In Capitol Talk of Clinton’s Fate, a Darker Tone

Somehow, invisibly but tangibly, a line has been crossed in the debate over the fate of President Clinton, crossed even before the independent counsel’s vans rolled up to the marble steps of the Capitol on Wednesday afternoon.

For the first time since the Watergate crisis of Richard Nixon, a president’s impeachment is the question on the table. Independent counsel Kenneth W. Starr affirmed it: His 18 volumes and 445 pages of evidence, he said, “may constitute grounds for impeachment.” Clinton’s lawyer, David E. Kendall, acknowledged the charge even as he rebutted it: “There is no basis for impeachment,” he said, standing grimly on the White House driveway.

Even the president’s champions have stopped dismissing the question as out of order. House Minority Leader Richard A. Gephardt (D-Mo.) avoided the “I” word itself, but he blurted out the name of the ghost in the room, urging the House to follow “the Watergate process. Next to declaring war, this may be the most important thing that we do,” he said.

And Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), one of Clinton’s most devoted allies, fended off questions about impeachment by saying it would be improper for her to answer--because she might have to vote on his conviction.

An impeachment of Clinton still appears unlikely. The House is several steps away from actually taking up such a resolution. Rep. Henry J. Hyde (R-Ill.), chairman of the House committee that will consider the issue, noted carefully that he is merely running a preliminary inquiry.

“I will not condone, nor participate in, a political witch hunt,” he said. “If the evidence does not justify a full impeachment investigation, I will not recommend one.”

Yet in less than a week, Congress’ language on the Clinton scandal has changed unmistakably--reflecting a deeper, more important change in the way the question is being framed.

It is no longer the “Starr investigation,” as it was earlier this year, when the White House managed to focus attention on the apparent excesses of the independent counsel.

Nor is it “the president’s troubles,” as some sympathetic voices tried to frame it during Clinton’s initial attempts at apology.

Instead, Hyde’s Judiciary Committee is considering the application of Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution: impeachment.

Congress is often faulted for failing to lead, for waiting to follow the counsel of public opinion polls. But this time, Congress seems to have switched suddenly to fast-forward mode, without waiting for the public. The president’s standing in public opinion polls has held rock-steady, with his job approval rating over 65% in some soundings.

What happened? Why has Congress suddenly decided that impeachment, once unthinkable, is now not only thinkable but perhaps even debatable?

One reason is that Starr’s report, which presents what the prosecutor called “substantial and credible evidence that may constitute grounds for impeachment,” simply forced the word into the open.

But the political ground has shifted as well, in ways that are disquieting for Clinton. Leading members of the president’s party--including some figures he would normally count on for support--are edging away from him.

“The taboo was broken by Democrats,” noted Ross K. Baker, a political scientist at Rutgers University. “When Republicans said the word ‘impeachment,’ it didn’t have legitimacy. Now it does.”

Three factors have combined to make some Democrats bolt.

First, Clinton’s admission on Aug. 17 that he had an improper relationship with Monica S. Lewinsky and that he had lied about it forced the focus of attention squarely onto the president’s unpalatable conduct. Democrats who had fended off questions all year--by denouncing the charges as unproven or the prosecutor as unfair--finally were forced to say whether they condoned the affair. Most chose to say no. All wondered whether Clinton would drop any more shoes.

“People who have been burned before don’t want to go out on a limb for him,” said Gary C. Jacobson, a congressional scholar at UC San Diego. “And from here on out, there’s no upside [for Clinton defenders]. It’s all downhill. The only question is how far down.”

Second, for centrist Democrats, Clinton’s admissions were especially painful--because they undercut years of work (much of it by Clinton himself) to cast their party as devoted to family values and traditional morality. “Look at who criticized him first,” said Baker. Some, like Sens. Daniel Patrick Moynihan (D-N.Y.) and Bob Kerrey (D-Neb.) had been critical of Clinton in the past.

But another was Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (D-Conn.), an old friend who succeeded Clinton as chairman of the moderate Democratic Leadership Council. Lieberman’s speech on Friday, condemning Clinton’s behavior as “immoral” and accepting impeachment as a possibility, told other Democrats that defending the president while waiting for more evidence to emerge is no longer a tenable position.

Finally, while the numbers in public opinion polls have not changed, the ground beneath public opinion has been shifting.

“Clinton is still popular and impeachment is not, but the Democrats have thrown out the numbers,” pollster Andrew Kohut said. “They know instinctively that, if Clinton’s approval slips, all bets are off.”

“People who are running for office don’t want to know what the public thinks now. They want to know what the public is going to think on election day,” agreed Jacobson. “Politicians are risk averse and getting too close to Bill Clinton is a risky idea right now.”