President Clinton sat in his Boston hotel suite with a handful of aides last week, watching Sen. Bob Dole's televised address on health care before the National Governors' Association. "He's flat," Clinton declared happily as he worked on his own speech, scheduled for delivery to the same group a few hours later. As it turned out, Dole had the better day. By the time Clinton left the podium in Boston, his comments that universal health care coverage might actually mean 95 percent coverage had ignited a firestorm in Washington. The remarks seemed to contradict his longstanding promise to veto a bill that did not provide guaranteed private health insurance for "every American."
Liberals were outraged; moderates were thrilled. But for all the fuss, Clinton's remarks did have a catalytic effect: They jump- started already nervous Democrats into searching anew for a deal, leading to speculation -- vociferously denied by the White House - - that Clinton's seemingly off-the-cuff comments were premeditated. After a Thursday evening session with the president and Hillary Rodham Clinton, along with Vice President Al Gore, top White House aides and Democratic congressional leaders announced that they would write still another plan deep-sixing much of the Clintonesque imprimatur on health care. The details were sketchy, but two points were clear: First, Democrats wanted some distance from the unwieldy controls and mechanisms Clinton had advocated, so they spoke of a "less bureaucratic" approach. Next, they recommitted to universal coverage, even if they agreed to get there a bit more slowly than the president had initially intended. It was, said House Speaker Tom Foley, "a new spirit."
The latest twists and turns only piled more dirt on the grave of the original 1,300-page Clinton health package. Democrats were publicly and finally through with mandatory alliances, the giant purchasing cooperatives that the Clintons had hoped would give consumers more buying power. Congressional leaders seemed willing to phase in a requirement that employers pay for their workers' health care. Yet Democratic leaders and the White House still struggled to get past the obvious conundrum of these so-called employer mandates: While the House seems to insist on them, the Senate lacks the votes to approve them.
In the House, leaders began writing a plan that would phase in the controversial mandate requirement. But in the Senate, Majority Leader George Mitchell was shopping a proposal to keep even his antimandate conservatives on board. The idea: pass a measure without mandates. If that did not produce near-universal coverage within a set period of time, then mandates would take effect automatically -- unless Congress instructed otherwise. The plan provides political cover, giving moderates a chance to say the bill has no mandates and the liberals a chance to claim that it does. Yet White House officials knew that it might not even get them moderate Republican votes. They were clearly preparing for a 51-vote strategy in the Senate -- reminiscent of the 1993 budget vote. If they had any hope that the Republicans would ignite public ire with a filibuster, it was fading. Senate Minority Leader Dole told U.S. News that while Republicans may not like the Mitchell compromise, which could be debated in the Senate next week, "it doesn't mean we will filibuster."
There are other problems in the Senate. By one leadership count, there are 14 Democrats who oppose mandates altogether, including David Boren of Oklahoma and Richard Shelby of Alabama. The group includes votes that the president needs, such as that of Nebraska's Sen. Bob Kerrey, who says he has told Mitchell privately, "If somebody introduces something to strike mandates, I will vote for it." How many would buy into Mitchell's compromise is anyone's guess. Meantime, assorted other groups are searching for a middle ground.
The White House hoped that Mitchell's middle ground would get them a conservative Democrat like John Breaux of Louisiana, who might then bring along others. Clinton himself met with Breaux last week to pave the way. But some, like Kerrey, who is no fan of either the White House or its health plan, intend to hold Clinton to his statement in Boston that universal coverage may mean covering 95 percent of the population. "He can say whatever he wants now," Kerrey says. "They can fill the air with spin control. But the words are out there -- and we have banked them." And the president is facing problems caused by liberals who insist that any health plan include abortion coverage. House leaders met last week to work out a compromise so the controversial issue does not have to go to a vote on the floor. One solution that congressional leaders are considering is to allow individuals to opt for plans with or without abortion coverage.
Democratic jitters. Another problem for the president is that the rest of the political landscape offers no comfort. While polls show that Americans still share Clinton's desire to see health coverage extended to every American, the president's ability to muscle such reforms through Congress seems diminished. A CNN/USA Today poll released last week showed Clinton's 42 percent approval rating at a 12-month low, with only 1 in 3 voters approving of the way he is handling the all-important issues of the economy, crime and health reform. "This is a real bugle call," says Democratic pollster Celinda Lake.
The start of Whitewater hearings this week could further erode Clinton's credibility. Few observers thought the hearings would make much news -- until the Washington Post reported that the general counsel for the Treasury Department, Jean Hanson, said she was instructed by Deputy Treasury Secretary Roger Altman to contact the White House last fall to update Clinton advisers on Whitewater developments. Altman has said that he had no advance knowledge of any meetings that took place between the White House and his department.
Democratic sources say Altman's diaries, which are bound to come up at the hearings, contain two entries about Hillary Clinton that reveal the depth of her distress at the accusations about the Clintons' Whitewater investments. In one, Altman notes that "HRC is almost paralyzed" with anxiety about the unfolding Whitewater story. In another, the Treasury official says Margaret Williams, Mrs. Clinton's chief of staff, told him the first lady would like to limit the scope of the independent counsel's jurisdiction.
What's more, rumors spread on Capitol Hill last week that White House aide George Stephanopoulos, who is being questioned for his role in the Whitewater affair, said that he could not recall key events. Responding to the rumors, White House counsel Lloyd Cutler demanded that the Senate Banking Committee start investigating whether such rumors were the result of leaks. And Stephanopoulos's attorney Stanley Brand told U.S. News that his client offered "substantial and direct testimony about all the contacts he had" for more than two hours. "If somebody doesn't remember anything, it doesn't take 2 1/2 hours," says Brand. Nevertheless, White House officials will try to drive home the theme that the hearings are a waste of time.
Even within the Clinton administration, though, there are gripes about where the administration is going. When Paul Begala, a White House political consultant, unveiled the Democrats' newest ads on health care before a cabinet meeting earlier this month, they were met with jeers. Health and Human Services Secretary Donna Shalala complained that the commercials didn't prominently feature women. And one ad now airing that touts Hawaii's employer-mandated health system got a thumbs down from the senior advisers, who felt that the Aloha State seemed too much like paradise and too distant from the typical American's experience. Whether it is before the governors or in his own cabinet room, President Clinton's words and ideas have yet to sound the right note.
