President Clinton’s spokesman, Joe Lockhart, is apparently angry that ” People aren’t taking [impeachment] seriously.” Lockhart will be pleased to learn that the opinion mafia is taking impeachment quite seriously indeed. In fact, the pundits hardly find time to talk of anything else. (Issues 2 and 3–in case anyone cares–are the conclusion of Mike Espy’s bribery trial and the announcement of Bill Bradley’s presidential bid.)
Everyone is curious about what the House will do with President Clinton. Gwen Ifill (PBS’s Washington Week in Review) forecasts a “50-50” chance that the House will vote to impeach the president. (50-50 is a clever prediction, since mere events can’t prove it wrong.) Tucker Carlson (CNN’s Late Edition) believes that if a vote were taken tomorrow, the House would impeach him. Most commentators side with Ifill–it’s too close to call.
Last week, by contrast, a majority of the commentariat thought Clinton would escape impeachment. Most pundits ascribe the change in the conventional wisdom to Clinton’s lack of contrition. A few point out that his lawyers are advising him against admitting to lying since it could put him in legal jeopardy when he leaves office. Susan Page (Late Edition) and William Safire (NBC’s Meet the Press) advise Clinton to ignore the lawyers and admit his guilt.
A number of pundits agree that GOP representatives aren’t worried about offending their constituents by voting to impeach. Bill Kristol (ABC’s This Week) explains that these legislators are following their hearts. Brit Hume, Mara Liasson (Fox News Sunday), and Mark Shields (PBS’s NewsHour With Jim Lehrer) think the legislators are cagey enough to realize that in two years pro-impeachment voters will remember if their representative voted for impeachment, but anti-impeachment voters will forget a vote against impeachment.
Anti-Clinton pundits criticize the White House for demanding time before the House Judiciary Committee, labeling it a blatant delay tactic. Paul Gigot (NewsHour) thinks the White House plans to defend Clinton because smearing Starr didn’t work. Pro-Clinton pundits (and Inside Washington’s Charles Krauthammer) criticize Henry Hyde for meandering into campaign finance issues. Al Hunt (CNN’s Capital Gang) calls the impeachment proceedings a “slipshod inquiry,” which elicits howls from his colleague and sparring partner Robert Novak.
Predictably, the weekend witnesses another round of half-hearted scuffling over whether censure is a good compromise. Hume argues that censure lacks “teeth”; George Will (This Week) argues that a fine is meaningless since it will be paid by Clinton’s rich Hollywood buddies. Juan Williams (Fox News Sunday) contends that censure is a meaningful gesture of disapprobation–and will make the American people feel better too.
Issues 2 and 3: Evan Thomas (Inside Washington) thinks the Espy decision will “drive a nail through the special prosecutor law,” and most of the commentariat agrees. Bill Bradley is widely praised and everyone marvels at the fact that anyone dares challenge Al Gore for the Democratic nomination.
The Elephant in the Georgetown Sitting Room: Charlie Peters (longtime editor of the Washington Monthly) and Sally Quinn (Washington Post writer and Georgetown hostess) appear on Meet the Press to discuss the Washington Establishment’s reaction to Flytrap. The two discussants could not disagree more completely, but each treats the other with respect. If anything, the politesse–“as much as I like Sally, I disagree with her,” Quinn’s hand on Peters’ shoulder each time she explains why he’s wrong–seemed a touch stagy. Particularly in light of a comment Peters made to New York magazine (Nov. 23): Quinn should not criticize Clinton, since “Sally’s had a very interesting sex life of her own.”
–Bruce Gottlieb
