Flytrap Tonight: That Was an Apology?
I just watched the
president's speech at Jonah Goldberg's D.C. apartment. It is here that Lucianne
Goldberg first met Linda Tripp and here that Newsweek 's Mike Isikoff
refused to listen to the Lewinsky tapes. Jonah's apartment, in short, is the
safe house of the vast right-wing conspiracy. I figure there's no better place
to watch the climax of Flytrap than the place where it began.
Jonah,
who is a friend but not an ideological soul mate, has stocked the apartment
with conservative pals, and they are in high glee. This is a night of
vindication for them, not a night of magnanimity. Jonah answers the phone
"Gloating Central," and during the Larry King pregame show, every appearance of
James Carville is greeted with hoots of laughter. This is not the audience of
average Americans who are supposed to watch Clinton apologize, forgive him,
and--to use the night's phrase--"move on with their lives." It does not
surprise me that Clinton's speech wasn't enough for them: Nothing he could say
would have been enough for them. But it does surprise me that Clinton's speech
wasn't enough for me. I arrived at Jonah's in a forgiving mood: Let's get this
over with. I left a bit puzzled.
As theater, the Map Room talk was a minor masterpiece.
Clinton looked fresh despite his horrible afternoon. He wore a fine blue power
suit. He wisely kept Hillary out of the picture: Any awkwardness between them
would have been disastrous. The Map Room was the right choice: The Oval Office
would have been presumptuous and seamy (Where's that private study, Bill?).
But as an
apology, this was a feeble effort. Nobody expected Clinton to make a baldfaced
confession: "The American people need to know if their president is a lech.
I am a lech. " But I think almost everyone expected him to at least admit
it. I certainly did. It may have been a mea culpa , but there wasn't much
culpa to show for it. He sounded angry, not sorry. He conceded an
"inappropriate" relationship. He allowed that he has "misled" the American
people. He "took complete responsibility." But all those are champion weasel
expressions. What does it mean to "take complete responsibility"? Do you
actually have to do anything painful when you take it? What is an
"inappropriate" relationship? Is it sexual? What's the difference between
misleading and lying? (My favorite moment of the evening came when ABC pundits
tried to parse Clinton's comments about the Paula Jones deposition. They gave
up, baffled. His words defy comprehension. He believes language is a weapon of
confusion.)
Instead of turning belly up, Clinton followed
the golden rule of spin: When you're explaining, you're losing. The president,
who has always felt more comfortable attacking than defending, artfully turned
his apology into a broadside against Ken Starr. (He did this despite endless
pregame predictions that he would leave Starr alone. By the way, was anyone who
has ever expressed an opinion about Flytrap not on television tonight?
At one point I counted 20 separate pundits, most of them on Larry King
Live .)
Out of
the four minutes for which he spoke, Clinton spent about one minute explaining
himself and the rest complaining about Starr, the intrusion upon his private
life, and the distraction of the nation from serious matters. The speech was
less about Clinton's sins than Starr's--a stella culpa , as it were.
This raises the curious paradox about the Map Room speech.
As argument, it was unassailable. Clinton is absolutely correct that Starr's
investigations have "gone on too long, cost too much, and hurt too many
innocent people." He is absolutely correct that his personal life has been
invaded in ways that no one's should. He is absolutely correct that Flytrap has
horribly distracted politicians, journalists, and the public from critical
issues of the day. (These points are not only true, they are also poll-tested.)
But tonight was not the night to make such arguments. He should have left the
Starr bashing to his deputies. (Carville was doing a superb job of it.)
Tonight was the night for
abject apology, for contrition, for explanation. Tonight was the night to eat
crow. It's a bit much for Clinton, three hours after he finished testifying, to
start impugning Starr's credibility. Clinton, after all, is one who lied to us.
Clinton is the one who screwed (or whatever) the 22-year-old intern and tried
to cover it up. Clinton is the one who has delayed and stonewalled us for seven
months.
For the
past few weeks at regular intervals, Republican politicians have been telling
us that we are a forgiving people. I'm sure they're right. But can you forgive
someone who hasn't really asked for forgiveness?
"Flytrap Today": The complete chronicles.
More Flytrap
...
