Bob Levey Dan Murano for The Washington Post

Thursday, January 29, 1998

Good morning and welcome to a special edition of Levey Live. I’m your host, Washington Post columnist Bob Levey.

Levey Live normally appears each Tuesday from noon until 1 p.m. Eastern time. It’s a chance for you to discuss major news stories and issues with key newsmakers and with Washington Post reporters and editors.

Today from 10 to 11 a.m., our guest is the chief political reporter of The Washington Post, Dan Balz.

Balz joined the staff in 1974 as a part-time editor. Since then, he has served as an assistant national editor, deputy national editor, Austin correspondent, national editor and White House correspondent. He has held his current position since 1991.

On today’s show, we plan to look ahead at the politics of the Clinton-Lewinsky story. What does it mean for the Democratic Party? For the 1998 congressional elections? For Vice President Gore? For the agenda that President Clinton put forth in his State of the Union speech?

Your questions and comments are welcome throughout the hour. Because we expect a large volume today, please file your questions and comments early.

Sperryville, Va.: It would seem that as time goes by and there is less news concerning the allegations, that this whole matter will die of its own weight. Does this seem to be a reasonable thought?

Dan Balz: It seems unlikely that this story will simply fade away. There are some significant things yet to happen, particularly the negotiations by Ken Starr and Monica Lewinsky about her testimony. But it does appear as if this will continue much longer than originally predicted.

Colesville, Md.: The public seems to me to be politically apathetic and to have low tolerance for the protracted political struggle that the White House has been encouraging with their recent spin efforts. But I also believe that it is absolutely critical to hold politicians accountable for their words and actions under the law. Do you think the press will be willing to risk the disdain of an indifferent public in the months ahead to get to the truth of this matter, even if it is a truth they don't like?

Dan Balz: I don't think there is much doubt that the press will continue to report on this story aggressively in the days and weeks ahead. Those of us in the news business know that we're not always popular with the public, particularly on controversial matters like this. But we do feel we have an obligation to find out the truth, to the extent it can be determined.

Gaithersburg, Md.: CNN reported this morning on Headline News that the president's approval rating was at 67 percent, the highest it has ever been. It also reported that the majority of Americans thought there was too much media coverage of this scandal. Even though it is typical for a president's approval to raise for a temporary period of time following a State [of the Union] address, do you think that this particular performace might have canceled out the impact of the allegations?

Dan Balz: I don't think the State of the Union speech will cancel out the allegations, but the president's performance did give me a little respite from the controversy. You're right – presidents usually get a bump up in their approval ratings from a big speech like the State of the Union, and this was no different. But there's much more to come on the other matter and so his approval ratings could go down in the future.

Bob Levey: The Wall Street Journal reports this morning that the White House is considering an "executive privilege" strategy. In other words, they'll refuse to cooperate with the various investigations. But doesn't "executive privilege" bring back loud memories of Richard Nixon, who used that strategy, too? In political terms, how can the White House risk being lumped with Nixon and Watergate in any way?

Dan Balz: The claim of "executive privilege" will bring back memories of Watergate, but there are some complicated legal questions involving the president's White House lawyers and what they can or must tell an independent counsel. One of the problems Clinton has faced in this matter is that he can't really talk to his political advisers much because they could be subpoenaed to testify and would have to use their own funds to pay for legal counsel. It appears as if the White House counsel, under recent rulings, might fall under the same umbrella, but the Clinton White House might want to test that in this case because the president has to deal both with personal and government lawyers in this matter.

Alexandria, Va.: Maybe a bigger question is, "What does this scandal mean for future presidents?" Will Democrats launch a campaign to scrutinize the next Republican president? Will future presidents have to constantly defend themselves from allegations of impropriety?

Dan Balz: I think we are in an era of greater partisanship and more polarization. Not only presidents, but politicians at all levels, will find themselves under greater scrutiny. You can see how our political campaigns have evolved in recent years. They are nastier and more negative than ever. At a time when more and more people consider themselves centrists, the parties have become more partisan. That will surely affect the climate in the future and it's doubtful that future presidents will receive less scrutiny. On the other hand, as the Clinton presidency shows, people have the ability to judge a president in different ways, public performance versus private behavior, and then decide for themselves which of those is more imporant to them.

Phoenix, Ariz.: Assuming no major changes in this crisis in the near future, do you anticipate an active Republican attempt to keep the "fruitcakes" of the party on a short leash – that is, from turning this into a moral crusade?

Dan Balz: The Republicans have been silent for obvious reasons. If this continues in the coming days or weeks with no particular bombshells, some Republians may feel the urge to start speaking out more than they have. But they risk playing into the hands of the White House, which has alleged that this whole matter is a "vast, right-wing conspiracy," as the first lady put it. The more Republicans bash Clinton, the more it will look like this is mostly political.

Findlay, Ohio: Do you believe the prevailing public attitude of what Clinton does in his private life is inconsequential as long as things in the country are going well reflects the lowering of expectations for public officials as a whole? If so, this certainly cannot be good for our country. I believe it also reflects a lowering of standards for the behavior of society as well. Shouldn't we expect more from the president of the United States?

Dan Balz: I wouldn't put it quite that way. We know much more about the private lives of politicians than ever before and there's nothing to suggest that will change or reverse itself in the future. So it means all Americans have much more information upon which to make a judgment about a president's peformance. Character is an essential ingredient in judging the fitness of someone to be president, but everyone looks at that differently. In many ways, we have very high standards for what we expect of politicians. People in some other countries believe we are far too obsessed with the personal lives of politicians.

Bob Levey: This is a very unusual story for one important reason: Bill Clinton's political interests may not be the same as his legal interests. Which set of considerations will win out?

Dan Balz: Excellent question, Bob. The legal side of this will prove decisive if the case for or against the president is crystal clear. If not, then it will become more of a political issue. The president's strategy right now appears to be built on the assumption that the legal side will continue to be murky – "he said, she said." In that case, he'll do everything he can to persuade people that, whatever they may think about his private behavior, he's working for them and the country.

Tacoma, Wash.: The Washington Post just reported that the White House is refusing to release the logs that register visitors. How long can they (White House) refuse a subpoena? Who is responsible for complying with the subpoena? And doesn't this reflect poorly on the president's case? It certainly gives cause for further speculation as to what may be in the logs.

Dan Balz: I believe the White House has or will be giving those logs to Kenneth Starr. But the White House has refused so far to tell The Washington Post and others what those logs show. We reported today that the president met with Monica Lewinsky on Dec. 28 at the White House. That's based on our reporting, not on the release of the logs.

Bozeman, Mont.: Could you please estimate the relative amounts of "sleaze factor/rank opportunism" and "media boredom/frenzy" and "actual presidential impropriety" that have contributed to Clinton's current so-called crisis? I live so far away from the source, it's like trying to heat the house on a 30-watt bulb here. Are we just getting our dog wagged, or what? Thank you.

Dan Balz: There's no question that this story was a bombshell when it hit Washington a week ago. What made it so initially was not simply that it involved allegations of sex and presidential impropriety, but that it involved very serious legal questions: whether the president and Vernon Jordan had urged Monica Lewinsky to lie about the alleged affair. Those ingredients together proved both combustible and irresistible to the media and to Washington insiders. It's clear that the rest of the country has not been quite as fascinated with all the details of this story, but there is no question that it is still very important to the entire country. If these allegations are true, they jeopardize Clinton's hold on the presidency and would affect the institution of the presidency and the political health of the country. If they are totally false, then the independent counsel's credibility could be badly damaged. Either way, the stakes here have been enormous from the moment the story broke, and both the White House and the Starr team are proceeding with that in mind.

Bob Levey: Pet hunch: No matter how the Lewinsky story plays out, more and more Americans will be turned off by it, and will vote even less than they do now. You agree?

Dan Balz: I suspect you are correct. I talked to some analysts over the weekend who believe that no matter what the result, this whole matter will result in more people turning away from politics. These allegations are sordid and salacious and most people don't like to hear about them. Most people don't think that highly of politicians – and the press – to begin with, and this kind of story only serves to reinforce those feelings. In the long run, the whole system will suffer from this.

Seattle, Wash.: Do you agree with some comments made last night on CNN that the media has lost sight of its charge, being to report truth and facts AFTER stories and allegations have been confirmed by at least two sources, a la Woodward & Bernstein?

Dan Balz: This is a scandal that could only have happened in the 1990s. We are in a brave new world of 24-hour cable news channels, newspapers on the Internet and things like the Drudge Report, an Internet gossip site. On this story, you've had some of the most intensive competition for information that any of us have ever seen. In this climate, standards have fallen. Things appear in one place and instantly get communicated around the world, often without any attempt to confirm them independently. But I think that after the initial few days, everyone in the press has tried to step back a bit, slow down and be as careful as possible.

Bob Levey: Half an hour left with the Washington Post's chief political reporter, Dan Balz

Glendive, Mont.: When all the 9 Supreme Court justices decided unanimously that Paula Jones's case could proceed, did they know that they were throwing this nation into chaos? What would have happened if the case was tried after the president finished his terms?
Tommathew T. Thomas, M.D.

Dan Balz: I doubt that the Supreme Court believed it would throw the country into chaos with the decision, but [I] also assume the justices believed they were making the correct legal decision. It is certainly good that it wasn't a split decision, but in a case as delicate as this one, it was important to have a unanimous Supreme Court. Once the court ruled, then the "facts" of the matter began to take precedence. No one anticipated any of this, obviously, least of all the justices. But it is part of what democracy gives us.

Annapolis, Md.: As much as I dislike Clinton, and would like to see him finally get caught in all of his scandels, wouldn't the resignation of two presidents in 25 years have serious repercussions on Americans' view of the political system? (I guess this follows up on Bob's question.) {I'm young, born post-Watergate, so I have always grown up being slightly suspicious of politicians.}

Dan Balz: I fear you're absolutely right. Two resignations in a quarter century would have a damaging effect on the institution of the presidency and on public confidence in the political system.

Cedar Rapids, Iowa: Mr. Balz, This is a question about "tailgate." Has the investigation of President Clinton by the independent counsel come up with any hard evidence of wrongdoing, or is it just blowing smoke?

Dan Balz: So far we have only allegations. But the information developed was considered significant enough that the Justice Department allowed Starr to expand his investigation. We'll all have to wait to see how solid the evidence of wrongdoing is.

Washington, D.C.: It seems that in these last few days the President's approval ratings have skyrocketed. Do you think that continued coverage of these events, with no REAL news coming out of it, will help the president to look as if he is the innocent victim of a "right-wing conspiracy"?

Dan Balz: There are a number of questions about whether this whole matter is part of a "right-wing conspiracy." Certainly the president has opponents on the right, and public opinion long has been sharply divided about him. Both the president and Mrs. Clinton evoke strong feelings, on both sides. For now, the intensive coverage is aimed at getting to the truth of the allegations, and as part of that, everyone will learn more about the motivations of those who brought them. The president hopes to make people think that this is all a matter of his political opponents trying to get him, but there is much more to be known about this before anyone can draw conclusions about that aspect of the story.

West Carrollton, Ohio: Regardless of how Clinton fares through this situation, is anyone predicting the fallout for the next elections? Who in Congress is most at risk ?

Dan Balz: Too soon to know the answer to that question, but every member of Congress is thinking about it. The more damaged the president it, the more difficult it will be for Democrats in the fall. Politicians have a strong sense of survival and self-protection. Right now Democrats are standing behind the president, but if he gets into real trouble, they may begin to abandon him.

Bob Levey: More on the "executive privilege" strategy: Won't this produce a "bunker mentality" at the White House? Won't it make it even harder for Clinton to lead?

Dan Balz: There was certainly a bunker mentality in the first few days of the crisis and it will continue for awhile as the facts get sorted out. But I think it will be difficult for the White House to appear as if it is truly resisting the investigation. That will badly damage the president's credibility. They may be slow about getting some material to the independent counsel, but stonewalling won't work in this case, particulary given the president's firm denials.

Dallas, Texas: Is Kenneth Starr under some "pressure" to move quickly to a "resolution" of the Lewinsky matter (or at least to get her under oath)? The longer it drags on, won't many voters get bored with the allegations and possibly sway their opinions/suppositions to the side of the president?

Dan Balz: Everyone is under pressure to move quickly, given the explosive nature of these allegations. But this is a legal matter and things often move slowly. For example, former White House Chief of Staff Leon Panetta testified before the grand jury on Wednesday. He was there for eight hours. At that pace, it will take Starr's team a long time to move through all the potential witnesses. So be prepared for this to drag on inconclusively for some time longer. On the other hand, Starr knows he has to get this resolved one way or the other fairly quickly.

Cookeville, Tenn.: You said the press was slowing down and taking time to confirm reports. How did the Post find out that on Dec. 28 Monica met with the president, and not some one other?

Dan Balz: We got this through our sources, and since I didn't write that particular story, I can't tell you more about those sources. The New York Times reported a day ago about a post-Christmas meeting, which is one of the things we had been hearing. Our reporters Sue Schmidt and Peter Baker confirmed the date of the meeting during their reporting on Wednesday and we published it today. But this is painstaking work for those trying to pin down the facts.

Washington, D.C.: Why is no one in the country concerned with how this entire scandal makes our country look to our foreign allies and enemies? The media is concerned [more] with who the president may or may not have slept with than they are about potential threats to America's national security. Is our country that narrow that they only focus inward and never outward?

Dan Balz: I disagree with your premise. We are covering the continuing story of possible military action in Iraq while moving ahead on the Monica Lewinsky story. I don't think the media focuses only inward. But this is a major story with grave implications for the presidency. It cannot be ignored or pushed into the background. But that doesn't mean the media is ignoring the significance of other events.

Bob Levey: Clinton set forth an agenda in the State of the Union speech that would normally be quite doable. But is it doable in the Lewinsky climate?

Dan Balz: Clinton's State of the Union was filled with popular proposals, although with a Republican Congress, it's not clear that he would have his way on many of them, even in the best of times. This is an election year: Both parties will want to have accomplishments and will want to show how they differ from one another. That creates a tension that exists apart from the current scandal. The question of whether Clinton can get his programs through in the face of these allegations can't be answered until we know more about the case. But if he is politically damaged, the Republicans will be bolder about opposing his ideas.

Dallas, Texas: What is the latest on the subpoenaes to Secret Service agents? With respect to presidential logistics and security, this seems to be a VERY dangerous area of inquiry. The ramifications could be drastic and far-reaching. Any thoughts on the legal or political aspect of this issue?

Dan Balz: All I'd say is, I agree with you that it's a very delicate area. The Secret Service has been pretty quiet about how they would handle all this. It's such a gray area for all of us. The Secret Service was upset that former agents talked to author Seymour Hersh for his book about President Kennedy. A case involving a sitting president is even more treacherous for the service.

Los Angeles, Calif.: I am perplexed to shocked by the poll numbers the president seems to sustain, and the widespread support Mrs. Clinton has. It seems obvious to me that she has little choice but to support the President, since her own political future is inextricably linked to his. Is this concept lost on most people?

Dan Balz: Hillary Clinton has always been her husband's best defender. She was in 1992 over the Gennifer Flowers allegations, and her interviews this week reminded everyone that she stands behind her husband in the most difficult of moments. I think that's not only because she is his wife but also because she is very tough and a fighter.

Leawood, Kan.: Since the Clinton administration took office, the DNC has had a difficult time raising money compared to the RNC. What will these latest allegations do to future fund-raising for the Democratic Party? And if the answer is that it will be bad for the DNC, do you think the party leaders will seek his resignation?

Dan Balz: Hard to say at this point, but if the president is badly damaged, it will make it even more difficult for him to raise money. He has been the DNC's best asset in helping to reduce the party's debt. But if he's preoccupied with defending himself, or his political standing falls, many contributors will resist giving much to the party.

Bob Levey: That's it for today. Our thanks to Dan Balz, the Post's chief political reporter. Join us tomorrow, from 10 to 11 a.m. Eastern time, for another special edition of Levey Live, devoted to the Clinton-Lewinsky story. Our scheduled guest tomorrow is historian Michael Beschloss, author of "Taking Charge," the best-seller about the Johnson presidency.