report the president because she felt she had nowhere to go to report a man in such a lofty position. Where could she go? She could have gone to Starr. Instead, she appeared to be trying to put the incident behind her until Starr subpoenaed her and she turned into a friendly witness.
Willey continued to work for the Clinton administration and wrote friendly notes to the president signed “fondly” and in one case referred to herself as “your biggest fan” after the alleged incident took place.
After Starr dragged her out to the grand jury, the cat was out of the bag. Only after that did Willey come forward, not only to Starr but also to “60 Minutes” and, according to reports, to a possible book deal. Her attorney is reported to have been shopping her story around to publishers for a tidy asking price of $300,000 only two days before she went on “60 Minutes.” Ah, the call of celebrity.
Beneath all this, there is a serious public policy question. It was raised by Patricia Ireland, president of the National Organization for Women, who thought the Willey allegations were the last straw: Do we have a president who thinks sexual harassment, or even “sexual assault,” as Ireland called the Willey allegations, is no big deal for him to commit?
That’s a serious question, but, again, I am appalled by the way it was brought up. Is this a legitimate issue for us to be debating at this time? Or is it just a sneaky way for Clinton’s opponents to achieve through a special prosecutor what they could not achieve at the ballot box? (Remember Hillary Rodham Clinton’s famed “right-wing conspiracy” theory?)
That’s why we have judicial processes and democratic processes. As the accused in a highly charged political environment, President Clinton deserves the benefit of our doubts until all the facts are in.
In the meantime, steer the children away from television news programs. I think we’re in for an ugly ride.
