While there was probably an element of jealousy in the priggish response of the eastern journalistic junta, it seems more likely propelled by the deep reluctance of such papers to admit that the man ruling the system they so mightily revere may well be a deceptive, power-abusing, immature, woman-exploiting sex addict.
This in essence is what the Fornigate stories depicted. In response we were told by self-righteous and spun-dry preceptors of the press that:
It wasn't news. Wrong. The stories are as revealing of the nature of both Clintons as a month's worth of White House journalistic thumbsuckers. The tales are far more than a high level replay of that country song, Living Here, Loving There and Lying in Between -- particularly because of the obsessive and reckless behavior they describe.
It was old news. The logical conflict between this argument and the previous one passes unnoticed. In any case, the last time such stories floated about, the media suppressed them with great effectiveness. Thus while stories circulated within the closed circuits of the campaign and among the press, the public was excluded. As far as the ordinary reader is concerned, news that is spiked hardly counts as news.
Even more significant is the fact that the stories allege acts by Clinton after he and his wife assured the public that their marriage problems were over. The Los Angeles Times reported that the troopers contended that Clinton continued his affair with one woman as late as January 1993. One trooper reported bringing a woman to the governor's mansion in the pre-dawn hours at Clinton's orders on three occasions after the election.
Well then, these stories were discredited during the campaign. What really happened is that most of the press didn't want to find out about these matters, others found out and wouldn't tell and still others went looking but came up short. There is, however, a world of difference between not discovering or reporting a story and discrediting it.
Okay, but the president is entitled to privacy. There is merit to this argument and we may some day have a president who enjoys, practices, and therefore deserves, privacy. Clinton is not one. Clinton's whole life has been built around publicity, a manic drive to be seen and heard. As he told one of his troopers, "You know, I'm going to have to stay in politics now, because I'm too old to be a movie star."
Clinton naturally wishes to control the nature of that publicity while simultaneously ensuring its steady flow. It is a foolish and arrogant wish and, indeed, the Arkansas stories describe a man flirting with public exposure -- is there a touch of self-destruction here? -- in a manner that, if nothing else, raises questions about his general prudence.
The press covered up for JFK. Indeed it did, and partially because of the ensuing mythology, it has taken us three decades to begin to get a realistic notion of what sort of man and president Kennedy really was. Things go better in a democracy if you can size up your politicians while they're still alive.
The troopers who told the stories have lied in the past. Wrong. Only two troopers are accused in cheating on an auto insurance claim. The impression has been widely given that only these troopers provided the accounts. There were actually four -- two on, and two off, the record.
For example, the original Los Angeles Times story began: Four Arkansas state troopers have revived allegations and offered new details about extramarital affairs that caused a crisis in Bill Clinton's campaign for the presidency.
But by December 24, the number of troopers had been cut in half by Michael Wines of the New York Times: For almost a week two Arkansas state troopers have held the attention of the White House and much of the national press by saying they had firsthand knowledge that the President is a power-happy philanderer.
Wines then went on to attempt to discredit the two on-the-record troopers. Only in the fourteenth paragraph of the story did Wines refer obliquely to "interviews with other unnamed witnesses to some events."
It should be noted, if police had to rely on the pure character of witnesses they would never solve most crimes. Further, while the false insurance claim clearly raises a doubt about two of the troopers, how many documented lies, evasions and half-truths can also be credited to the subject of the stories?
On the notorious "Sixty Minutes" show, for example, Clinton was asked about Gennifer Flowers' allegation that she had a 12-year-affair with him. Clinton replied, "That allegation is false." It now appears that Clinton lied. Why doesn't that matter? Does Bill Clinton have some sort of immunity from being called to account for his prevarication? Is he to believed simply because he is president?
The stories lack corroboration: Wrong. Even if one dismisses the testimony of the four state troopers, one is still left the following from the Los Angeles Times, an aspect obscured or downplayed by the New York Times and other papers: A review of thousand of pages of state telephone records and other bills show numerous calls by Clinton to [one of the women]. The state records are incomplete and after the spring of 1990 few cellular phone bills were placed in the public file. The records, which cover only a portion of the telephone calls made on Clinton's car phone and from his hotel rooms between 1989 and 1991 -- show 59 calls to the woman's home and to her office extension during that period.
On one day alone, July 16, 1989, the records show 11 calls to the woman's home from Clinton's cellular phone.
Two months later, when Clinton was on a state-paid trip to Charlottesville, Va., the bill for his hotel room showed a call placed to the woman's home was made at 1:23 am. It lasted 94 minutes, according to Clinton's hotel billing statement. At 7:45 am the same day, according to the hotel record, the same number was called again and [the call] lasted 18 minutes.
Of course, those critical of Fornigate coverage may not be all that interested in corroboration anyway. After all, by the time Clinton was inaugurated, Art Harris had reported in Penthouse that Gennifer Flowers' mother, ex-roommate and even a former boyfriend confirmed the existence of a relationship with Clinton far beyond the casual acquaintanceship. None of these people, incidentally, were fond of Flowers' behavior. Harris' story was ignored by major media.
Now -- again widely unreported -- the Arkansas state troopers have provided further substantiation of the Flowers story. Three of the troopers say that Clinton maintained a long relationship with Flowers despite his denials during the 1992 campaign. The troopers said they handled hundred of phone calls from Flowers to Clinton, and that they drove Clinton to her apartment for assignations. One of the troopers also claims hearing Clinton discussing a state job for Flowers. She was later hired in a move criticized by a state grievance panel that found she had received preferential treatment despite ranking only 9th among 11 outside candidates for the job.
It should also be noted that this story has better corroboration than the Clarence Thomas, John Tower, or (so far as is known) allegations in the Senator Packwood case.
Okay, but there has been no corroboration from any women involved. Wrong. Three women, including Flowers, have told the media of affairs with Clinton. They include a former Miss Arkansas who told the Sally Jesse Rafael Show in July 1992 of having an affair with Clinton. And another woman reported being approached by a Clinton aide by a hotel pool in 1984 who then arranged a sexual encounter with the governor.
The troopers are just doing it for money. There is no doubt that there is plenty of money hanging around this story and the troopers may get a piece of it via a book or movie or whatever. But it is also true that reporters capitalize financially on such stories whenever they can. And, one might ask, is Katherine Graham publishing the Washington Post pro bono? Further, how are we to evaluate Colin Powell's book given that he was paid $6 million to write it? There is something faintly absurd about the powerful and the well-heeled attacking low-level whistleblowers for having the potential of a book contract.
Well then it doesn't have any bearing on affairs of state. The best way to handle this is to leave the matter to the readers and run the story. If you wish to make you own judgment, get hold of the January issue of the American Spectator. In it you will find an account of a man who, according to four close witnesses, regularly abused the privileges of public office, showed so little respect for the women he chased that he used state troopers as procurers, and who showed such a consistent willingness to deceive that he cheated on both his wife and his mistress at the same time. You will also find an account of Hillary Clinton disturbingly at odds with the syrupy version being used, say, to hawk the president's healthcare plan. Sleazy, yes, sad, yes, but irrelevant, absolutely not.
Consider, for example, Clinton's temper which once propelled an apple from the back seat of the state car to the front windshield. Or the cellular phone smashed on the pavement. Or the contents of a desk swept to the floor.
Consider this man of diversity who not only links Mario Cuomo to the Mafia, but is said to have referred to Dukakis as that "little Greek motherfucker" and jokes about Ted Kennedy not being able to "get a whore across a bridge."
Consider this man who speaks about personal responsibility who is accused of using state police officers to do opposition research for his campaigns.
Consider the possibility that Hillary Rodham Clinton is not the charming paragon we have been consistently presented by the media but frequently foul-mouthed and calculatingly ambitious. And consider that she is alleged to have had an affair with Vince Foster, whose subsequent suicide -- and Ms. Clinton's reaction to it -- is now inextricably linked with the whole Whitewater Development affair. Even Fornigate prudes admit that has news relevance.
Consider finally a father who, according to the troopers, had oral sex with a woman in a car on the playground of his daughter's elementary school.
In sum, what the Los Angeles Times and the Spectator have done is to challenge with four eyewitness accounts as well as telephone records the carefully massaged image of the First Persons that has been so uncritically accepted by much of the media. They have done it because this is not Oz but America. This is not a movie but real life.
It is professionally hypocritical and democratically dangerous for the media to repeatedly present saccharine images of the private Clintons that mislead and lull the public while concealing facts that directly contradict these images. If we must watch loving pictures of Hillary Clinton handing out chocolate cookies, it is only fair that we also know that she has the mouth of a Arkansas state trooper and that she and her husband are far from being model of the family values they have taken to chattering so unctuously about. And if Bill Clinton is to demand "personal responsibility" from a generation of struggling welfare mothers, why should we expect less from him? -- Sam Smith