Hooray for
Hollywood
A new documentary
shows how the right-wing tried to destroy Bill Clinton.
By Warwick Sabin
June 10, 2004
'Tis best to
weigh the
enemy more mighty than he seems -
William Shakespeare, "King Henry V"
Remember when first lady (now U.S. Sen.)
Hillary Rodham Clinton was
ridiculed for suggesting the existence of a "vast right-wing
conspiracy" determined to undermine the presidency of her husband, Bill
Clinton?
It turned out her description of the forces aligned against
them was deadly accurate, as Gene Lyons and Joe Conason demonstrated in
their best-selling 2000 book "The Hunting of the President." Now the
real-life drama will be brought to the big screen by Arkansas native
Harry Thomason, who has produced a documentary film that explains how
various personalities, motivations, and resources combined to create
the anti-Clinton effort of the 1990s. The film, also called "The
Hunting of the President," premieres in Arkansas on Tuesday, June 15,
at a benefit screening sponsored by the Arkansas Times.
This is what Hillary Rodham Clinton actually said during an interview
on NBC's "Today" show on Jan. 27, 1998:
"Look at the very people who are involved in this. They have
popped up in other settings. The great story here for anybody willing
to find it, write about it and explain it is this vast right-wing
conspiracy that has been conspiring against my husband since the day he
announced for president."
"The Hunting of the President" does an effective job of
telling "the great story," although it is unfortunate that the full
picture is coming to light only after the destructive juggernaut was
allowed to run its course. Nevertheless, the film is not only useful as
a historical record and lesson for the future. Many of the key players
remain in positions of power and influence throughout politics and the
media, and the movie shows how they continue to apply their guerrilla
tactics in situations like the 2000 Florida recount, the 2003 recall of
California Gov. Gray Davis, and this year's unprecedented mid-cycle
congressional redistricting in Texas.
Telling the great story
It is not a simple thing to weave together a story line that
begins with an investigation into an old failed land deal, broadens to
include allegations of sexual improprieties and questions about the
death of an administration official, and concludes with the impeachment
of a public official over lying about a personal indiscretion that
occurred after the inquiry was launched.
It took Independent Counsel Ken Starr more than five years
and $70 million to do just that. Thomason had a smaller budget and
arguably a more difficult task in documenting it, because he also had
to illustrate the finer threads underlying the tableau, and do so in a
way that is entertaining and easily comprehensible.
"It is a terribly complicated story, involving so many people
interconnected over decades," Thomason said. "It was difficult to make
it coherent."
The film uses former Arkansas Sen. Dale Bumpers' speech at
President Clinton's impeachment proceedings as bookends for the story,
employing his useful question, "How did we come to be here?" As much as
the story can be told chronologically, it begins with Clinton's
inauguration as president in 1993, which fused the interests of
longtime Clinton-haters with those of the right-wing conservative
establishment who were determined to thwart his progressive agenda.
The action quickly comes to Arkansas, where various characters
suddenly found deep-pocketed conservative backers willing to bankroll
their efforts to discredit Clinton, and big-time national journalists
willing to take their claims seriously. One of the more humorous
elements of the movie is first-person testimony by private investigator
Larry Case, who found an easy market for the sleaze stories he was
peddling. You can't be certain if he is talking about an eager
right-wing ideologue or an ambitious journalist when he says, "I pulled
him in like a trophy trout."
The book's co-author Lyons underscores this point.
"It was just astonishing to see these people with Ivy League
degrees and Gucci briefcases getting taken to the cleaners by a bunch
of junior college dropouts from Arkansas," Lyons says in the movie.
The Arkansas hunt leads initially to a couple of former state
troopers accusing Clinton of inappropriate sexual conduct while he was
governor. In the movie we learn that the troopers had an axe to grind
because they felt they were promised jobs with the Clinton
administration that never materialized.
From the trooper accounts came the name Paula Jones, who
becomes the first test case of a coordinated approach perfected by
political opponents of Clinton. Here is how it worked, in brief:
Paula Jones brought charges of sexual harassment,
claiming that Clinton asked for sexual favors when he was governor and
she was a state employee.
The American Spectator magazine, a right-wing publication,
led the media charge on the case.
Susan Carpenter-McMillan, a right-wing activist, became
Jones' public spokesperson.
The Federalist Society, a group of right-wing
lawyers, got involved and replaced Jones' attorneys (who were focused
strictly on her interests) with attorneys who could more effectively
use the case to get to Clinton. This is the infamous "perjury trap."
Finally, the
Rutherford Institute, a right-wing think tank,
stepped in to provide financial support.
This model of right-wing coordination would be employed over
and over again, in the Whitewater investigation, the re-opening of the
Vince Foster suicide inquiry and the Monica Lewinsky scandal.
Just the facts
Through its extensive use of interviews with key players from
all sides of the events in question, "The Hunting of the President"
avoids being a pro-Clinton polemic. David Brock, the former American
Spectator reporter, discusses how the "Arkansas Project" was conceived
and bankrolled by conservative magnate Richard Mellon Scaife to find
and promote information that could be used against Clinton. Susan
McDougal talks about the tactics used by Ken Starr and his staff to
intimidate and manipulate her and her former husband, Jim McDougal.
Journalist Dan Moldea, who wrote a book about the Vince Foster case,
says that several right-wing figures tried to convince him to say
Foster was murdered by the Clintons. Another reporter, John Camp of
CNN, explains that the national press corps was pressured to report all
of the anti-Clinton charges, even if there was scant evidence, lest
they be labeled "Clinton apologists." Even evangelist Jerry Falwell
sits for an interview in the film, talking about the famous
anti-Clinton video he touted. In an amazing bit of back-peddling, he
disavows his role in promoting an anti-Clinton conspiracy with the
video, saying he didn't know anything about the "truthfulness or lack
of truthfulness" in the video and that he "never personally made such
charges."
That said, Thomason's film definitely has a point of view,
and it will probably find more fans among those who support Clinton.
Still, it is difficult to argue with the facts. The chain of events,
the money trail, the connections among the right-wing conservative
establishment, and the first-person accounts add up to a convincing
portrayal of a focused effort to remove Clinton from the White House by
any means.
That Clinton delivered his enemies a gift in the form of his
dalliance with Lewinsky is acknowledged very directly in the movie.
Betsey Wright, Clinton's gubernatorial chief of staff, says she was
"furious" with him, and former White House advisor Paul Begala
remembers being so angry that he didn't care what happened to Clinton.
But Begala goes on to say that he ultimately decided that he had a
"moral obligation" to fight Clinton's impeachment, because using a
personal indiscretion as a justification for removing a public official
from office was equivalent to a coup d'etat. Had Clinton resigned,
Thomason says, those responsible for his overthrow "might as well have
used bullets."
That, in the end, is the message of "The Hunting of the
President." As Hillary Rodham Clinton said, a right-wing conspiracy was
determined to topple President Clinton, and they almost succeeded. In
fact, they may have been emboldened to continue the use of personal
attacks, activist conservative judges, legal intimidation, and an
extensive media network to expand their power and realize their goals.
The result is a more polarized political system that is dividing the
nation further along economic, racial, and cultural lines .
|