|
 ince
his catastrophically bad interview with Connie Chung on ABC last
week, the hope that Congressman Gary Condit was not involved in
Chandra Levy's disappearance has, sadly, become less likely. Condit
didn't even sway the misogynists (polled by me). He did everything
but produce the body.
One important
public-relations insight to emerge from Condit's ABC interview is
that if you are ever in the position of having the public think
you're a murderer — cold, brusque self-righteousness may not
be the best tone to take. Next time, try groveling self-debasement.
The strongest
argument for Condit's innocence now is that he is such an idiot,
it would be miraculous if he could pull off a jaywalking offense
without being arrested in five seconds.
Prior to the
Chung interview, an FBI profiler gave me his checklist of Things
to Look For. Condit hit almost every one of them. The Chung interview
could be used as a training tape in profiler class. (As Condit's
public-relations agent might say: It was a "home run!")
The only liar's tropes Condit avoided were: lack of eye contact
and incessant arm crossing. But you could see he managed to quell
these mannerisms only with the exertion of Dr. Strangelove resisting
the Nazi salute.
Among the behavioral
tics that got check marks, Condit kept giving long, gaseous speeches
on irrelevant points, while providing only short, curt answers to
germane questions.
Condit rambled
at length, for example, about his precise position on the Clinton
impeachment. He babbled about what exactly he had said, the timing
of the Starr document release, what Newt Gingrich was up to back
then ("let me finish — let me finish!"), why Condit
took the position he did, which is not how it was being described
in the press at all, and he was really working himself into a heated
stem-winder until Chung finally managed to cut him off, saying,
"We aren't talking about that right now."
But when Chung
asked, "Did you kill Chandra Levy?" Condit's complete
answer was: "I did not." That's it. "I did not."
Not: This has been the greatest nightmare of my life, Connie, unimaginably
bad, but please believe that whatever mistakes I've made I am not
capable of killing another human being, etc., etc. Or something
to that effect.
After the interview,
the FBI profiler noted that Condit had studiously avoided describing
any contact he had with Chandra — even nonsexual contact. Condit
never said anything about having picked Chandra up, driven her to
work, invited her over, or called her on the telephone.
There was only
one overt action Condit mentioned ever taking toward Chandra during
their entire relationship (which may or may not have existed): a
phone call he placed to her after she disappeared. The cover-up
phone call! Condit really wanted to get that out there — a
call he happened to make to Chandra "later in the week,"
after "the 30th or the 31st or sometime in that week."
Condit's casual
mention of April "31st" was also highly confidence inspiring.
As everyone following this story knows, April 30 is the day Chandra
was last seen and May 1 — the next day — is when she disappeared.
But maybe Condit hasn't been following news on the missing Washington
intern.
All this is
a long-winded way of saying what the entire country recognized instantly
after watching Condit's interview: The man is Clintonesque.
"Clintonesque"
is an adjective meaning "oily dissembler, shunned by decent
society." It first entered the American lexicon circa Jan.
21, 1998. Earlier uses are of uncertain meaning, such as the first
recorded citation in the Lexis-Nexis database describing Rep. Carolyn
Maloney, D., N.Y., as having run "as a Clintonesque Democrat"
(New York Times, Dec. 26, 1992).
Erstwhile Clinton-lovers
now in a state of righteous indignation about Condit better hope
he murdered Chandra. Otherwise, they have a lot of 'splaining to
do. Admittedly, it's not a rash assumption. But on the basis of
what is known about Condit, as opposed to assumed, everything liberals
said about Clinton is now officially true: This is just about sex.
It's not enough
to bleat that there is a "missing girl" this time. That
is tautological: Condit has relevant information to Chandra's disappearance
only if he was involved in Chandra's disappearance. There were plenty
of other people close to Chandra who didn't immediately gush to
investigators about Chandra's habits and lifestyle — including
some with knowledge of her adulterous affair. No one is jumping
down their throats.
And no one
can seriously believe that if Monica had gone missing, Bill Clinton
would have rushed to the public with information about his sleazy
affair. Liberals are beginning to sound like the dissembling congressman:
They're giving us a lot of long speeches about Condit, but short,
curt replies on the difference between Condit and Clinton.
© 2001
Universal Press Syndicate
|
