T A B L E++T A L K

"I've had a mother-of-a-day!" Vent, bitch and cry in Table Talk's advice-free zone

- - - - - - - - - -

A L S O++T O D A Y

Sexual harassment law: Relax and try to enjoy it
By Laura Green
Despite its occasional excesses, sexual harassment law has improved the workplace

- - - - - - - - - -

R E C E N T L Y

Giving experts the Big Slammu
By Beth Levine
No rest for the expert weary
(03/02/98)

Slaves in the family
By Maryanne Vollers
A white man's odyssey into his clan's secret history is a searing look at the most shameful event in America's past
(02/27/98)

Wise women
By Jonathan Broder
Three women cross the Israeli-Palestinian divide
(02/26/98)

Drama Queen Candidates
Back-stabbing, ankle-biting sluts ... and the women who loved them
(02/25/98)

Wild Thing
By Polly Shulman
Love and justice: Two teenage novels
(02/24/98)

ARCHIVES

- - - - - - - - - -

Mamafesto
By Camille Peri
Why it's time
for Mothers Who Think

- - - - - - - - - -

Win
Sign up for our newsletter and win a free copy of "Birthday Letters," by Ted Hughes.

- - - - - - - - - -

THE SILENCE IS DEAFENING | PAGE 2 OF 2

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

How do you respond to people who say the Monica Lewinsky affair does not raise workplace issues, since there is no suggestion that she was sexually harassed?

It is absolutely about how women are treated in the workplace. What are the expectations, not only on women but on all the other people in the work force? You take any CEO in the country and a 21-year-old intern straight out of college -- if he starts having a special relationship with that girl, she is not the only one who is affected. They teach in seminars that even if the intern is willing, the CEO, as a responsible employer and husband, has to resist her overtures. If she walks into his office with no clothes on, he has to resist in order to ensure that he maintains moral authority over all employees and that all the other women are not undermined. What does it say to the other interns if Monica Lewinsky got a special job because she behaved in a sexually provocative way? It tells them that they didn't do what they had to do to get a job -- which is to act sexy, coy and even more.

So for you, is this only an issue of power in the workplace, or is it a moral issue as well?

It's a very difficult question to answer. I have six children, ages 16 to 26, and I've always assumed that no one would take advantage of them. I have interns in my office. Not only do I feel that I don't lead them into immoral behavior; I also feel a responsibility to have them leave Washington with more faith in this system rather than less. So yeah, I have a personal moral problem with this Lewinsky business.

As we all know, President Clinton has denied covering up an affair with Lewinsky. Obviously, you don't give him the benefit of the doubt on this.

No, I don't. He could clear it up tomorrow if he wanted. He's the one who has said he wants us to have more rather than less information, sooner rather than later. The whole thing has appalled me, from watching the White House blast-fax the entire country to hiring private investigators to look into the private lives of Starr's prosecutors. This gives a whole new dimension of defense to every defense lawyer out there. What if every defense lawyer goes out and starts investigating the private lives of the prosecutors? It could certainly have a chilling effect on the person prosecuting your case.

I believe you're referring to Starr prosecutors Bruce Udolf and Michael Emmick, one of whom was penalized $50,000 for violating an innocent man's civil rights and the other chastized by a judge for using vindictive prosecutorial techniques. But these details were a matter of public record, were they not?

That's right. But the fact is they've hired private investigators to investigate the people working for Starr. And just because something is in the newspapers and a matter of public record does not mean an investigator wasn't hired to find it. I've also heard the president's investigators are now examining the private lives of members of Congress who are on the Judiciary Committee (which would handle any motion to impeach the president). If that's true, it's chilling.

Do you think he has committed an impeachable offense?

I don't think what he has done so far is impeachable. There is no hard evidence yet. But at some point, we're all going to have to ask ourselves the same question that Sen. Howard Baker did in the Watergate affair. He asked: At what point should we begin impeachment proceedings against Richard Nixon?

As a member of Congress, you may be called upon to vote for or against the impeachment of the president. How do you feel about facing that day?

I don't find it any harder a vote than any of the other votes I've cast. But right now, I have not drawn any lines. If the evidence shows that he had an affair, that he lied in his Paula Jones deposition, that he contrived with Lewinsky not to tell the prosecutor about their affair and to take a job in New York, I probably would not vote for impeachment. I still have to ask myself what else will it take to bring me to that point.

Then let me ask you: What will it take to get you to vote for the impeachment of the president?

Let's say that public support for the president begins to decline, and so he goes to war to divert attention from his troubles. Let's say that public support for the president falls off, the economy takes a downturn and Clinton removes [Alan] Greenspan [as chairman of the Federal Reserve] -- in other words, if public policy were changed as a result of the effects of the Monica Lewinsky hearings. If there were taped evidence showing that is what Clinton's conversations were about, that would also probably do it for me. In addition, if I found out that the CIA or the FBI were called in to investigate all the people who are considered enemies, that would convince me to vote for impeachment. But right now, I don't think we've seen anything that would support impeachment. I won't deny that I'm unhappy. I wouldn't vote for him. But that's a different thing.
SALON | March 3, 1998

Jonathan Broder is Salon's Washington correspondent.