"Full-Service" Chatterdump
HOW LONG can famed D.C.-Hollywood-N.Y. beauty Patricia Duff--former
spouse of movie executive Mike Medavoy and Revlon tycoon Ronald Perelman--stay
out of the Clinterngate mess? In Hit and Run , their highly-regarded
expose of the early-'90s Sony studio debacle, Nancy Griffin and Kim Masters
report as follows: "At a dinner party at a producer's home, which took place
after [Patricia] and Mike had slept in the Lincoln Bedroom, she told thePatricia later said she
gathering that Clinton was 'a full-service president.'
meant to refer only to Clinton's hospitality, but her listeners didn't
interpret the remark that way." ...
AN EMERGING DEFENSE of Clinton is that Linda Tripp's evidence is
somehow tainted because she's been out to get the president all along. But if
she were really out to get him, why would she have contradicted Kathleen
Willey's reported story that she (Willey) did not welcome Clinton's advances?
Tripp told Newsweek that Willey did not seem upset at the time, but
instead looked "flustered, happy and joyful." Certainly it would be more
damaging to Clinton if Tripp said Willey was distraught and angry, an obvious
victim of harassment. ... Also, why would Tripp, in order to get Clinton to
settle the Paula Jones lawsuit, have urged Lewinsky to tell Clinton that she
(Lewinsky) had been blabbing about their sexual encounters? Tipping Clinton off
would only help the president. Settling the Jones case would have helped him
too (avoiding the whole perjury issue). But it would also have gotten Tripp out
of testifying (and contradicting Lewinsky). Maybe Tripp is telling the truth
when she says she was really terrified of having to testify, not hell-bent on
destroying Clinton. ...
WE LOVE HIM WHEN HE'S ANGRY: Is Chatterbox alone in feeling that
Clinton's State of the Union address was actually much more forceful because
the president seemed a little tense and pissed off--not doing his usual
ingratiating, good humored sales job. Something really seemed to be at stake.
...
THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF TALK that Clinton has broken an "implicit pact"
with the American people that was struck after he confronted Gennifer Flowers'
allegations in his famous 1992 60 Minutes interview. But what exactly
was this unwritten deal? Many commentators (e.g., columnist Ellen Goodman,
Jonathan Alter of Newsweek ) seem to believe Clinton effectively promised
not to screw around again in the future. Andrew Ferguson of Time argues
that since the voters didn't care about Flowers, "an implicit bargain was
struck," which held that Clinton would only screw around with people "roughly
his own age," and do it discreetly. Chatterbox thinks Clinton believes the
implicit bargain was this: Since the voters didn't care about Flowers, they'll
let him get away with it again. That's the problem with those "implicit"
bargains. Memo to electorate: Next time get it in writing. ...
SEEN ON A BULLETIN BOARD at Columbia University (honest!):
INTERN WANTED FOR GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS
ALL CC '99 AND CC '00 ELIGIBLE 15 HOURS PER WEEK/UNPAID
