Congressional Hearings and Kathleen Willey by DOUGLAS BARRICKLOW March 17, 1998 DALLAS, TX While Dick Morris has warned of possible impeachment if Jim Guy Tucker has indeed turned on the president, and as William Safire has filled many a column with references to the list of "talking points" Monica Lewinsky gave to Linda Tripp, there has been another, maybe more formidable obstacle which has loomed in the path of the Clinton Presidency -- the story of Kathleen Willey. And now with the release of her deposition to Paula Jones' lawyers and with her appearance on CBS's "60 Minutes" with Ed Bradley, Kathleen Willey's mug has quickly replaced that of Monica Lewinsky on the front pages of most of the nation's newspapers. Certainly this has ensured Ms. Willey a place before a congressional committee once hearings are begun to investigate this latest globular mass of accusations that has consumed the Clinton White House. Kathleen Willey's time before the committee won't be pleasant for President Clinton.

EXPLORE CST... Bad Poetry -- submissions welcome Toonage -- cyber toons Ask Jay Crew... -- an advice column Coffee Talk -- complete CST archive Total Linkage!!! -- perfect newsie homepage E-mail CST -- comments, complaints?     .

Today, Ms. Willey's interview with "60 Minutes" is a problem which may be adequately handled with White House denials and spin control. Since the media have defined this "scandal" in terms of opinion polls, President Clinton's primary concern -- for the moment -- is how far his approval rating may dip as a result of the interview. And so today, it is enough for the president to say he is "mystified and disappointed" by Kathleen Willey's story. But on the day after Ms. Willey has appeared on national television before a congressional committee having repeated the same story, the White House is going to have to muster up something more convincing than a mere denial for the senators and representatives on Capitol Hill who will be considering Ms. Willey's testimony within a political context -- not a legal one. Kathleen Willey told Ed Bradley that she felt physically "over-powered" by the president and that she couldn't escape his "hug" before he began "touching" her, because he's "a big man ... and he had his arms ... tight around me." This sort of language hits home with women, husbands, boyfriends, fathers and, very likely, members of Congress. It also reveals a brand of recklessness -- if not abuse -- which most Americans don't find appealing when connected to the presidency. No matter how many minor flaws or inconsistencies the White House may offer to refute Ms. Willey's story, it is quite clear that Ms. Willey had no intention of surfacing with her account -- even when Newsweek called her last summer to confirm Linda Tripp's version of it -- until placed under oath before Paula Jones' lawyers and Kenneth Starr's grand jury. It defies logic that she would suddenly choose to perjure herself. The White House will be held accountable for the events of November 29, 1993, but presidential explanations and even apologies won't sufficiently provide closure to this story. Once congressional hearings are underway, the president will find himself in a political arena fighting a political battle. And thus a stage will be set on which the nation's most successful politicians are pitted against -- presumably -- the nation's most skilled politician. The stakes will be high and the president will probably appeal to the American public through some of the most persuasive speech-making of his career with the presidential seal a blazin', the presidential thumb a wavin' and Lewinsky-esque French berets far out of view. But constitutionally, the Congress ultimately holds the power to win this fight. The question to be considered will be one for the history books: Will future fifth graders read about a late-twentieth century president who was relentlessly pursued throughout two terms until driven from office, or about a late-twentieth century president who fondled women during job interviews at the White House?

Send your comments to Coffee Shop Times editor Douglas Barricklow.