Hillary Clinton loves to repeat that she’d be “ready on Day One”–to repair the economy, to lead the military, to reinstall her favorite credenza in the White House master bedroom. Good thing Day One is still 270 days away.
Just ask the Kiwis. On the eve of Pennsylvania’s primary, my NEWSWEEK colleague Karen Breslau boldly–or foolishly–prodded the former First Lady for a favorite joke. Clinton’s response? “Here’s a good one,” she said. “Helen Clark, former prime minister of New Zealand: her opponents have observed that in the event of a nuclear war, the two things that will emerge from the rubble are the cockroaches and Helen Clark.” While only barely qualifying as a joke–usually these are funny–Clinton’s quip did pass muster as something slightly less mirthful: a diplomatic gaffe. It wasn’t so much comparing a former prime minister to an indestructible arthropod that sent the New Zealand press into a tizzy after Karen’s interview appeared in this week’s mag. It was the fact that Helen Clark is still, you know, the prime minister of New Zealand. LOL.
It’s not the first time Clinton’s stand-up has bombed on the international stage. At an event in Hampton, N.H. on Jan. 7, she mocked George W. Bush’s famous line about “looking into [Vladimir] Putin’s” soul with a sparkling zinger of her own: “He was a KGB agent. By definition he doesn’t have a soul.” (Insert rimshot here.) Unfortunately, Putin wasn’t pleased. “At a minimum,” he later said, “a head of state should have a head.” So much for our Russian relations! To make matters worse, Clinton was just getting over gravely offending another key leader: Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan, whom she twice suggested may have ordered Benazir Bhutto’s assassination. “We… expect that responsible leaders and public figures in the US would refrain from making statements that are likely to be distorted and misused and could further upset the people, who are still in a state of shock,” said Pakistan’s Foreign Ministry at the time; the New York senator quickly followed up with an elementary error about Pakistani politics. Since then, she’s stumbled when asked the name of Putin’s successor, Demetri Medvedev (“Meh, um, Me-ned-vadah. Whatever.”); embarrassed British Prime Minister Gordon Brown by wrongly praising him for boycotting the opening ceremony of the Beijing Olympics; and, um, threatened to “obliterate” Iran. As Politico’s Ben Smith puts it, “Clinton, despite her image as a steady hand on foreign policy, leads the field on actual foreign policy blunders this cycle.” Paging “Who’s Line Is It Anyway?”
Of course, Clinton hasn’t suffered much damage for her slips because they contradict (rather than reinforce) the media’s preferred narrative; such a list probably would’ve sunk Barack Obama, who’s still struggling to overcome perceptions of inexperience. That said, something tells me the international community will have concerns other than bowling scores and arugula come next January. Like, say, diplomacy.
Fortunately for Clinton, Day One won’t arrive for another nine months. That’s plenty of time to get ready. And if the White House thing doesn’t work out, remember: the Catskills are only 90 miles from Chappaqua.
title: “No Laughing Matter” ShowToc: true date: “2023-01-20” author: “Karen Hannah”
Late-night-TV hosts will have leering fun with Paula Corbin Jones v. William Jefferson Clinton et al. The president’s lawyer, Robert Bennett, called it “tabloid trash with a legal caption on it.” (Paragraph 22: “There were distinguishing characteristics in Clinton’s genital area that were obvious to Jones. “) Still, the lawsuit is no joke. In the American legal system all sorts of possibly dubious claims are allowed their day in court. A public trial, at which state troopers testified about the services they performed for Bill Clinton while he was governor, would be a circus and, for the Clintons, a nightmare.
Ultimately, Jones’s lawsuit is probably a loser. Nonetheless, the White House was worried enough to retain the hottest hired gun in Washington to prepare Clinton’s defense. Newspaper editors wrung their bands over the propriety of publicizing the case. Even so, they by and large printed the sordid details. A NEWSWEEK Poll shows that most people think the president’s sex life is irrelevant and should be kept private. Yet at lunch places and bus stops, in car pools and coffee klatsches, they talk of little else. According to the NEWSWEEK Poll, fewer than half believe that Clinton meets their standards of honesty and integrity in a president. But Clinton’s wound is partly self-inflicted. The defense offered by White House staffers is revealing. They don’t deny that Clinton was a womanizer as governor. They just insist that Paula Jones must be lying about Clinton because, as one put it, “it’s just not his style” to-as the lawsuit alleges-drop his trousers and expose himself
According to her lawsuit, Jones, a low-level employee for the Arkansas Industrial Development Commission, was approached by a state trooper at the Third Annual Governor’s Quality Management Conference in Little Rock in May 1991. She was told. “The governor would like to meet with you.” Hoping, she says, for a better job, she went to his hotel room. She claims that Clinton’s small talk turned suggestive (“I love your curves”), that he tried to nuzzle her and that he asked her to perform oral sex. When she refused, she claims he said, “You are smart. Let’s keep this between ourselves.”
Last week Clinton’s lawyer held a press conference to flatly deny that any such encounter ever took place. Bennett said the president had no recollection of ever meeting Jones, though he couldn’t rule it out. He released an affidavit from a Little Rock businessman, George Cook, who claimed that he had been approached last January by Jones’s lawyer, Daniel Traylor, with a message for Clinton. “Traylor said it would help if President Clinton would get Paula a job out in California,” said Cook. Traylor described the conversation as “not blackmail … It’s negotiation of a legal claim.”
Jones’s legal team has two affidavits, from a colleague at the commission and a friend, that describe her as upset after meeting with Clinton. But Bennett says he has people “coming out of the woodwork” to discredit Jones and her story. He need look no further than Jones’s brother-in-law, Mark Brown, who offered NEWSWEEK this description (likely to be disputed by Jones) of Paula’s behavior at “a duck-calling and gumbo cook-off” in Stuttgart, Ark.:
“She went with one man and when she got there, she spotted another one. She goes right up to him, puts her leg right between the legs of the other man and rubs herself up and down on him…. It hurts me Paula has done this. She stated earlier that she was going to give the money to charity. Bulls–t. is the money the book brings in going to charity or the movie or any of that crap? S–t, no. Paula’s always loved money… Promiscuity? Good gosh. Her mother is fixing to get the shock of her life when Paula’s life comes out … She went out and had herself a good time. I’ve seen her at the Red Lobster pinch men on the ass. . . .”
Clinton’s lawyers would like to get the case thrown out before having to elicit such testimony-and listen to the other side offer equally gamy descriptions of Clinton’s behavior. By the usual lawyerly stalling, Bennett can probably win months, if not years, of delay before going to trial. But he will have trouble persuading a judge to simply dismiss Jones’s claim. To win, Jones will have to prove that Clinton’s conduct was “outrageous.” Normally, that is for juries to decide. The judge can only rule on questions of law. By the luck of the draw, Jones v. Clinton has been assigned to a judge, Susan Wright, who is a conservative Bush appointee.
The White House may also argue that presidents are immune from lawsuits, on the theory that the nation cannot afford to have its chief executive tied up by any disgruntled citizen with a grievance. The Supreme Court has already ruled that a president cannot be sued for official acts committed while serving, But legal experts are divided over whether the president can be sued for something he did before becoming president. The legal merits aside, it may be politically unwise for Clinton to assert that the president is above the law.
Clinton aides insist that Clinton is a victim of right-wing sleaze merchants intent upon sullying the president by digging up scurrilous charges about his past. It is true that Paula Jones has been egged on by an odd collection of right-wingers and Clinton haters. There was the only-in-America moment two weeks ago when she went on Pat Robertson’s “700 Club.” aired on The Family Channel, to demurely describe bow the president had told her to “kiss it.” For years, Clinton has been the target of slurs and innuendo about his private life and his family finances. But his private behavior has given the gossips something to talk about, and he has not always resisted the temptation to shoot back. As governor, Clinton himself was not above looking into the private lives of his political opponents.
Before running for reelection in Arkansas in 1990, NEWSWEEK has learned, Governor Clinton actively sought out rumors and damaging information that could be used against his opponents. Douglas Harp, a friend of Clinton’s and director of the Arkansas state police during his first term, told NEWSWEEK that Clinton pressed him to follow up on claims offered up by a shabby private detective named Larry Case. According to high-ranking Arkansas officials, Case was peddling tape s of a conversation with a woman purporting to describe sex-and-drug parties attended by a pair of Republicans competing for the gubernatorial nomination. The tapes turned out to be worthless, but Case would not go away. He began pestering Clinton for a job, even meeting with him in the governor’s mansion in late September 1991. When Clinton refused to give him the job he wanted, Case turned on him and became one of the principal purveyors of rumors about Clinton’s sex life.
Clinton’s connections to the underside of Arkansas political life are a longstanding source of discouragement to his staff. Clinton’s former chief of staff, Betsey Wright, spent much of the 1992 presidential election trying to suppress what she mordantly described as “bimbo eruptions.” Wright, who had left the governor’s staff by the time of the meeting with Case, says she knows nothing about it, but she did tell NEWSWEEK, “I thought Bill Clinton spent too much time meeting with people he shouldn’t meet with.”
For Clinton’s own family, the price of his past is worse. Hillary Clinton, normally very self-controlled, teared up last week as she spoke to disabled children and their parents on health reform. Aides blamed her behavior on the families’ traumatic tales, but Hillary’s friends say she looks frayed and tense, and few would wonder why.
How important are the following in judging Bill Clinton as president (percent saying very important):
14% Accusations about Clinton’s sex life as governor of Arkansas
28% Questionable practices involved in the Clintons’ Whitewater financial dealings
FOR THIS NEWSWEEK POLL,PRINCETON SURVEY RESEARCH ASSOCIATES INTERVIEWED 518 ADULTS BY TELEPHONE MAY 6, 1994. THE MARGIN OF ERROR IS +/- 5 PERCENTAGE POINTS. SOME RESPONSES NOT SHOWN. THE NEWSWEEK POLL (COPYRIGHT) 1994 BY NEWSWEEK, INC.
From everything you know about Bill Clinton, does he have the honesty and integrity you expect in a president?
45% Yes 46% No
Is the media paying too much attention to Clinton’s private life, too little, or about the right amount of attention?
59% Too much 5% Too little 31% Right amount
THE NEWSWEEK POLL, MAY 6, 1994
title: “No Laughing Matter” ShowToc: true date: “2022-12-22” author: “Susana Harris”
Publicly, the couple hailed the ““just verdict.’’ But it was hard to believe there could be any winners in the sad and sordid Cosby case. Even jurors admitted that Jackson was a confused woman whose mother had convinced her that the famous comedian was her father. And though vindicated by the verdict, Cosby - often described as ““America’s Dad’’ - was forced to acknowledge that he’d had a fling with Jackson’s mother in a Las Vegas hotel room in the 1970s and that he had paid her $100,000 not to talk about it. Nor did the evidence submitted resolve the real question: whether Jackson is in fact Cosby’s daughter.
Cosby said he told Jackson early on that he was not her father but would serve as a ““father figure.’’ He paid for her education (something he’s done for other students, too). The jury watched a brief video of Cosby laughing with Jackson during their first meeting in 1991. But last January, Jackson apparently stopped laughing. Instead, she and the 51-year-old Medina hatched a scheme to pressure Cosby. ““She wasn’t asking for hugs or kisses or love,’’ one prosecutor said. ““She was asking for cold, hard cash.''
Among the evidence the jury examined closely was a note in which Jackson told Cosby, ““Now here’s the deal: Either I go to the tabloids and/or CBS or we settle now.’’ In fact, Jackson took her story to the Globe tabloid days before Cosby’s son, Ennis, was killed in Los Angeles. Cosby’s lawyer went to the Feds. Perhaps because of Cosby’s fame - and the guaranteed headlines - prosecutors bore down hard.
Jurors sounded stern but sympathetic toward Jackson. ““We really feel very bad for Autumn,’’ said one. Meanwhile, Jackson’s lawyer threatened Cosby with a paternity suit - and then said his client was hoping that Cosby would come forward and ask the judge to keep her out of jail. It seems the test of wills between Bill Cosby and the woman who claims to be his daughter may not yet be over.
title: “No Laughing Matter” ShowToc: true date: “2023-01-07” author: “Craig Stephenson”
title: “No Laughing Matter” ShowToc: true date: “2022-12-25” author: “William Pastorin”
That evening David Letterman would unforgettably break the ice for all other comedy shows. Watching the most sardonic and unsentimental of comedians choke up carried real meaning. Most of the other shows just had to follow his lead. And they did. Craig Kilborn, Jay Leno and Conan O’Brien delivered earnest statements up top, then introduced journalists or politicians to try and make sense of the unfolding crisis.
But Letterman’s show is different and more flexible than ours. His is a personality-driven program where the monologue and very often the interviews reflect his concerns. After his bypass surgery last year, we got used to a ruminative, sometimes serious Dave.
Our show, on the other hand, is news parody and satire. Jon Stewart is the anchor, and I am one of six correspondents. We not only make fun of the format and reporting style of television news but also the events themselves. With rare exception, the top news story of the day is the setup for our lead “Headlines” joke.
Of course the title of top news story is often subject to debate within our halls. For those staff members concerned with, say, the vicissitudes of a pop diva’s life, the top story might be Mariah’s meltdown. Two years ago, that’s the kind of story with which we might have led off. But after winning a Peabody Award for our coverage of the 2000 presidential election (“Indecision 2000”), we’ve been mining for comedy in loftier terrains-fewer jokes about J.Lo’s caboose and more about the administration’s energy proposals. The audience has stayed with us, happy to see us satirize the “real” news stories-i.e., those stories that occupy The New York Times’ top-right corner.
Which takes me back to this past Monday and the question “What the hell does our comedy show do at a time like this?” That day, we gathered and almost instantly agreed that we couldn’t address any aspect of the attacks with even remote irony. Television reporters had performed admirably and in no way deserved to be mocked. And the event itself, it was unimaginably horrible. Nothing funny there … ever.
Instead, to fill our air time we planned to wade back into the swamp of stories from which we’d escaped during the past two years. Yes, the moratorium on Big Foot pieces was being lifted. Yes, we would finally shoot that story about the “Shenis”-rhymes with Venus-the handy device for the woman who’s always wanted to use a urinal. (You’ve got to see it to believe it.) And yes, I would be doing my long-awaited follow-up interview with Jerry Van Dyke. Why? Because he’s Jerry Van Dyke.
By Tuesday, though, opinion shifted, and we began to fear that it might seem disrespectful to ignore what had happened. Besides, there might be some way to deliver comic relief without disconnecting so jarringly from The Story. To that end, two correspondents and a team of writers drafted a debate about what, in the wake of tragedy, is funny anymore. The piece was thoughtful and clever. I started writing a commentary about the fun things people can do to distract themselves from the news. (Of course, these diversions would only be more anxiety-producing.)
But by Wednesday, we returned full circle to our original assumption: the situation was just too terrible. Any comic bits we produced that touched on the tragedy were, at best, clever. And cleverness is all too impudent in the face of tragedy. Our job is to provide comic relief and now, more than ever, that’s what’s needed. It would be self-indulgent and self-righteous to deliver a half-hour of moroseness night after night. But the horrible events of Sept. 11, 2001, and the victims need to be mourned.
In the end, the cable-television show that’s been described as hip, subversive and most of all ironic, did the most unironic thing it could. Our host spoke directly to our audience about how we-he and the staff-were grieving, but not despairing. He implored our audience to try and stay similarly optimistic. It was a message that we hope resonates with an audience that prides itself on its cynicism. Then we rolled in favorite clips from shows past-a report on a hair removal product called “Nads” and an interview with a chain-smoking four-time presidential candidate named Dody whose platform includes kissing on the first date.
Hardly lofty terrain, but at the moment, pieces like these are the most important thing we can do for a saddened audience. Indeed, diving into the swamp of J.Lo’s caboose seems almost noble right now. Few of us at “The Daily Show” have any real skills. But if we do our job-that is, make you laugh-then at least we’ve done something. Something that means a lot more than a Peabody award. Shenis, anyone?
