HEAD Views Vary on Clinton Allegations

ALLENTOWN MORNING CALL: Clinton and . . . Hillary showed a strength of character in admitting their marriage--like countless others--has had its problems. . . . They’re entitled to a “zone of privacy.”

ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT-GAZETTE: The reasonable speculation . . . is that the governor may have had an extramarital affair. We base that in part on his refusing to deny it. . . . If he had an extramarital affair, repented, confessed and apologized to his wife, and instead of divorcing they put their lives back together, confirmed their mutual love and renewed their marital commitment--then Clinton should not be condemned. And we do not agree that an illicit affair automatically disqualifies someone from being President. . . . Now take the other side. If Clinton really did, as governor, engage in a 12-year affair, or in multiple affairs, that should disqualify him for the presidency--almost regardless of his regrets or his wife’s forgiveness. A pattern of ongoing infidelities would show a terrible lack of judgment.

CHICAGO TRIBUNE: By asking the public to forgive, forget and forgo further probing, the Clintons are stepping into unexplored territory. . . . The usual strategy has been flat denial. . . . (They) promise everything is better now and they are willing to throw themselves on the mercy of the public court.

LOUISVILLE COURIER-JOURNAL: It would be a shame if his candidacy were destroyed by an allegation of marital infidelity that appeared in a sleazy supermarket tabloid. . . . So far, no one has proved that (Clinton) is a liar--or a philanderer.

DENVER POST: When you add the possible elements of deliberate deceit during a campaign, and misuse of the public payroll, there can be little doubt of a legitimate public interest. . . . There is only one way to go: an agonizing, and possibly inconclusive public spectacle of personal relationships. It’s an imperfect course, subject to terrible abuse. It demands a high price both in personal torment and in public loathing of the process. But, despite the periodic anguish we suffer through, no one has pointed to a better way.

HOUSTON CHRONICLE: He cannot expect to speak to the public in hints and code language about marital infidelity and then claim such semantic evasion should close the subject. . . . (He) must also understand that some portion of the electorate thinks it is their business. If he does not choose to frankly address their concerns, he cannot quarrel with their continuing concern nor with their verdict. . . . Clinton is attempting to arrive at the politically beneficial result of forgiveness without taking the necessary first step of confession. It seldom works.

PEORIA JOURNAL-STAR: With 16 million Americans unemployed, 40 million Americans without health care and 3 million Americans homeless, here’s what we have to say about presidential aspirant Bill Clinton’s alleged previous marital infidelity: So what? And that’s all.

TOPEKA CAPITAL-JOURNAL: Is this any way to pick a President? No. But it is apparently how the nation has decided to do it. . . . For presidential candidates, that means no matter how they feel about such questions, they should be prepared to answer them. . . . Clinton was not. And his candidacy may be in trouble because of it.

ST. PETERSBURG TIMES: Clinton and other candidates now find themselves being held to a new level of scrutiny that many former presidents could not have withstood. . . . In general, though, the political process is not improved when our unseemly interest in a candidate’s human frailties distracts us from more important public issues.

PROVIDENCE JOURNAL: Clinton’s refusal to confirm or deny . . . can only injure (him) in the long run. . . . (He) and his wife may believe their private lives are their exclusive business. But it is perfectly natural for voters to judge office seekers on a variety of bases. . . . And if the (Democrats) intend to nominate Bill Clinton, and the American people elect him their President, they had better be certain they know what they’re getting.