David Corn is Washington editor of The Nation magazine, the oldest political weekly in America. He writes on a host of subjects, including politics, the White House, Congress, and national security.

He has broken stories on Bob Dole, Newt Gingrich, Oliver North, Colin Powell, Richard Gephardt, Hillary Clinton, Rush Limbaugh, Clarence Thomas, Senator Paul Laxalt, Senator Robert Bennett, the Central Intelligence Agency, the Pentagon, and other Washington players.

Corn has contributed articles, including political satire and book reviews, to The Washington Post, The New York Times, The Los Angeles Times, The Philadelphia Inquirer, The Boston Globe, Newsday, Harper’s, The New Republic, Mother Jones, The Washington Monthly, The Village Voice, The New York Press -- which features his weekly column "Loyal Opposition" -- and many other publications. He also writes for several on-line magazines, including Slate, HotWired, and Salon.

He is the author of Blond Ghost: Ted Shackley and the CIA's Crusades (Simon and Schuster, 1994). The Washington Monthly called Blond Ghost "an amazing compendium of CIA fact and lore." The Washington Post noted that Blond Ghost "deserves a space on that small shelf of worthwhile books about the agency." The New York Times termed it "a scorchingly critical account of an enigmatic figure who for two decades ran some of the agency's most important, and most controversial, covert operations."

Corn was a contributor to Unusual Suspects, an anthology of mystery and crime fiction (Vintage/Black Lizard, 1996). His contribution to the book -- a short story entitled “My Murder” -- was nominated for a 1997 Edgar Allan Poe Award by Mystery Writers of America. The story was republished in The Year's 25 Finest Crime and Mystery Stories (Carroll & Graf, 1997).

Corn frequently is a guest on television and radio talk shows. He has been a panelist on CNN's Capital Gang, and he is a regular on C-SPAN. He has appeared on ABC News, CBS Morning News, Fox Television News, Fox New Cable, Crossfire (CNN), Washington Week in Review (PBS), Equal Time (CNBC), Tim Russert (CNBC), Tribune Television, MSNBC, and other shows and networks.

He was a co-host (with Pat Buchanan) of the nationally-syndicated radio show Buchanan and Company. He has appeared often on the syndicated Diane Rehm radio show, and provided commentary to National Public Radio. He is a featured guest on RadioNation, a nationally-syndicated show. He has contributed political commentary to BBC Radio, CBC Radio, Pacifica Radio, Australian National Radio, and has been a guest on scores of call-in radio programs.

Corn, thirty-nine years old, is a Phi Beta Kappa graduate of Brown University. Before joining The Nation, he worked for Ralph Nader's Center for Study of Responsive Law and Harper’s magazine.

Click here to read more of David Corn's Loyal Opposition.

Dog Days

How long does it take for a wagging dog to become a dead horse? About 45 minutes. Last Thursday, the newest media cliche was beaten to death in that amount of time after President Clinton interrupted his vacation (guess who was getting to pick the videos?) to announce that he had clobbered bad-guy terrorists who may, or may not have, been responsible for the awful embassy bombings in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam. The cinematic reference was inevitable, but there was one obvious reason to disregard it quickly. You think any of the Joint Chiefs of Staff -- or even SecDef William Cohen -- was going to risk their hides to help Clinton protect his? This man does not breed that type of loyalty or deference. Especially now. Who in the military brass would take a political grenade for this commander?

But there were reasons to be skeptical. The timing of the strikes were fortuitous, if not suspicious, and no president considers military action without calculating how it will affect his political fortunes. (Recall how Ronald Reagan's 1983 invasion of tiny Grenada two days after the bombing of the Marines barrack in Lebanon quickly replaced a Reagan policy blunder that resulted in the deaths of over 200 Americans with a star-spangled military victory over a pint-sized enemy.) Contrary to the official triumphalism that immediately followed the raids, more sober evaluations of the feel-good attacks concluded that they would not impede the terrorism potential of these fanatic fundamentalists. The low-tech boot camps in Afghanistan can be easily rebuilt. Regarding the supposed chemical weapons plant in Sudan, the United States ought to second the call of the Sudanese government for an international inquiry. If an untrustworthy Clinton has good reason to order unilateral military action against sovereign nations, he ought to welcome the chance to have an outside party confirm he was telling the truth when he justified this use of lethal force. For Clinton, such should be the price of (remaining in) power.

Now on to the giant sucking sound that rang out before the attack. That was the media establishment of Washington hyper-hyperventilating. In the days after The Speech, the chatterers were like heroin junkies mainlining pure, uncut smack. It was predictable. Even a more apologetic address would have left them apoplectic. The guy did lie about his caddishness. But, almost as important for media denizens, there still was plenty left to ponder, probe and speculate about: Starr's continuing investigation, the impeachment report he may or may not send to Congress (remember, he is compelled to forward a report only if he finds evidence of crimes he deems deserving of impeachment), the Congressional reaction to the report, the affect of all this on the coming elections, the impact of the scandal on the so-called Clinton legacy, the popular reaction, the President's psyche. And then, add to the mix, the consequences of the strikes in Afghanistan and Sudan.

For the politerati, the game was far from over. Al Gore -- winner or loser? The GOP -- the beneficiary of a rush to the polls by conservatives disgusted by the Prevaricator-in-Chief? The Democrats -- might they be able to take advantage if the Republicans overplay their hand? And what remains of the Clinton presidency? The national debate -- mostly on cable TV-land -- proceeded at lightning pace, moving from was-it-enough to should-he-resign in what felt like seconds. The monkey house went wild, surpassing the free-for-all that ensued after the story first popped in January.

The elite rage was even contagious. A level-headed friend of mine called after several days of Monicagate consumption and said, "I know it's not reasonable, but I feel as if he has to go. Now. Right now. That it's all over for him. They don't want him anymore, and that's it." He knew he was O.D.ing on the conventional wrath. And still it was hard to resist. It reminded me of leaving the theater after watching Oliver Stone's Natural Born Killers. You just wanted to kick the shit out of anything after viewing that film. Watching the all-Monica media could provoke a similar reaction.

Obviously, most Americans, though, were not tuning in, for the polls showed elite opinion out of whack with vox populi. What accounted for the umbrage gap? One Democratic pollster has an explanation: "We in the political community are obsessed with the private lives of politicians. Regular voters have the audacity to believe that their lives are more important than the lives of politicians. They scream, 'Focus on me.' If their doctor has an affair, they don't stop going to him." And, according to this and other pollsters, the poll numbers indicating that the public does not want to witness an impeachment and does not relish the continuation of the circus are hard. Even after the address-cum-confession, survey respondents, by a two-to- one margin, were saying they believe the Starr investigation is motivated by partisan politics, not the search for the truth. Only a dramatic and unambiguous development in the factual record might change this.

So take a deep breath. Close your eyes. Count to ten. Bill Clinton is not toast. Not yet. And that actually may be good news for conservatives and bad news for liberals.

Let's stipulate that Clinton is sleaze. The moment he put himself in Monica's mouth, he placed his presidency in her hands. What a pathetic fool. For such behavior, he deserves Kenneth Starr. But what caused the flood of elite revulsion? Was it that Clinton lied? Well, practically no one in Washington had believed his denials. (Just 'fess up and all will be forgiven, Senator Orrin Hatch advised. Yeah, right.) Where was this amount of shock when Newt Gingirch lied to the House ethics committee? Are people upset because the mea culpa was heavy on mea and light on culpa? Gingrich's "apology" regarding his transgressions was full of self-justifying false statements. But Gingrich's statement, more or less, settled the matter. Maybe, just maybe, it has something to do with sex. The President's covert operation with an intern was ugly. But, still, the hair-pulling hysteria is more akin to sweeps-week promotions than responsible opinion manufacturing. Why? Because we're not done yet.

Starr will finish his investigation. (If he is smart, he'll not chase after the President for additional intimate details and risk further alienating the 37 Americans who have not yet adopted a negative view of him.) Assuming he finds evidence of what he considers to be impeachment-worthy acts, he'll pass the report to Congress. Then there will be another round of media ejaculation, as details are leaked. We'll argue about the contents of a report not publicly available. (The fact that it was written by Starr will not enhance its credibility with the public.) "If there is clear evidence that Bill Clinton obstructed justice, then he will be fucked," says one House Democratic aide. But serious consideration of the report will probably be put off until after the election. Then the Republicans will have to figure out what to do with this radioactive material. So far, only the round-the-benders in the party, like Representative Bob Barr, have shown any eagerness to do the full monty on Clinton. "We've been telling our people to lay back," says a Republican Party official. "But we can't control Bob Barr. Hell, we can't even control [House majority whip] Tom DeLay."(DeLay wasted no time in calling for Clinton to resign, joining the hallowed ranks of White House wannabes Dan Quayle and Senator John Aschroft.)

"Republicans should worry about listening to all the columnists and editorialists," warns the Democratic pollster. "To most of the public, every time the Republicans talk about this it shows that they are more interested in scoring partisan points than solving America's problems. Look at Al D'Amato. Every day he sat in the Senate Whitewater hearings [as the committee chair], he lost a point [in his approval rating]. When he liberated himself from Whitewater and started focusing on everyday concerns, he regained his standing."

Imagine the infighting that will transpire between reasonable Republicans who know that impeachment is a politically dangerous course of action and out-of-their-gourd Republicans who crave impeachment. Recall who first floated the idea of censuring Clinton, rather than impeaching him. Republican wimps did.

So go easy on the outrage. There are other rounds to come. The Clinton Pundit Full-Employment Program is not about to end.

In the meantime, progressives and liberal Democrats ought to fear Clinton's inevitable attempt at self-resurrection. There is a stain on his presidency. He needs to cover it up. How can he do so? With accomplishment. How can he accomplish anything? Only with Republican cooperation. How can he win Republican cooperation? Only by conceding ground. Before his public humiliation, he had no problem cutting bad deals with the Republicans (welfare reform, a budget with tax cuts for the rich and program cuts for the poor, an anti-crime bill that trampled civil liberties). Think of the opportunity that exists now. When Congress reconvenes in September, Clinton and the Republicans will wrestle over an HMO bill (Surprise! The GOPers want to protect HMOs from being sued by patients they screw over) and GOP assaults on education spending and environmental standards. Can an emasculated President win a showdown with the Republicans?

A few Republicans fear what they are calling a "Lewinsky shutdown" -- that Clinton vetoes Republican appropriations bill and brings the government to a standstill in order to bash the Republicans as anti-education and anti-environment and to rally the Democratic base right before the congressional elections. But that won't do much for his personal standing in the long run. He will need something beyond a budget showdown with Congressional Republicans to remove the spot on his legacy. Sure, a little war might work. Obliterating suspected terrorists around the world could play well. A less-dramatic candidate is Social Security reform. As I noted last week, to get any Social Security bill through Congress, Clinton will have to offer the Republicans some privatization. The base of his party will rightly squeal about handing over one of the best government programs to the money managers of a volatile Wall Street. Would the President care?

The lesson of Monicagate is that Clinton's presidency is mainly about one thing: Clinton. So if Clinton abandons his party to refurbish his image, that will be no shocker. As Lewinsky can attest, the President lives on a one-way street.

Jesse, We Hardly Knew Thee

One of the more bizarre sideshows of L'Affaire Monica has been Jesse Jackson's role in the fun-and-games. Not only has he been spiritually ministering to the First Family, he has been defending Clinton's tenure as President. On media appearances, he is even identified as a "close friend" of the Clintons. Huh? Three years ago, Jackson was attacking Clinton for having his "finger pointed firmly into the wind" and for leading "the corporate party that now campaigns under two names." He slammed Clinton for pursuing "Republican lite" policies, doing little for inner cities, championing unfriendly-to-labor trade accords like Nafta, and failing on health care reform. Clinton, Jackson told me in 1995, "comes to the fork in the road - -and he likes the fork." He talked about running for President against Clinton in 1996. That didn't happen, but he was a sharp critic in 1996 of Clinton's acceptance of the welfare bill.

Now Jackson is a leading advocate for the Clinton. What gives? Well, Jackson accepted appointment as Clinton's special envoy to Africa. His son, a congressman from Chicago, became a prominent figure in the House Democratic caucus. And Jackson turned his attention to making friends among the Fortune 500, in order to persuade CEOs to invest in inner cities and to hire more minority execs. Talk about limousine liberalism. Jackson still is a dependable presence on picket lines -- wherever they might occur -- but he no longer is pushing the insurgent, populist message that was the centerpiece of his presidential campaigns in 1984 and 1988. These days, Jackson's key political adviser is David Wilhelm, an investment banker and former Democratic Party chair.

The mainstreaming of Jackson was well dissected by Marc Cooper in the August 24/31 issue of The Nation, my homebase. Even though the publisher of New York Press denigrated the article two weeks ago in his Mugger column, Cooper's piece is a sharp evaluation of what Jackson is up to these strange days. A run for the White House in 2000? Could be. But what seems to be compelling Jackson is his need for proximity to power, to get in the door. With the lifeboats launched from the Clinton's ship of state, there's more room than ever for Jackson. He's like the dance band on the Titanic, playing "Nearer My God To Thee."