Clinton’s Giving Them Nothing to Talk About

A bunch of us were sitting around the other day, wondering whether President Clinton put the squeeze on ol’ what’s-his-name to help pay for whatever that deal was in the Whitewater caper way back when. We then moved on to whether that guy from China (or was it Pakistan?) (or Singapore?) put the squeeze on the White House to do that thing they wanted done that none of us could remember quite what it was.

Yeah, sure we were.

I can’t kid you. We weren’t talking about either scandal, and for good reason. Nobody knows anything about either one. You say something at a party like, ‘What do you think about Whitewater?” and people will start fumbling for their car keys. The only thing more effective in clearing out the crowd would be showing home movies of your children’s recitals.

Why is that?

Don’t you long for the days when a political scandal had the power to jolt? What would you give to be so naive and trusting about government that when a scandal rolled around, you’d actually be outraged by it?

A vexing question, and it invites another: Have the scandals changed, or have we?

Others have noted that it’s hard to compare, because all scandals are not created equal. I always had a hunch Clinton would be the net winner in Whitewater, because I never thought that the public would tune in and that he’d look like the target of partisan politicking. As recently as a couple years ago, however, I thought the Paula Jones caper might be enough to topple him. That’s right, I’m on record in some bar somewhere predicting that the scandal would force him to resign.

Allow me to retract that prediction. No one seems to care about the Paula Jones matter, either. Just ask yourself how much time you and your friends have spent in discussing the case.

I think there’s a simple explanation for all this, and much of it lies in a little scandal by the name of Watergate.

Anyone over the age of 45 has been spoiled by the Watergate scandal that broke 25 years ago. Just like no one over the age of 20 today will ever see anything to top the O.J. Simpson murder trial, neither will those around for Watergate ever find a better political scandal. It’d be like telling someone who’s seen “Casablanca” about a new movie with a fantastic love story. Yeah, the new movie might be OK, but it’s not going to advance the art form.

Same with the alleged Clinton scandals. In their zeal to nail him, the Republicans forgot that most Americans have already been treated to better scandals with more interesting characters and plot lines.

How are we supposed to get jazzed about Clinton and a cast of unknown Arkansans when we had a president, his chief of staff, his attorney general, the president’s lawyer and virtually the entire White House staff up to their eyeballs in Watergate?

How are we supposed to get excited about then-Gov. Bill and Paula when we’ve already been through presidential candidate Gary Hart and Donna Rice on the deck of the boat “Monkey Business?” With pictures in the Enquirer?

Can you come up with one memorable line from Whitewater? There are none. Watergate provided us with dozens, including the classic setup line from Nixon supporter Sen. Howard Baker: “What did the President know and when did he know it?”

Even Gary Hart had the dramatic sense to say to reporters: “Follow me around. I don’t care.”

President Clinton has another huge advantage. He’s living in a time of tabloid TV, where a new blockbuster crime or scandal shows up every other week. Just this year, we’ve had the JonBenet Ramsey murder investigation, Marv Albert, the English nanny trial and numerous others I’m leaving out.

Frankly, President Clinton’s case isn’t as interesting as those others. Poor Nixon, on the other hand. He had center-stage all alone. We can only wonder whether the Patty Hearst kidnapping and subsequent crime spree might have diverted our attention had it happened toward the beginning of Watergate instead of the end.

It’s doubtful, though, that anything could have helped Nixon. When a presidential scandal starts out with a burglary and then someone says to a judge that people have been paid to keep quiet, well, that’s got Hollywood written all over it. That’s a plot line we can all follow.

I thought Paula Jones had a story line we could follow too.

In hindsight, I see my mistake. Her story line, while juicy, wasn’t original enough. The American public has seen too much lately.

When it comes to scandals, we’re demanding much, much more from our public officials.

*

Dana Parsons’ column appears Wednesday, Friday and Sunday. Readers may reach Parsons by calling (714) 966-7821, by writing to him at The Times Orange County Edition, 1375 Sunflower Ave., Costa Mesa, CA 92626, or by e-mail at dana.parsons@latimes.com.