Character Issue Can, Will Hit Dole as Well

It was charming. Elizabeth Dole and husband Bob returning to her home town of Salisbury, N.C., to visit with the home folks. Bands, old high school chums and Liddy, with her sweet smile and warm Southern accent charming the crowd. How nice. Well, not really. By the time she finished, any thoughts that the Dole team was not going to go after President Bill Clinton’s throat like a hound dog on a raccoon were laid to rest.

Now I’m a Yankee, but I can translate Southern. In her honey voice what Elizabeth Dole said, in effect, is that the election would be about character and which candidate had it. She could vouch for her husband. But the other guy? Now, sweet Liddy didn’t have to labor the point, but in case anyone missed it, North Carolina junior right-wing Sen. Lauch Faircloth was there with the hammer: “When Bob Dole tells you something, you can take it to the bank. When Bill Clinton tells you something, you can get a subpoena.” Message to the Clinton campaign: Get used to it--they’ve only just begun.

But does Clinton have to concede the character issue? Should he listen to those advisors who caution against touching character, except by inference (sometimes too-obvious inferences)? School uniforms, deadbeat dads, the V-chip--all relate to character. But the central theme of the Dole campaign is not character by example, but the character of the man, Clinton. To avoid responding to these not-so-subtle character attacks during the next seven months is extremely dangerous to Clinton’s reelection.

If the barrage comes from the Dole camp alone, Clinton could dismiss the attacks as gutter politics, but with the Whitewater investigation continuing and Clinton’s taped testimony in the McDougal trial upcoming, and with a growing perception that Hillary Rodham Clinton is hiding something, a purely defensive strategy is doomed from the start.

In defending the defensive strategy, White House aides argue that the character problem is real, that both Clintons are suspect on the morality scale and any attempt to overtly defend their own character only draws attention to a public that has reached a guilty verdict on the Clintons’ character and will not be persuaded otherwise.

True to a point, but this ignores the fact that the voters already absorbed the Clinton character issue in ’92 and still elected him; and even in the face of constant attacks from Republicans like bulldog Sen. Alfonse M. D’Amato and right-wing radio thugs, voters today give Clinton the highest favorability rating of his presidency. Think of this not as public ignorance or luck but rather as a powerful campaign resource.

One thing you can count on as this campaign proceeds is that the GOP will overplay the character card. There are just too many right-wing, visceral Clinton haters to control. So for Clinton, there will be a campaign moment or two to turn the tables on Dole and his attack dogs.

At the right time--maybe the end of the Whitewater hearings or at a presidential debate--Clinton will have opportunity to respond, and he must not duck. Clinton needs to tell voters what they already know: “I’ve made mistakes and they have been costly to me and my family, but that was then, and this is now. There may have been errors in judgment, but these attacks are character assassination of the worst kind. I’ve made my peace with the voters, Mr. Dole, and they will decide on the basis of what they know about me and not by the disgraceful mudslinging of your campaign.”

A dose of mea culpa like this would not hurt Hillary, either. Her reaction to Whitewater has been extremely defensive but like her husband’s womanizing, the public does not seem to care that much. The first lady needs a moment to respond as well. When it comes, try this: “Sure, I made some mistakes in judgment, but I was trying to develop a law practice to support my family while my husband was governor on a small salary. I think any mother and wife will understand.” Take that, Liddy!

Naive, you say. Maybe, but here’s the catch. Once Dole or his people go too far, and when Clinton reminds the public that he and they have already had a come-to-Jesus meeting on character, it is now fair to raise the character issue on Dole.

Impossible? Hardly. An overlooked news story last week about Dole pressuring the Agency for International Development to fund business deals of a rabbi who happened to be a major Dole contributor is an example of the majority leader’s overlooked character problem. There is a character price to be paid for 35 years in Congress. All the favors (all, as far as I can tell, legal) that Dole has done for friends and contributors over the years is fair game and goes to the heart of the frustration the public has with Washington special interests and their influence. Money talks--and Dole has a party line.

Character problems like Clinton’s womanizing are a negative, but the peddling of the public trust to the highest bidder is a far more egregious character flaw. The moral decay that pervades Washington in the eyes of the voters is a bigger problem for Dole than for Clinton. Voters may believe Clinton has made personal errors, but would not believe he is a broker for Washington’s special interests. That’s Dole’s problem.

The GOP started the character fight. Clinton needs to take it back to them. The public has forgiven, for the most part, Clinton’s character lapses. They are about to be introduced to Dole’s either by the press or by a concerted effort from the Clinton campaign. And on the character question of public trust, Clinton can take the high road.*