Dear David,
Oh, I’m still going to bash Clinton’s critics. Let’s not forget that the sanctimonious George Will left wife number one for wife number two. When he speculates about life on the second floor of the White House, I am sure he has personal experience to draw from.
But the President deserves some bashing, too. As a long-time and enthusiastic Clinton supporter (I even licked envelopes and passed out fliers in front of the polling place on election day), I feel betrayed that he would cripple his political power this way. As a citizen, I feel humiliated that he has–with a lot of cooperation from the media and the Republicans–so devalued the political discourse. And as a woman, I feel angry that a man who so evidently feels the pain of others can be so apparently insensitive in his treatment of a young woman who worked in the White House. I feel like Olympia Dukakis in Moonstruck, asking John Mahoney why men cheat. Does he fear death? Is it some Shakespearean character flaw?
A friend of mine who has worked with two politicians as well known for their infidelities as for their political achievements told me that he had asked both of them to explain their womanizing. Both of them gave him essentially the same answer: “No one knows how hard I work, the compromises I make, the endless un-winnable fights I continue to fight, the labyrinthine paths I follow. Sometimes, I just have to have something uncomplicated, something where I win without waiting.” I guess that just as with our discussion of madness, we have to ask ourselves whether we are prepared to pay the price of the Monicas and the ammunition they give the Starrs and the pundits for the energy and imagination and intellectual integrity that comes with the package. Who was it who dropped out of the presidential race because he was sick of rubber chicken dinners? I’ll bet he stayed away from the Monicas on the campaign trail. In Clinton’s case, the same insatiable passion for inclusion and approval that brought him to the White House may be inextricably intertwined with an insatiable neediness for “uncomplicated” adoration. I just don’t know how he can have failed to notice that there is no such thing. Maybe he needs to see more movies.
The House Government Reform and Oversight Committee voted along party lines to hold Janet Reno in contempt because she refused to give them memoranda with recommendations that she appoint an independent counsel for campaign finance abuses. This is pretty much a symbolic gesture. It gets referred to the full House for a vote, which gives everyone time to negotiate. The authors of the memoranda in dispute, FBI Director Louis Freeh and outgoing campaign finance task force supervisor Charles LaBella, support Reno’s position that requiring disclosure of these memos would inhibit an ongoing investigation and discourage frank communications. This is the same issue that arises in the White House’s claims of attorney-client privilege and executive privilege and what I guess you could call “Secret Service” privilege. And this is exactly the kind of situation they talk about in law school when they say hard cases make bad law. In addition to my regrets about the narrowing of Clinton’s political opportunities, I also regret intrusion into the ability of the Executive branch to communicate free from concern that their discussions, recommendations, and actions will be made public.
P.S. Your description of Brian De Palma’s latest movie reminds me of every other Brian De Palma movie, going back to the overrated Obsession. I was a huge fan of Kate Mulgrew back in her Ryan’s Hope days, but don’t think she’s found the right vehicle since then. Remember Mrs. Columbo? I hope not.
