7.17.00
Hillary's Nightmare Weekend

7.14.00
GOP Jersey Turnpike Blues

7.12.00
Back In Black

7.10.00
Reality Bites

7.06.00
Clinton's No Jack Kennedy

7.03.00
My Independence Days

6.30.00
Baby, I'm a Rocker

6.28.00
Bush's CORE Beliefs

6.26.00
La Campaign Aux Folles

6.23.00
Teflon Bill & Crazy Glue Al

6.19.00
Father's Day Good Sports: Tiger & Kobe

6.16.00
Everyone Loves a Parade

7/17/00 5:45 p.m.
Hillary's Nightmare Weekend
The story may or may not be true, but the reaction sure is familiar.

Robert A. George is an editorial page writer
for the New York Post------------------------------------RAGGEDmail@aol.com

urprise! You will not find in the following few hundred words a particular assertion on exactly what Hillary Rodham Clinton said a quarter century ago. I wasn't there; I'm reserving judgment. However, the Clinton reaction to the allegation that, in 1974, she called a campaign aide a "f---ing Jew bastard" is remarkably reminiscent of various scandals past.

Based on previous experience, it's pretty certain that the young Hillary probably lost it and started hurling profanity — to say nothing of a handy lampshade or two. Hillary has a temper — that's known. In fact, the recently-completed Travelgate scandal had its beginnings in the White House staff's fear that there would be "Hell to pay" if the First Lady's wishes were ignored. So Hillary's statement that the whole incident "never" happened sort of falls on its face. You know you're in serious trouble when the president's explanation — that the blow-up occurred, but there was no slur uttered — is more credible than your own.

But, generally speaking, this incident has all the earmarks of a classic Clinton damage-control operation. Let's go down the line and see if anything seems familiar.

First, deny the accusation/slam the accuser. Hillary says the event never occurred. Furthermore, her campaign dismisses the source: Jerry Oppenheimer, author of the book, State of a Union, which reports the anecdote, is a National Enquirer writer. This information is spread by her camp, immediately trying to undermine the validity of the book.

Second, release "exculpatory" material, regardless of the legality of doing so. Hillary's campaign produced a letter from Paul Fray, apparently sent to Mrs. Clinton in 1997. The letter said, "I have wronged you. I ask for your forgiveness because I did say things against you, and called you names, not only to your face — but behind your back ... names that are unmentionable."

If this tactic seems familiar, it's because it sounds somewhat similar to the Kathleen Willey precedent. Willey announced on 60 Minutes that Bill Clinton had groped her in the Oval Office. Less than 24 hours later, the White House produced letters from Willey to the President that had been written after the groping incident. Willey signed the letters "fondly." Her credibility was immediately undermined. Of course, Willey may have had the last laugh — as the White House was found in violation of the Privacy Act earlier this year for releasing the Willey letters (which had been sent privately to Bill Clinton).

The question now is, if Fray had sent the letter to Hillary Clinton as a private citizen — but to the White House — did Hillary have the right to turn this letter over to her campaign for subsequent release to the media? Regardless, does this letter necessarily contradict the 1974 allegation? Perhaps not, but it creates enough doubt.

Third, bring in the reinforcements to provide cover. Charles Schumer and Ed Koch immediately ran out to vouch that Hillary is not an anti-Semite. Even poor Nita Lowey — whose own Senate ambitions were kicked to the side in deference to the Arkansas/Illinois/D.C. transplant — was brought in to help out. But one thing the Clintons are learning: New York City is not Arkansas or D.C. The b.s. detectors are far stronger here. City Councilman Dov Hikind, who represents a heavily Jewish Brooklyn neighborhood, was having none of it. He immediately linked this story with the Suha Arafat story — which Hillary herself resurfaced just last week. She tried to re-explain why it took her days to say anything after Mrs. Arafat accused the Israeli Jews of intentionally poisoning Palestinian children. Hikind sounded like he thought the slur allegation was true.

Fourth, damage control takes priority over everything else. One would think that, after demanding that both Yasser Arafat and Ehud Barak come to Washington for a peace summit, nothing would be more important than seeing the negotiations to a successful goal. That would make sense. Yet, Bill Clinton apparently found enough time to call the New York Daily News twice this weekend — once to News publisher and chairman Mort Zuckerman — to vouch for his wife. It seems clear what has the highest priority in the president's mind.

The Clinton damage-control machine may yet extricate Hillary from this public-relations nightmare. However, the full-court press underscores how weak her candidacy truly is. The most recent Quinnipiac University poll showed her getting 54 percent of the Jewish vote against Rick Lazio. While that is one of the few groups with whom she is polling above 50 percent, it is still appallingly low; Democrat Chuck Schumer got 75 percent against Alfonse D'Amato, and Bill Clinton got 80 percent in his 1996 re-election. That she was barely getting half of the Jewish vote in overwhelmingly Democratic New York state — before this latest episode underscores exactly how precarious her position is.

Columns / Current Issue / Goldberg File / Nota Bene
Washington Bulletin / Subscribe / Ad Info / Home