BILL CLINTON'S STATE OF THE UNION: WORDS VERSUS DEEDS

Bill Clinton offered his view of the state of the union Tuesday night, forcefully challenging the American people and the Congress of the United States. Four days later, he and his staff are already distancing themselves from some of his stronger points.

We don't fault some of the president's post-address changes, mind you. But we have to wonder, why give a speech if you don't mean what you say? Unfortunately, this seems to be a crippling tendency of our baby-boomer president: articulate a point decisively, and then retreat, retreat, retreat.

It is the type of leadership that threatens to lead to a sort-of domestic Bosnia, as Mr. Clinton encourages one faction of the Democratic party on one day and another the next. Meanwhile, Republicans, dismissed and ignored as partisan combatants, are relegated to sniping from the sidelines, thus turning Clinton's projected woes with them into a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Unquestionably, the most dramatic and clarion point of Mr. Clinton's long speech was when he threatened to veto any health care legislation that did not include one of his most controversial -- and ill-conceived -- ideas.

"Hear me clearly," the president said, pounding his hand on the lectern and pointing his pen at the Congress. "If the legislation you send me does not guarantee every American private health insurance that can never be taken away, I will veto the legislation and tell you to start over again."

It was a dramatic moment. And the president's resolve seemed clear.

Until the next day.

To quote from the newswire: "The White House offered concessions Wednesday on the scope of its health reforms, only hours after President Bill Clinton said he would sign no bill that did not provide universal coverage."

In the few days following the state of the union address, the White House has marked time by offering conciliation after modification after compromise after reversal. We're left to wonder how long the president will stick with these new positions, or have they, too, changed already?

Actually, there was much we liked in President Clinton's speech. His get-tough ideas about fighting crime -- the "three-strikes and you're out" proposal, for example -- resonated with us. And his pledge to reform welfare is applauded. Then we woke up the next morning to find the White House retreating from the previous night's strong words on these issues, as well.

A bi-partisan crime bill that passed the senate (94-4) just before the end of the session last year and which includes the "three strikes and you're out" proposal was being called too harsh. And the welfare reform plan, promised for this spring in the president's speech, was already being delayed until after health care reform is addressed.

As James Reichley, a presidential scholar from Georgetown University noted, Bill Clinton almost always delivers strong performances in scripted speeches but runs into problems afterward.

"In the past, there hasn't been the follow-through," Reichley said.

Which leaves us to wonder how Americans should evaluate Mr. Clinton's state of the union. We give it high marks for style, high marks for passion and low marks for length. We also give it above average marks for identifying problems -- the two glaring mistakes being the president's health care "crisis" and his lack of discussing foreign priorities -- and high marks for stressing the importance of values. We give it low marks for honesty.

As for substance, we guess the American people will just have to wait and see.