Poll position

Mr. Zogby is the president of Zogby International, an independent polling firm based in Utica, N.Y.

ACURSORY look at the polls in the Lewinsky Affair suggests some superficial conclusions: that they are President Clinton's best refuge; that they demonstrate a "values deficit" on the part of the American people; and, finally, that they show that the public has a schizophrenic attitude toward their President. But none of these conclusions are necessarily true.

Clinton's armor is beginning to show serious cracks. While his job-approval rating rose slightly in a Zogby International survey taken immediately after his "apology" speech, his personal favorability dipped some, and a majority of likely voters told us that they feel that the Presidency has been diminished. Significantly, by 5 to 1, Americans blame Clinton rather than Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr for this cheapening of an institution they revere.

The speech itself was not a hit. In preliminary polling, almost half the likely voters suggested that the President neither was sincere nor told the truth. While his job-performance rating stayed about the same, almost 2 out of 3 told us that he should consider leaving office if it turned out that he had encouraged anyone to lie under oath. Nonetheless, a majority at this point told us he should he able to leave this part of the story behind and continue to govern.

In another important finding, by 6 to 1, respondents said that President Clinton is less truthful than other recent Presidents --although, in responding to a different question, a majority said he is about the same as others. Expectations for truthfulness in the Oval Office have been seriously diminished, too.

Commentators constantly insist that voters do not care about the President's behavior as long as the economy is good and the nation is at peace. But that's too facile. We found that 2 out of 3 do not consider Clinton a positive role model for their children, and 7 out of 10 would neither hire nor desire to work for a CEO who has sexual relations with an intern. In the case at hand, 3 out of 5 are bothered by the idea of a President of the United States having an "inappropriate relationship" with a young intern. Clearly, there is nothing wrong with the values of the American people.

On the other hand, Clinton benefits from the competing and equally compelling value that Americans place in the Presidency as an institution. They want the position to be stable. Thus, they have consistently opposed impeachment if the issue is sex or sex and lies. But majorities over the months have consistently favored impeachment if there proves to be clear, incontrovertible evidence of obstruction of justice.

This seems to me a fairly sophisticated response. A flashback to the 1970s reminds us that, in the Watergate matter, it was only when the "smoking gun" appeared -- tapes of a President clearly discussing stonewalling and obstructing justice -- that critical mass developed in favor of impeachment. Watergate is instructive from another angle: how a President reacts when the walls begin to close in.

aaThe first allegations of presidential involvement in the Watergate burglary were made in February 1973. The scandal had lost steam by that summer; it was Alexander Butterfield's revelation of the existence of Oval Office tapes that breathed new life into it. President Nixon's popularity was still fairly high, but as Special Prosecutor Archibald Cox began to close in on the evidence, Nixon's behavior became more and more erratic and self-defeating. He became so obsessive in his denial that he ultimately misread public sentiment and ordered Cox's firing: the Saturday Night Massacre. It was only then that calls for impeachment became overwhelming.

The poll-driven present incumbent tested several scenarios in determining his response to Starr. Trial balloons from the White House included demeaning Monica Lewinsky, claiming his Fourth Amendment right to privacy, then admitting to a relationship short of the previously established definition of "sex." Each of these trial balloons popped, but Clinton still couldn't bring himself to deliver a speech that would fly with the public.

The burden on Starr now is to move beyond sex. Americans are clearly uncomfortable with the topic, with the invasion of the President's privacy, and even with the criminalization of partisan differences. But if Starr can make a segue from sex and lies to documenting a pattern of deceit, cover-up, and obstruction of justice, President Clinton is in more serious trouble than at any time so far.

And how will he respond? For someone who supposedly wants this issue to go away -- as do many of the American people -- President Clinton took a strange tack: signaling in his defiant speech that he will do all he can to fight Starr and continue to keep this sordid issue alive. It appears that we have a bit of the Nixonian siege mentality here, as Clinton lashed out even though it obviously was not in his interest to do so. If Attorney General Janet Reno calls for a new Independent Counsel on the issue of campaign fundraising, the pressure on the President becomes even greater.