TRUTH, CREDIBILITY AND A CLINTON TOWN HALL MEETING

At one of President Clinton's town hall meetings last week, a soft-spoken young woman from Charlotte, N.C., asked him about Whitewater. She said many Americans were "having a hard time with your credibility" because of the controversy and the reports that first lady Hillary Rodham Clinton turned a $1,000 stake into a $100,000 profit in the commodities market.

"How can you earn back our trust?" she asked.

The president drew close to the woman and stared her in the eye, "I've done everything I can to be open and above board," Clinton said. "No one has accused me of abuse of power in this job, and no one will."

Clinton went on to protest that his wife had taken risks in her commodities trading in 1978-79, lost money as well as made it, and said; "It's just not true that she got preferential treatment in the markets."

Rebecca Fairchild, the questioner, later told Associated Press that she didn't envy President Clinton's position in the "hot seat" at town hall meetings. But she still didn't believe him.

"He didn't really answer my questions," she said. "He sort of skirted them."

Welcome to "Dealing with the Clinton White House 1994," Rebecca.

Contrary to the president's claims that there's been no stonewalling of questions surrounding Whitewater, most questions have still to be answered. Until the White House comes clean, the questions will not go away, further damaging the credibility of the president and his wife.

Just one example of why the president's claims of openness don't seem to be resonating with the American people is revealed in his response to Ms. Fairchild.

If we all remember, the Clintons only hesitatingly revealed Ms. Clinton's $98,537 profit in the commodities market over a nine-month period in 1978-79. Questions about whether she invested any of her own money were not originally answered. And to this day no documentation has been released by the Clintons that shows any of their own money was involved.

When questions were first asked about who made the specific decisions to trade the cattle futures, the president responded by saying his wife made all the decisions. The first lady herself said she made the calls based on reading the Wall Street Journal. The involvement of James Blair, counsel to Tyson Foods (Arkansas' biggest employer and a heavily state-regulated industry -- whose involvement, if proved, would constitute a conflict of interest for the then-governor), and Robert "Red" Bone, the Clintons' broker, were downplayed.

Indeed, in so many words, the White House said: How dare anyone question the first lady's success in the commodities market. To question her achievements, and to imply she couldn't have made such profits without assistance, is plain old sexism.

It didn't matter that every commodities expert interviewed by the news media -- man or woman -- said that for an inexperienced trader like Ms. Clinton, such success was virtually impossible. Any questions were dismissed by the White House as "partisan attacks."

When the Clintons' broker, "Red" Bone, was pointed out as having illegally allocated stocks at the time by choosing which of his clients would profit and which would lose, both Clintons said they were unaware of his violations: "As far as we know, Mr. Bone did nothing illegal while working with us."

It was with this story as backdrop that the president responded to Rebecca Fairchild at the town hall meeting last week: "It's just not true that she got preferential treatment in the markets."

Then two days later, on Saturday, the White House acknowledged for the first time that Tyson Foods counsel James Blair had, in fact, placed most of the orders for the highly profitable trades. The Washington Post reported Sunday that this was in contradiction to the White House's previous version.

According to the Post, "Blair passed on trade orders for about a dozen other people besides Ms. Clinton. Because Clinton was the only one authorized to trade her account, it was a regulatory violation for Bone [the Clintons' broker] to take orders from Blair.

"Bone also apparently allowed Ms. Clinton to get by without as much money in her account as the rules required for the value of the contracts she was trading [at the same time he was liquidating the accounts of other customers whose accounts fell below the required level]."

Do these newest revelations indicate Ms. Clinton or the president did anything illegal? No. Do they indicate (ital) somebody (unital) did something illegal? Yes. Do they indicate Ms. Clinton did, in fact, receive preferential treatment? Yes. Do they reveal a conflict of interest between the first family of Arkansas and its state's largest employer? Yes.

We doubt these new revelations make people like Rebecca Fairchild feel any more reassured about the Clintons.

Indeed, we imagine this latest turn of events will only lead more people to question if the truth today, according to the president, will be the truth tomorrow.

Mr. President, How can you earn back the trust of the American people? Try telling the truth.