(3 of 3)
Safire is probably the most influential columnist in Washington, admired and feared as one of the few whose pieces reflect hard-digging reporting as well as strong personal views. But he denies conducting a vendetta against Inman. "I don't think I've written more than three columns about Inman in the last 10 years," he says. But outside the Beltway, many thought Inman's decision highlighted a growing personal nastiness in press and political discourse that might keep able and sensible people out of public office.
After watching Inman's TV performance, a White House official voiced a common opinion: "Better now than in three months," when Inman might have been confirmed and actually running the Pentagon. Clinton's aides turn aside any suggestions that they and the President misjudged Inman with an and- you're-another argument. Says an aide to the President: "It's pretty hard for the media, after heaping all that praise on him, to say the White House should have known." Nonetheless, the Inman debacle, coming after Zoe Baird, Kimba Wood, Lani Guinier and the present Defense Secretary, Les Aspin, cannot help casting new doubt on Clinton's ability to make selections he does not come to regret.
Inman's self-immolation also leaves a gaping hole in the Cabinet. Already two of the President's prospective top choices have declined to be considered: Sam Nunn, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, and Warren Rudman, a former Republican Senator from New Hampshire. (Their public refusals were also embarrassing to the White House, which countered by saying neither had been formally offered the job.) Much speculation now centers on William Perry, a Deputy Secretary of Defense who met with Clinton for an hour on Friday and is highly regarded both at the Pentagon and in Congress. Whoever is chosen had better be able to absorb sharp criticism. It would also be a relief if both the future Secretary and the critics would argue about policy and not only about personality.