Clinton Can’t Evade Ethics Issue Forever

Three weeks before the 1996 presidential election, former Education Secretary William Bennett fretted in Newsweek magazine that “Dole’s campaign . . . seems obsessed with not appearing critical, or judgmental, about the Clintons’ public character.” Bennett opined that a “legitimate issue is being sidelined”--a reference not to Clinton’s private life but to his lack of trustworthiness and the scandals that marked his first term.

Bennett pleaded for Bob Dole to “remind the people why public character matters and why Bill Clinton cannot be trusted.”

In actuality, Bennett’s concerns were very much on our minds inside the Dole campaign. Indeed, it was a source of frustration that a treasure-trove of attack points against an ethically challenged officeholder was difficult to package into a political message that actually changed voter behavior.

Here in California, we tried. With five weeks left in a campaign steadily going nowhere, Dole’s national headquarters challenged us to come up with a plan to win California. As public polls showed the Dole-Kemp ticket behind in the 20-point range, we commissioned our own survey of California voters to gauge the possibilities of a turnaround.

We tested many things and included a substantial look at the public perception of Clinton’s character and its political salience. Lawrence Research designed a questionnaire that would break through partisan defenses by walking respondents through a litany of questions inquiring whether voters could “visualize” Clinton doing certain things. The results were extraordinary.

In his summary analysis, pollster Gary Lawrence reported that the California electorate could “easily visualize [Clinton] as a liar (both to the public and to his wife), a cheat, a petty thief, a drug user, a fake. . . . He flip-flops, covers up, grabs the credit and shifts the blame.”

Many of these perceptions were overwhelming--73% could “picture” the president lying to the American people about a political issue; 67% could see him lying to his wife; 68% visualized him “claiming credit for something he didn’t do.”

But our polling also showed that taken by themselves these Olympic-class character flaws would not influence voters without a nexus to other issues concerning them. The national campaign was prepared to spend millions of dollars to win California but was chary because of the thick insulation Clinton seemed to have against such attacks. We agreed, arguing in a memo to Dole: “While we need to push the envelope, we can’t simply begin a name-calling campaign.”

Interestingly, one plow cut into this fertile ground produced movement. The campaign aired actual footage of Clinton’s famous appearance on MTV responding to the question whether he would inhale marijuana if he “had it to do over again.” The smirking candidate responded: “Sure I would. I tried before.”

Replaying this exchange in a Dole political commercial shocked many voters who finally thought that “seeing was believing.” But while Clinton dipped in our daily tracking polls, the effect was transitory. Voters in California were seemingly inured to Clinton’s conduct.

As the campaign wound down, however, the fund-raising scandals involving both Clinton and Al Gore began surfacing. As election day approached, Dole pounded the character issue hard: “Where’s the outrage?” he thundered over and over again, imploring voters to replace complacency with condemnation.

It didn’t work, not because the attempt was wrong but because Clinton’s entire career had prepared him to deflect all assaults--even those with the truest aims. How? No better explanation has come forth than that of David Tell’s for the editors of the Weekly Standard:

“To protect himself from such exposure, [Clinton] has developed an elaborate and comprehensive habit of concealment. To put the whole thing over, he has enlisted help from a group of peculiarly willing lieutenants. Together, he and they are on constant, hair-trigger alert for the slightest hint of embarrassment, any kind of embarrassment. And when they catch wind of such a peril, they move quickly and brutally to smother it, with a giant cloud of clever lawyer’s talk, preemptive smears, and subject-changing.”

And so Clinton soars in today’s polls--the hideous artistry of his troupe apparently working magic again.

So where’s the outrage? Like El Nino, it looms offshore awaiting the proper season to wreak its devastation. Thus, to Mr. Clinton goes the grim reminder that the fall from public grace, like El Nino, is often preceded by bright, sun-kissed days.