David Corn is Washington editor of The Nation magazine, the oldest political weekly in America. He writes on a host of subjects, including politics, the White House, Congress, and national security.

He has broken stories on Bob Dole, Newt Gingrich, Oliver North, Colin Powell, Richard Gephardt, Hillary Clinton, Rush Limbaugh, Clarence Thomas, Senator Paul Laxalt, Senator Robert Bennett, the Central Intelligence Agency, the Pentagon, and other Washington players.

Corn has contributed articles, including political satire and book reviews, to The Washington Post, The New York Times, The Los Angeles Times, The Philadelphia Inquirer, The Boston Globe, Newsday, Harper’s, The New Republic, Mother Jones, The Washington Monthly, The Village Voice, The New York Press -- which features his weekly column "Loyal Opposition" -- and many other publications. He also writes for several on-line magazines, including Slate, HotWired, and Salon.

He is the author of Blond Ghost: Ted Shackley and the CIA's Crusades (Simon and Schuster, 1994). The Washington Monthly called Blond Ghost "an amazing compendium of CIA fact and lore." The Washington Post noted that Blond Ghost "deserves a space on that small shelf of worthwhile books about the agency." The New York Times termed it "a scorchingly critical account of an enigmatic figure who for two decades ran some of the agency's most important, and most controversial, covert operations."

Corn was a contributor to Unusual Suspects, an anthology of mystery and crime fiction (Vintage/Black Lizard, 1996). His contribution to the book -- a short story entitled “My Murder” -- was nominated for a 1997 Edgar Allan Poe Award by Mystery Writers of America. The story was republished in The Year's 25 Finest Crime and Mystery Stories (Carroll & Graf, 1997).

Corn frequently is a guest on television and radio talk shows. He has been a panelist on CNN's Capital Gang, and he is a regular on C-SPAN. He has appeared on ABC News, CBS Morning News, Fox Television News, Fox New Cable, Crossfire (CNN), Washington Week in Review (PBS), Equal Time (CNBC), Tim Russert (CNBC), Tribune Television, MSNBC, and other shows and networks.

He was a co-host (with Pat Buchanan) of the nationally-syndicated radio show Buchanan and Company. He has appeared often on the syndicated Diane Rehm radio show, and provided commentary to National Public Radio. He is a featured guest on RadioNation, a nationally-syndicated show. He has contributed political commentary to BBC Radio, CBC Radio, Pacifica Radio, Australian National Radio, and has been a guest on scores of call-in radio programs.

Corn, thirty-nine years old, is a Phi Beta Kappa graduate of Brown University. Before joining The Nation, he worked for Ralph Nader's Center for Study of Responsive Law and Harper’s magazine.

Click here to read more of David Corn's Loyal Opposition.

Showtime

What could be more quintessentially Clinton than the moment that approaches, when this man-boy of unrestrained and boundless ambition, who handshaked and fucked (not merely literally) his way from white-trash roots to the most glorious white mansion on the hill, has to talk semen before a grand jury of the very citizens whom he has passionately claimed to represent during a two-decade political career which, more accurately described, was devoted mainly to the needs of one man, himself?

Bill Clinton has kept one step ahead of Bill Clinton for years. Now the ndependent crusader, Kenneth Starr, with the power of state behind him, will force the public Clinton to discuss the secret Clinton. Let us stipulate that Starr is a politically-tainted, conflict-of-interest-burdened corporate mercenary whose motives are not to be trusted and whose actions do not breed confidence. He has been preliminarily rebuked by a federal judge for leaking information to reporters. He has ruined the position of independent counsel. With his scorched-earth prosecution, he has aimed to set precedents that would diminish the legal rights of the rest of us. And for what? Has the alleged crime been worth the chase and all the damage done?

But this is more the time to evaluate the hunted rather than the hunter. Cast aside the legalities -- Clinton's deposition in the Paula Jones case, even if untruthful, may not technically constitute perjury -- and the reasonable criticisms of Starr. Assume that Monica Lewinsky's leaked testimony is accurate and that an unusual and intimate relationship did transpire between President and intern. The point here is not to offer armchair-lawyer suggestions to the Commander-in-Chief (enough pundits and pols have supplied unsought counsel to Clinton) or to game out Clinton's strategy. Nor is it to review the potential legal and political cases against the President.

No, assume the worst -- or near-worst -- and what does that tell us about the man who leads the nation? That he is a person of reckless abandon, a self-centered fellow who was risked not merely his career but the hopes and hard work of the millions of Americans who voted for him, volunteered for him, sacrificed for him and those who toiled in and out of government to implement his ideas and policies. (It's no surprise that George Stephanopoulos, Dee Dee Myers and other ex-Clintonites have advised him to issue a national apology -- should Lewinsky's claim be true. I imagine they feel stabbed in the back by the fellow for whom they pulled many all-nighters and want an appology for their own personal and psychological needs.) Assume you-know-what, and the picture emerges of a President who, when he is enmired in a lawsuit in which he has been accused of caddish behaviour and when he is facing a campaign in which only the character issue stands between him and reelection, still cannot say no to desire. In one of the periods when his personal behavior is most under scrutiny and when he most needs to keep his zipper in a up-and-locked position, he cannot place the greater good ahead of good head.

One need not -- and we are still assuming -- be a moralist to criticize such selfish and reprehensible action. One need not be a prude to note that others have the right to judge a President -- a person who possesses the power to destroy the planet--by his personal decisions. One can care more about betrayals of policy than betrayals of vows and still be insulted by a leader who cavalierly risks his mandate and squanders his chance to serve the public. With all the excuses (reasonable and otherwise) the Clinton advocates offer -- this is trivial, the public does not give a hoot, Starr's politically-driven inquiry has spun out of control -- they cannot defend the Chief by saying, how could he have known it would lead to all this? If Clinton had thought about the assumed action for a nanosecond, he would have had to realize that if the public ever learned that he had marked Monica Lewinsky's frock with his pearl jam, then his presidency and all that it means would be jeapordized. Whatever happened to Putting People First? It's always been about Putting Bill First. Monicagate has the potential to confirm the crass version of that sentiment. This silly, absurd interlude does provide information relevant for considering the question, to what is Bill Clinton most true?

That is why it is important to know if he Clinton has told the truth. Perhaps he should not have had to testify about his private life in the first place. Perhaps the Supreme Court should never have allowed the Paula Jones case to go forward while Clinton was still in office (especially while naively asserting the case would not be a bother to the President). Perhaps the judge in the Jones case should never have permitted the Jones lawyers to question Clinton and Lewinsky about their relationship. Perhaps the three-member judicial panel should never have chosen Starr, a known Clinton antagonist, to be an independent counsel. Perhaps Starr should have taken a pass on the Lewinsky business, particularly since many prosecutors do not bother with civil perjury cases. Perhaps Attorney General Janet Reno should have told Starr to shove off when he asked to expand his investigation in order to probe the Lewinsky angle. Perhaps the President should have defied Starr. Oh, so many perhaps. But none of that matters now. The point has been reached when Clinton can no longer hide.

Whatever happened between Clinton and Lewinsky, it has brought the President before a grand jury. He has chosen to recognize this tribunal's legitimacy; before it he cannot lie, not without committing a crime and undermining the rule of law. The President should be a truthteller. On all matters. He indeed can claim privacy in certain regards. But the time to do that was in 1992, when Gennifer Flowers' revelations threatened to prevent his flight from Arkansas. Instead, he chose the half-truth shuffle -- a step that has carried im to and through his presidency. This does not render him unique among recent presidents and presidential claimants. His slipperiness, though, has been more palpable. In a less-imperfect world, Clinton's lies (half or full) regarding mass-murder in Rwanda, Lani Guinier, health care, campaign finance controversies and other affairs of state would have been be met with media and citizen outrage. But he scooted on. Unfortunately for him, sex cannot be ignored. And of all the statements this wordy President has emitted since taking the oath, it is only his assertions regarding sex that have been spoken under oath, when he is compelled by law to speak honestly.

So now the key question in the Clinton presidency is not, has your welfare program truly benefitted the poor? It is not, have you protected Americans from the harh forces of the global economy? It is not, has the United States become more or less of a two-tier society during these two terms? It is not, has your Administration adequately prepared for the threat of global warming? No, it is, Mr President did you ever engage in any sexual activity with Ms. Lewinsky? Maybe Presidents get the historic moments they deserve.

I have no advice for him. To mea culpa or not. (One has to admire Senator Orrin Hatch's ploy: to appear on the television talk shows and say if the President confesses and apologizes -- and if there is no conspiracy to suborn -- then the Republicans will forgive and forget. Hatch's tone reminded me of Darth Vader trying to entice Luke Skywalker to the Dark Side.) By the time you read this, we may know whether there is dried presidential love juice on the "cocktail" dress. As unlikely as it seems, maybe Clinton has told the truth in denying an affair. But if that is the case, then damn him for not figuring out how to squlech this noisy mess months ago, for this affair has distracted and diverted attention. It has crowded out more important lies and wrongdoing.

The conventional view is that Bill Clinton has run out of wiggle room. He may still find an escape. (Never bet against David Copperfield.) True, Clinton might not need one. (Scenario One: The dress is clean. Scenario Two: He really, yes really, has been falsely accused.) But what does a wiggler do when all the wiggle is gone? Forget about a speech to the nation, let's have his testimony, which will be televised to the grand jury, zapped to pay-per-view cable. How entertaining, if not utterly enlightening, would it be to watch Clinton, the best graveyard whistler in the whole business of politics, finally confront a moment of truth.

Muddy Reform Wrestling

When the House of Representatives last week voted for a campaign reform bill that bans soft money--those large bundles of booty that corporations, individuals and unions hand to politicians--it was a poke in the kisser of House Speaker Newt Gingrich, whose idea of "reform" is to let individuals to contribute *more* money to candidates than currently permissible. The Democrats joined with several dozen Republican moderates to forge a pro-reform majority that withstood various torpedoes fired by Newt and the Gang. (The Republican top-guns know that so far this year, their party has raised $70 million in soft money to the Democrats' $45.8 million.) The House operates under tighter rules than the Senate, and it is terribly difficult to thwart the leadership. But the reformers, over the course of months, deftly outmaneuvered Gingrich, who in the end lost control of nearly a quarter of his caucus. The vote demonstrated that many House members do fear being seen on the side of business-as-usual.

This was high political drama, but the question is, was it more akin to professional wrestling than Masterpiece Theater? Under the bill, which also would restrain independent attack ads, the dependence of candidates on special interest donations will continue. Big Tobacco, Big Insurance, Big Energy, Big Telecommunications, Big Banking bucks--and not-as-Big Labor money--will keep flowing to lawmakers who must [make] render decisions on legislation of interest to their contirbutors. (Kids, you can play Congress at home: try saying no to whoever gives you your allowance.) Moreover, the anti-reformers of the Senate--led by Republicans Trent Lott and Mitch McConnell--are sticking to their forget-about-it stance. Using a filibuster, they smothered a reform bill in February--even though the measure had a majority of 52 members behind it--and they now say there's no way they are going to let this corpse rise from the dead. In the light of House action, Senate reformers are demanding another vote, and they are considering how nasty they want to be. With the Senate's looser rules, they could force the body into gridlock if Lott does not grant a new vote.

Reformers have struggled for years without having much to show for their uphill endeavors. (Little is more precious to politicians than how they fund their campaigns.) The reformers should relish having embarrassed and demolished Gingrich. But if they do not triumph in the showdown with Lott *and* then win eight additional converts (for 60 votes are needed to break the inevitable GOP-led filibuster), they will have to start over in the next Congress. Their work might be easier if the President, who is on record for reform, actually lifted a finger or two on their behalf. But he's been too busy huddling with his lawyer and raising money in the Hamptons. 3. Turn the Other Ammo Clip

How often have we seen the high-priests of the Christian right woefully claim that their flock is misportrayed by the media and political opponents as a bunch of ignorant, backward, hateful boobs? For years, Ralph Reed, Gary Bauer and others have cried out that their followers are maligned and that their movement is the victim of outright prejudice. In the past few weeks, following the anti-gay remarks uttered by Senator Lott and football player Reggie White, leading religious rightist have claimed that they and their adherents are actually full of compassion for homosexuals, tossing out that old line: love the sinner, hate the sin. Thanks to the technogeeks of Yahoo!, who gather community news from across the country, we have a report from the field that indicates the grassroots have not been let in on the latest religious right spin strategy.

Recently, in Springdale, Arkansas, the Northwest Arkansas chapter of the Christian Coalition held an candidates forum, and all five mayoral aspirants attended. Pandering to the audience, they all declared they would not support a measure like the one passed in neighboring Fayetteville, which prohibits job discrimination in city employment based on sexual orientation. (The Fayetteville initiative, the only one of its kind in the state, is now the target a repeal effort.) One candidate warned that if Springdale extends protection to gay peple, it might have to offer the same protection to alcoholics. Candidate Timothy Hill went the furthest. "Homosexuals are perverts," he said, vowing "to do everything I can to keep them out of Springdale." He even promised to post a sign at the edge of the city: "No fags in Springdale." And to make sure that this point would be fully received by any gays passing through, Hill proposed putting up another sign: "Welcome to Springdale, Home of God-fearing, armed Christian citizens." In other words, we ain't loving no sinners. If anyone protested, it was not mentioned in the news account of the gathering. Sounds like the leaders of the Christian Coalition ought to spend some time with their sheep.
David Corn's Loyal Opposition is published weekly in New York Press.