Straw men and non denials

     So what are we going to call this one? Fundinggate? AlGoregate? Gimmegate?
      No. How about Obfusgate?
      Not since the final, desperate months of the Nixon presidency have the American people been treated to such calculated obfuscation from the White House. Watergate buffs will recall fondly the famous Nixonian weasel words. When undeniable facts forced the Nixon White House to backtrack on earlier statements, his spokesmen fed the public the line that the previous assertions were "no longer operative." (Translation: "We lied.") And they employed the fascinating phrase "modified limited hangout." (Translation: "We'll be telling half-truths today.")
      Bill Clinton and Al Gore just might have Nixon beat, with their non denial denials and their masterful use of the straw man.
      Consider this from Al Gore during last week's press conference in which he defended his telephone pitches, made from the White House, for campaign contributions. His actions were lawful, Mr. Gore insisted because -- and we quote the man directly -- "there is no controlling legal authority that says there was any violation of law." Say what?
      Here's what the law (18 U.S.C. 607(a)) says: "It shall be unlawful for any person to solicit or receive any contributions ... in any room or building occupied in the discharge of official duties ... any person who violates this section shall be fined not more than $5,000, or imprisoned not more than three years, or both."
      When grilled by reporters about whether he violated this law when he solicited campaign contributions while at the White House, Mr. Gore kept insisting: "Let me repeat. I never asked for a contribution from anyone who was in a federal building." That wasn't the question. But Mr. Gore just kept setting up that same straw man and knocking it down.
      On Friday at his own press conference, the master of obfuscation himself, William Jefferson Clinton, out-slithered the veep.
      At issue were the Lincoln Bedroom sleepovers and coffee klatches provided for those who donated large amounts of cash to the Democratic Party for use in the 1996 Clinton-Gore re-election campaign. Asked whether any of his policies had been altered as a favor to those big contributors, Mr. Clinton offered up this rhetorical gem: "I can tell you this: I don't believe you can find any evidence of the fact that I had changed government policy solely because of a contribution." Wow. That's a non-denial denial that would have done Nixon proud.
      When another reporter asked Mr. Clinton to clarify that statement, he said this: "The people who help you, people who try to help you put your program in, you try to stay in touch with them. So you're more likely to know if they want to do something than you are people who didn't help you and people who weren't involved in it."
      By the way, the very first questioner at Friday's press conference started out by summarizing the multiple campaign-contributions scandals, and then directed this query to Mr. Clinton: "You, sir, promised to have the most ethical administration in history. How does all of this square with that?" The president never answered it.