THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1996, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Sunday, January 21, 1996 TAG: 9601190158
SECTION: DAILY BREAK PAGE: E9 EDITION: FINAL
SOURCE: BY ANN G. SJOERDSMA
LENGTH: Long : 103 lines
THE HILLARY Rodham Clinton scandal that Republicans have sought in congressional investigations of failed Arkansas land deals commonly known as ``Whitewater'' and the 1993 White House Travel Office firings (``Travelgate'') has already materialized. The scandal, however, is not about ``truth'' - a distinctly relative term with so many lawyers involved.
It's about arrogance.
Being a lawyer and therefore familiar with inflated self-importance - and also once disposed to empathizing with the accomplished Hillary - I feel uniquely qualified to offer her advice: Knock it off!
If Hillary Clinton learns nothing else from this chapter in her life, she should learn humility. Self-deprecation would substitute nicely for self-righteousness, too, and how about some old-fashioned sincerity?
Even her new book, ``It Takes a Village: And Other Lessons Children Teach Us,'' a combination how-to guide to child rearing and political discourse on child development, reeks of ``I-know-best'' moral high-mindedness. Does she now invite scrutiny of her family life and marriage? I seriously doubt it.
That Clinton cares for children, and has worked in their behalf as a policy advocate, is admirable. But her opinions are only her opinions; ditto her experiences. Intelligent though she may be, Hillary Clinton is not a physician, psychologist, educator or social worker; she has never even practiced family law.
Yet so enamored is she of her own just and wise counsel for the ``villagers'' that she fails to cite a single bibliographical source!
Hillary Clinton went down in a blaze of arrogance with her hurried, hard-nosed campaign to remake the nation's health-care system - and alienate all who opposed her, notably small business. She may go down in another blaze with Whitewater/Travelgate. Certainly, a new ``image,'' or another hairstyle, will not save her. What the First Lady needs is a tough, honest self-appraisal, one that would pierce the veil of lawyerly arrogance and egomaniacal missionary zeal.
Is Hillary Clinton a ``congenital liar'' as New York Times columnist William Safire charged? Congenital, no; a liar, perhaps. An obfuscator, definitely. She has made a sport of evading all pointed questions with deft non-answers. Obfuscation seems to serve her ends.
But outside of the legal profession - and perhaps sales and insurance - carefully chosen phrases with measured words seem unnatural and untrustworthy.
When asked recently by a Newsweek reporter whether she was ``thinking personally of testifying'' in either congressional investigation, Hillary replied: ``Well, I'm looking to continue to cooperate.'' Is that a yes or a no?
Likewise, to the follow-up question, ``So you're waiting for a subpoena?,'' she answered: ``I'm not going to predict what might or might not happen.'' But, of course, she wasn't asked to.
Last week, during a sympathetic Diane Rehm public-radio interview, she had revised her response to: ``I'm considering everything, including going to the South Pole.'' Still an evasion, but a cuter one. (Eventually, she declared that she would testify in order to put the ordeal behind her.)
Unfortunately, to disbelieve Hillary Clinton, when she's not obfuscating, is to believe others who are not only arrogant, but disgruntled and/or discreditable.
Take former Director of White House Office of Administration David Watkins. His 1993 ``draft'' memo pins responsibility for the Travel Office firings on Hillary, who admits only to being ``concerned'' about financial management. Did Watkins, who was fired after using a Marine helicopter to go golfing, lie two years ago to protect the Clintons from allegations of cronyism or did he lie in his confidential ``soul-cleansing'' memo to protect himself?
Or how about James McDougal, the former president of Madison Guaranty S&L and the Clintons' business partner in the Whitewater land development? He claims he gave the thrift's legal work to Hillary Clinton at the Rose Law Firm at her husband's request. (She disagrees.) McDougal ran Madison into the ground and is facing prosecution on related fraud charges. Why wouldn't he, in seeking to save himself, seek to implicate the Clintons?
At her April 1994 ``pink'' news conference, a softer Hillary claimed that ``a very bright young associate'' brought the Madison S&L business to Rose and he ``needed a partner to serve as his backstop.'' Being a joint owner with McDougal in the Whitewater venture, she should have steered the firm clear of a possible conflict of interest; instead, she became the billing partner!
``Young associate'' Richard Massey recently testified before the Senate Whitewater Committee that he could not remember how Madison came to hire Rose, but that he didn't ``believe it happened'' the way Hillary said it did. Yet another lawyer playing memory tricks, Massey covered his own, and the firm's tracks. If he doesn't remember, he doesn't remember. The rest is inflammatory conjecture.
Then there are those previously subpoenaed Rose billing records, recently (suspiciously?) discovered by a White House aide during routine rummaging, which dock Madison for 60 hours of legal work, over 15 months, by Hillary Clinton. The first lady had breezily called her involvement ``minimal.'' Before responding to inquiries, why didn't she bother to quantify her time?
Although I don't see many squeaky clean hands at the Whitewater/Travelgate sink, I also don't see obvious wrongdoing. Cronyism, yes - and a lot of arrogance. Hillary Clinton may be a polished lawyer, even brilliant, but with her semantic quibbles, her couldn't-be-bothered memory gaps and her never-admit-anything righteousness, she alienates the ``village'' that she supposedly seeks to serve. MEMO: Ann G. Sjoerdsma is a lawyer and the book editor for The
Virginian-Pilot. ILLUSTRATION: Photo
Clinton
by CNB