(7 of 7)
Essentially, there are two issues. One is that in 1978, when Clinton was Arkansas attorney general, he and Hillary invested in Whitewater Development Co., a corporation that planned to sell lots for vacation homes. They maintained their investment even after 1982, when Jim McDougal, head of Whitewater, became majority owner of the now defunct Madison Guaranty Savings and Loan, which was regulated by the state Clinton shortly was elected to govern. (After winning his first two-year gubernatorial term in 1978, Clinton lost his 1980 bid.) The other is that Hillary was a partner in the Rose Law Firm, which represented clients before the state government that her husband headed. Clinton has replied that he and Hillary never made any money out of their investment in Whitewater -- in fact, his lawyer has said they lost almost $69,000 -- and Hillary relinquished any share in her law firm's income from clients doing business with the state.
That defense seems to miss two points about at least the appearance of impropriety: a Governor should not be a business partner of a man subject to regulation by the state administration; and clients with state business to transact might choose a law firm they thought had influence with the administration -- and who would have more influence than the Governor's wife?
POLICY SHIFTS
Clinton has raised more than a few eyebrows by campaigning first as a centrist -- when he expected his principal opposition for the Democratic nomination to come from the liberal Mario Cuomo -- and then as a more traditional liberal, when he lost New Hampshire to Tsongas' attack from the right. Actually, these switches amounted to little more than the tactical shifts between what to emphasize and what to downplay that all politicians make and that are fairly legitimate, so long as they do not involve switches in actual positions -- which Clinton generally has not made. Even so, he has opened himself to Tsongas' bitter charge of pandering. In Southern TV ads, he assailed Tsongas for proposing a slower increase in the pensions of well-off Social Security recipients -- even though Clinton knows that some such action will be necessary if the federal deficit is ever to be brought under control (in fact, Tsongas' stand was not very different from one Clinton had taken in the past).
Individually, none of these matters might seem of overwhelming importance. Taken together, they build up a picture of evasiveness that is starting to dominate the political debate. And the pity is that Clinton has detailed programs on taxes, investment, job creation, race relations, and educational and welfare reform that deserve far more debate than they are getting.
CHART: NOT AVAILABLE
CREDIT: From a telephone poll of 937 registered voters taken for TIME/CNN on April 9 by Yankelovich Clancy Shulman. Sampling error is plus or minus 3.2%.
CAPTION: Is Bill Clinton honest and trustworthy enough to be President?
Is Clinton someone who would say anything to get elected?
Is Clinton someone you would be proud to have as President?