In the city where spin is king, the White House has been on full spin ever since the Monica Lewinsky story knocked the Pope visiting Cuba off the front pages and the broadcast media into full O.J. mode. So, who's winning the spin wars, President Clinton or the special prosecutor? Let's take a look:
The White House got off to an initial shaky start, highlighted by the president's assurance that "there is no improper relationship." This created the frenzied media efforts to parse the statement with these kinds of questions: Why did he use the present tense "is"? What did he mean by "improper"?
Not quite the clean launch one would want in this situation.
And playing into the media's over-reaction was the leaked information that the president had apparently admitted in his deposition that he did, indeed, have an affair with Gennifer Flowers (that came six years after denying it flatly). This time, the media were determined not to get fooled again.
The president's admission, if true, brings to mind what Richard Nixon once said about Henry Kissinger: "Henry always tells the truth....eventually."
If we strip away all of the heat and demagoguery, the White House's strategy appears to have two prongs, namely, "dodge and deny" and "search and destroy" - as one commentator characterized it.
Let's look briefly at the dodge-and-deny prong of the strategy. When the initial 24 hour avalanche of media coverage made it clear that the media were not going to let go of this issue, the White House carefully orchestrated all media events so that the president wouldn't be in a position to undergo intensive questioning on the issue.
The president chose a photo op on child care to wag his finger and declare, "Now I want you to listen to me. I never had sexual relations with that woman...Monica Lewinsky!" You can't get any more categorical than that.
That turned out to be the last substantive statement on the issue that the president made.
The Substance of the Statement
A subsequent news conference was co-hosted by British Prime Minister Tony Blair on the Iraqi bombing issue, in which the president was successful in deflecting all questions on the Lewinsky matter. With the president and then, later, the First Lady incommunicado, it was left to White House spokesman Mike McCurry to fend off the media.
Most observers gave him top marks for deflecting or neutralizing a never-ending series of hourly allegations, innuendo and rumor. He made one error when he answered a hypothetical question and predicted that the president's account of his relationship with Lewinsky would "not be a simple answer," but would no doubt be complicated.
McCurry obviously was pressured to backtrack and offered a public mea culpa for his remarks. Subsequent rumors that the relationship may indeed have been more "complicated" than first stated raises the obvious question: Had McCurry been trying to set expectations in advance?
On the legal front,White House aides, including Bruce Lindsay, invoked executive privilege to prevent full disclosure before the grand jury. The public perception of that defense is loaded with negative, "Nixonesque" qualities.
Dodge and Deny's Short Timeline
This "dodge-and-deny" approach is difficult to sustain over time. Therefore, it requires the second prong known as "search and destroy." But Hillary Clinton kicked off the "search-and-destroy" aspect of the strategy with her "Today Show" revelation of the "vast right wing conspiracy" underway, as personified by Special Prosecutor Kenneth Starr.
(I was in Dallas recently doing a seminar and when that comment came up, a participant said: "any moment now we're bound to hear about the 'grassy knoll' theory.' " At least it's a refinement on Democratic consultant James Carville's year long tirade on Paula Jones where he characterized her motives as "about three things - money, money, money.")
However, the two pronged strategy is working. The president's public approval rating is well over 70%. The White House has succeeded in sharpening the focus of the debate to the motives and actions of Starr and the subject of his investigation as "sex."
The average person has trouble making the link between salacious sexual activity in the Oval Office and obstruction of justice, which is supposed to be Starr's focus.
Starr didn't help matters when, in an attempt to examine White House efforts to plant negative stories with the media, he summoned Clinton aide Sidney Blumenthal to appear before the grand jury.
Even though the president has the Constitutional authority to fire Ken Starr, if he really felt his actions were politically motivated, the White House knows it would then lose the "bogey man" it has succeeded in creating in the public's mind.
White House insiders are clearly counting on the long-term pay-off, which will come when Starr issues his report and the White House will be able to say, "see, it's the work of a politically motivated, out-of-control Special Prosecutor."
Although much can happen to derail the White House strategy - including the presence of "smoking gun" testimony or leaked evidence before the grand jury - it appears to be the only strategy that will work for them. If the president is innocent, then the strategy leaves something to be desired. If he is guilty, then it's brilliant.
Barry J. McLoughlin is president of the media consulting and training firm, Barry McLoughlin Associates Inc., with offices in Washington, D.C., Princeton N.J. and Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. Author of the "Communicate with Power" series of strategic communications tools, he can be reached at http://www.mclomedia.com or by e-mail at [email protected].