IS IT POSSIBLE FOR A CANDIDATE TO win a presidential nomination while convincing even many of his own party's strongest partisans that he does not / have the honesty and integrity to lead the nation? It would seem a wildly implausible accomplishment (if that is the word). Yet Bill Clinton is coming closer and closer to pulling it off. His primary victories last week in New York, Wisconsin and Kansas, while far from overwhelming, further padded what already looked like an insurmountable lead in delegates. Moreover, former Senator Paul Tsongas' refusal to re-enter the race, despite his unexpectedly strong second-place showing in New York, virtually ensured that anyone-but- Clinton sentiment will remain unfocused, rather than coalescing around an appealing rival.
Rarely if ever have party voters approached their choice with so many misgivings. Only 50% of New York Democrats questioned as they left primary voting booths said Clinton had the honesty to be President; 46% thought he did not. That was only a bit higher than the proportion expressing qualms in exit polls in earlier primaries.
If Clinton stirs so much doubt even among the most committed Democrats, how will he be regarded by the broader electorate he must appeal to in order to defeat George Bush? A TIME/CNN poll of 937 registered voters questioned by Yankelovich Clancy Shulman last Thursday -- two days after Clinton's primary victories -- gives some startling answers. A month earlier, Clinton finished in a dead heat with Bush, 43% to 43%; now he loses by 11 points, 44% to 33% (a jump in the undecided column made most of the difference). In a three-way race, Clinton barely edges Texas billionaire Ross Perot, 25% to 21%, with Bush pulling 40%. It is rare enough for a candidate not to get a bounce in the polls after winning some major primaries; to lose ground is almost unheard of. Some reasons for the deterioration: asked if Clinton is "someone you can trust," respondents voted 59% no to 28% yes. Questioned more specifically as to whether Clinton is "honest and trustworthy enough to be President, 53% said no and 39% yes -- vs. a 59% yes to 37% no vote for Bush on the same question.
A further indication of serious trouble brewing for Clinton: "the character issue," as it is generally though imprecisely called, has begun drawing the sardonic and sometimes fatal attention of those interpreters of the zeitgeist, TV's late-night talk-show hosts. Sample gibe from Johnny Carson: "Clinton experimented with marijuana, but he said he didn't inhale and didn't enjoy it. That's the trouble with the Democrats. Even when they do something wrong, they don't do it right."