In the Hamptons
It is fitting that the President would vacation with Alec Baldwin, who shares his confusions between celebrity and achievement, between politics and entertainment. But easily the most pathetic part of the weekend was Clinton's explanation that his problems result from the vast right-wing conspiracy's outrage at his policies of "change." "You know sometimes when you try to effect that kind of transformation, you know you're going to provoke a reaction," he said. What transformation is he talking about? Americorps? School uniforms? Clinton's scandals are not the price he has paid for these paltry accomplishments; they are the price liberals paid for them. Faust held out for more.

Can He Tell the Truth?
Pundit and pol alike are telling him to. And he promised to. (Remember when presidents didn't have to promise they would testify truthfully to grand juries? Or to testify in their defense at all?) But it isn't clear that he can. 1) It would make the First Lady look like even more of a fool than she already does. 2) It would mean an admission by the president that he lied to his wife, his closest advisers, and the American public. 3) It would make it harder to believe that he is telling the truth about obstruction of justice, Filegate, etc. 4) We do not know how the public would react to all this except on the basis of hypothetical polls--which is to say, we do not know it. (The fact that Republicans are lining up to say that all would be forgiven may affect that reaction.) 5) Is Clinton constitutionally capable of telling the truth? He would have to admit to a specific mistake and accept that he cannot persuade everyone that night is day forever. There is also the question of whether truth means anything more to Clinton than whatever he says at any given moment.

The Verdict of History We all know that Clinton is concerned about his "legacy"--i.e., whether he can fool the future too. Over the weekend, Washington Post reporter John F. Harris wrote, "As far as I know, the angriest Clinton ever became over a story under my byline" came when he quoted Kennedy court historian Arthur Schlesinger Jr. calling Clinton "too much of an accommodator and not enough a fighter to rank as a great president. A wounded Clinton, aides said, blew up-then sought to woo Schlesinger by having him to lunch at the White House." How like Clinton!

The payoff can be seen in Monday's New York Times, in Schlesinger's "So Much for the Imperial Presidency." Schlesinger wasn't above clichés even in his salad days, which were a good long time ago, but have Times readers really done anything to deserve an extended quotation comparing Kenneth Starr to Captain Ahab? Or the reference to "the fresh, honest face of Al Gore?" Most amusingly, Artie harrumphs, "The indignation some Republicans have shown over alleged Presidential sexual waywardness would be more impressive if they had shown retrospective indignation about President Harding's sexual adventurism, so fascinatingly documented in Carl Sferrazza Anthony's new biography--or if they had shown equal indignation about President Ronald Reagan's statements during the Iran-contra imbroglio."

Let's see if we've got this straight. The next time Cokie Roberts asks Sen. Orrin Hatch about the investigations of President Clinton, he's supposed to flog someone who has been dead for over sixty years? Because a new book is out? Isn't it enough that we let Artie et al write the history of the 1920s? And can't Schlesinger, of all people, think of a more, um, recent example of sexual misadventure in the White House than Harding? (Hint: you won't read about it in Artie's A Thousand Days.)

The upshot, for Schlesinger: Republicans have scandals; Democrats don't. Our conclusion: we need term limits for public intellectuals. Schlesinger's last line, re: "Mr. Starr's quenchless feud," is: "Enough is enough." We'll say.