Still, it was a close call. During the Lewinsky scandal, even longtime Clinton loyalists considered breaking ranks with the president. As Woodward’s captivating inside account reveals, nearly half of the Democrats in the Senate secretly wished at one point that Clinton would resign. White House aides, including the then chief of staff Erskine Bowles, refused to defend Clinton. Even Vice President Gore expressed amazement that Clinton would risk it all for Lewinsky, but concluded he had to remain loyal. “I’m powerless over this situation,” Woodward quotes Gore telling former White House counsel Jack Quinn. “And I can’t try to deal with what I have no control over.” Gore’s wife, Tipper, was unforgiving, Woodward writes.
For scandal-weary Americans, it is hard to imagine there is much new to say about the Lewinsky saga. But Woodward’s revealing book (592 pages. Simon & Schuster. $27.50) provides the clearest picture to date of how close Clinton came to losing his job–and his marriage–and how isolated the president became as Monica’s story unfolded. Though the sexual nature of the scandal made it unique, the way Washington responded was not. Since Watergate, the nation’s capital has become a far more suspicious and cynical place. Even the smallest presidential mistakes have been harshly scrutinized by Congress, the media and the growing cadre of independent counsels. But, as Woodward writes, Clinton and the other post-Watergate presidents refused to believe the political climate had changed. They are victims of what Woodward calls “the myth of the big-time president.” “As successors to George Washington and Franklin Roosevelt, they expect to rule,” Woodward writes. “But after Vietnam and Watergate, the modern presidency has been limited and diminished. Its inner workings and the behavior of presidents are fully exposed.” The veteran reporter’s conclusion: if there’s a hint of scandal, release the facts as soon as possible lest questions harden into a “permanent state of suspicion and warfare.”
As Woodward sees it, Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, George Bush and Clinton failed to accept that the adversarial, investigative culture of Washington was now entrenched–and got in trouble accordingly. It started almost immediately: in pardoning Nixon, Ford misjudged the public. He thought it was time to move on; much of the country believed the former president should be punished. Carter campaigned on a promise to enforce strict ethical standards throughout his administration but then quickly sought an exception when questions arose about the business dealings of his friend and budget director Bert Lance. Although he stonewalled during the first months of Iran-contra, Reagan eventually relented and allowed a broad internal investigation. In the end, the lawyers couldn’t prove that Reagan knew about the diversion of funds to the contras.
Long hounded by special prosecutor Lawrence Walsh, Bush was perhaps the most bitter about the scandal culture, which seemed to spin out of control as the years went on. As Woodward reports, David Souter, a Bush nominee to the Supreme Court, almost withdrew from consideration when he heard a New York gay newspaper was planning to print rumors that the lifelong bachelor was homosexual. That evening, he told his friend and chief sponsor, Sen. Warren Rudman, that he found the process “vicious” and that he wanted to drop out. Rudman physically blocked the much-smaller Souter’s access to the phone while arguing that the court needed him. A glass of Scotch later, Souter agreed not to withdraw.
Not surprisingly, Woodward devotes much of the book to the Clinton scandal. Some of his most intriguing revelations are about Hillary. Although the First Lady was virtually silent in public once she learned the truth about Lewinsky, she did admit to close friends that she felt miserable. Yet, Hillary insisted, she did not see Lewinsky as a threat. “It was only sex, not partnership” in her mind, Woodward writes. Hillary turned to God. “I have to take this punishment,” Woodward quotes her telling a friend. “I don’t know why God has chosen this for me. But He has, and it will be revealed to me. God is doing this, and He knows the reason. There is some reason.” Hillary remained uncertain about her future. Woodward reports that a close friend told her about another high-profile couple in a similar situation. After 40 years of marriage, the husband was caught in one of his many affairs. The wife was devastated, but decided the relationship was worth fighting for. “Man,” Woodward quotes the First Lady telling her friend, “that’s exactly what I am thinking now.”
Hillary Clinton was not happy last year when her popularity soared in response to her decision to stand by her man. She has never been one to want to appear too vulnerable. (Woodward reports that in 1993 Dick Morris urged Hillary to soften her image by talking more about her weaknesses. “I can’t think of any. I’m not good at that. What do you want me to do?” Woodward quotes Hillary telling Morris.) Now, as she positions herself for a run for the Senate, she will learn firsthand what it is like to be a candidate in the scandal culture. The question for the First Lady–and for the other candidates in 2000–is whether they’ve learned the lessons her husband, and the other post-Watergate presidents, never did.
