Achievers
Books
Business
Calendar
Community
Controversy
Cuisine
Eateries
Education
Enterprise
Faith
Good Samaritans
Health
Infotech
Media
Memories
Movies
News Archives
Opinion
Specials
The Arts

Rohini Balakrishnan Ramanathan

Something spooky about the first couple

I don't know the Clintons personally. I doubt I ever want to get to know them. Somehow I get the feeling I'll be gobbled up alive by them.

Have I been watching them closely? One doesn't have to try too hard to do this. They are there all over, written about, talked about, made fun of... I'm sure they have their friends, too. But these folks just don't seem to be writing enough about them, or saying enough nice things about them.

While I may not know the Clintons, they strike an awfully familiar note in my psyche. I have one or two personal friends like them, maybe this is why the familiar ring! It took me many years to understand the type, the type being those who believe wholeheartedly that the ends justify the means. Those who believe you can fool some people all the time, all people some of the time, and then it's too late to be found out.

The aforementioned friends that I have are also alert like hawks to find their next prey. In the animal kingdom even the predators don't seem greedy. They seem to know when their need is satisfied. Only among us humans there doesn't seem to be such a thing as satisfaction.

Once I had read a marvellous line by Cho Ramaswamy, that brilliant, multi-talented guy I have greatly admired since I was very young. This is what he said when asked by a reader: What's one common trait among all humans? He answered, "Dissatisfaction!"

Our ancestors too, the sages, had said the same thing, but they went one step further and said this is no surprise because as long as we are circling in the rollercoaster of "artificial" sources of joy like money, status, popularity and such, we will indeed stay dissatisfied.

Someone I know, from what a naked eye can see, lacks nothing in life -- a nice home, nice children, nice husband, plenty of dough -- yet I have never seen a more manipulative, crass, insecure person in my life. Is it the uncertain times that we live in that shape some of us to be this way or is it just that some folks are by nature this way?

The present moment should really belong to Al Gore. The man is running for president, and to this extent, deserves all the help he can get. But the Clintons being who they are, during the fundraising in Hollywood a couple of weeks back, both were trumpeting their own causes. He his Arkansas Library, and she her Senate campaign.

Yes, a husband is supposed to help out his wife, but looking at the First Couple, somehow I get this feeling that Clinton promised his wife a Senate seat for "forgiving" him for his weakness of the flesh. What a Faustian bargain! Is crassness an inevitable attribute of such arrangements?

In his speech on the night of August 14, yes, Clinton did plug Gore's cause, but even here the criticism from the pundits is that his wife having hogged a chunk of time earlier, the plug for Gore came at TV's non-primetime. In fact, one pundit's verdict is, "Clinton didn't do him [Gore] a bit of good the other night. All he did was, he made a good case for Clinton." [Gerald Rafshoon, President Jimmy Carter's image-maker, as quoted in the August 17 New York Times Editorial Notebook section.]

If I were in Gore's shoes, I'd not have felt too upbeat that Monday night.

The first time I had seen Clinton was at the 1988 Democratic national convention where Mikhael Dukakis was nominated the party's candidate. Clinton's tight pants and jacket reminded me of Elvis Presley. Over the years he has been compared to the King for other reasons, too, which I don't recall off the top of my head, and which anyway are of no relevance to us right now.

Clinton has honed his public-speaking skills over the years, but back in 1988, I literally got up and walked away from the TV set. The speech for one thing was a mile long (the allotted 15 minutes had expanded to 35 long minutes), nothing he said grabbed me, and it was delivered in a drone-like monotone.

Clinton had seemed like a narcissistic person, more interested in staying on stage as long as he could (such types exist in my circle of friends, too) than being considerate to the audience's interest level in what he had to say. Somehow, to this day, what stands out in my mind about that day is the image of a man with a speech sheet trailing behind him like the train of Princess Diana's wedding gown. This one incident kept me from voting for this "inconsiderate" man both times he ran for president. [Just for the record, I didn't vote for the Republican candidate either.]

Much as one understands that in today's world self-promotion is not a "dirty" word, some things seem a bit extreme. When it was politically correct, the first lady's role in many of the White House's official initiatives were denied. But now that the lady, a Senate candidate, needs a good resume, she's taking credit for many things where she had originally denied having played a role.

So, where lies the truth? Did she or didn't she? Some say that truth and some folks do not mix.

Even as a non-scientist and non-child I am fascinated by the animal kingdom. Scientists try to extrapolate many animal traits on to us humans. In one particular study, scientists had noted that one way certain male fish try to look prominent to attract females is by hanging out with the "losers", that is, male fish that are particularly weak or come across as pushovers.

Not that Al Gore is a loser. At least not yet. But somehow in front of Clinton he seems too much of a contrast. A playboy (Clinton) versus a wholesome family man (Gore). The former, for all the sleaziness that is implied by this image, somehow looks so seductive. For the same reason that the devil has more shine and allure?

So when Clinton picked his running mate, was he practising that male fish behaviour that the scientists had observed and documented? Somehow, Gore does not project the image of someone who is in this race willingly, but more as a person fate has thrust on centrestage, a reluctant warrior.

It's kind of tempting to speculate how the rest of Clinton's life will play out. He wanted to go down in history as one of the greatest presidents in history. So, how indeed will history remember him?

Now the new independent counsel, Robert Ray, seems to be picking up from where his predecessor left off. He's back on the Clintons' back, reopening the Monica Lewinsky chapter as a criminal case against Clinton for possible perjury. This is one instance when one is reminded of how one can fool some people all the time, all people some of the time, but not all people all the time.

It should also be interesting to see what will happen if the first lady loses the Senate race. Will the marriage that has bested many storms till now survive this breach of trust if the president is indeed unable to flex his muscle to get his wife elected?

Gore seems to have been distancing himself from his boss for a while now. On November 7 we'll find out if this was a smart thing to do, because people like Clinton somehow always come out winners. The "experts" had said that Clinton had hurt himself politically by that 1988 insipid speech of his. He hadn't, had he? Sometimes I wonder what these so-called experts' expertise is!

At the outset it always seems like a good idea to hang on to winners unlike Gore is doing right now. It's often too late (some people all the time, all people some of the time) by the time one realizes these winners were those male fish.

Tell us what you think of this column