Clinton Again

David Maraniss of the Washington Post is perhaps the most astute of all Clinton’s biographers, and he has an excellent article in the Post’s Sunday Outlook section showing off his talents. I say this even though his assessment of Clinton is more generous than I am inclined to be, a judgement both reflected and no doubt influenced by his conclusion:

During the 1992 campaign, and occasionally during Clinton’s White House years, I wondered why he argued so insistently that the media were mistakenly obsessed with his personal attributes and should instead be focused on his public actions, when it seemed so apparent that his personal actions were affecting his ability to govern. It made me think that he was a careless optimist trying to rush past his own problems and avoid responsibility. Now, as the whole melodrama of Clinton, Lewinsky and Kenneth Starr recedes and seems less comprehensible year by year, I think he was atrocious in his behavior but essentially right in arguing that he should be judged by how he governed the country, not how he governed himself.

I would argue that Clinton’s actions did more than affect his ability to govern, that the clear divide Maraniss and others see between how a president governs the country and governs himself was not there at all in Clinton’s case. Clinton’s affairs with Paula Jones and Monica Lewinsky may have been private, but the attempt to cover them up was not and cannot be justified or excused on the grounds that the misbehavior was only personal. When a president whose constitutional duty is to faithfully execute the laws lies under oath, in my opinion both commits and suborns perjury, and repeatedly lies to his cabinet and the American people, that is not merely personal behavior.

But for an eloquent statement of a kinder, gentler view, see the article by Maraniss.