Will Video Kill the Libido Star? By Richard Craig September 19, 1998

Premiering Monday at 10 a.m., on CNN and MTV, the most talked-about new video ever: "Bill Clinton: Truth or Dare." See what the White House doesn't want you to see!! That's Monday at 10, right after Capital Gang and House of Style. Don't miss it!!

Well, well, well. The president's private testimony to Ken Starr's grand jury has become the most anticipated thing on television since the last episode of Seinfeld. And it's got to be more entertaining than that was. If Clinton looks bad, he could get a sobering dose of the Real World.

Amid the hype over this new episode of Breakin' the Law, however, one little question has been lost. What happened to all the privacy that shrouded this testimony when it happened? Why was it so private then and so public now?

The answer is that possession is nine-tenths of the law. In order to secure Clinton's testimony, Starr apparently had to assure him that (1) he could testify from the White House via a two-way video feed, and (2) that video feed would be more heavily guarded than Ross Perot's money belt.

But someone on Clinton's side forgot to ask Starr what would happen to the taped testimony after the fact. (Darn those pesky syndication rights!) Since Starr had the tapes in his hands, there was little Clinton or his lawyers could do to stop their distribution. In this information age, keeping anything private is almost impossible -- but wait, isn't that what this whole case is about?

Early indications are that we already know at least a portion of what Clinton told the grand jury -- he fooled around with Monica Lewinsky (but won't say exactly what took place), and he didn't tell her to lie about it (in so many words). The tantalizing possibility is not that he'll say something that will turn out to be the smoking gun (or cigar, as the case may be). It's more of a question of how he looks while testifying. If he looks like a man who's lying, it could drive the final spike into his presidency.

His whole future may rest on his performance on this video, and the American people will basically act as 260 million Siskels and Eberts. While this is more than a little disturbing to those disappearing few who still believe that our democracy depends on reasoned weighing of issues, it says a lot about what and where we really are as a nation. If Clinton gets thumbs up, we have no impeachment; if it's thumbs-down, sayonara, Bill.

There are lots of possibilities here. If Clinton openly contradicts other statements, he's toast. If he appears to be dissembling, it could cost him some public support -- the one element holding his presidency together. If he simply looks like someone uncomfortable with admitting an indiscretion, America may forgive him.

Then, of course, there's the possibility that the old Clinton will magically reappear -- the man with all the legendary political skills that seem to have deserted him in recent months. If Clinton manages to look good through most of his testimony, the entire inquiry could begin to backfire on Starr and on House Republicans. It's not likely, but with Clinton's past history of coming back from the dead, it's certainly possible.

In all likelihood, however, we'll see several hours of posturing and legalese which probably won't take us anywhere we haven't already been. MTV would tune out of this in a hurry. But perhaps this will eventually lead to what we would all tune in to see -- a live-action version of Celebrity Deathmatch featuring Clinton and Starr. If you made it pay-per-view, you could put a dent in the national debt.

©1998 Richard Craig. All rights reserved.

Unsubstantiated Facts Column Archive