• Cover Story
• Table of
  Contents
• Contents By
  Topic
• Columns
  • Brownstein
  • Cook
  • Crook
  • Rauch
  • Stokes
  • Schneider
  • Taylor Jr.
• Regular
  Features
  • Hotline Extra
  • Inside Washington
  • Insiders Poll
  • K Street Corridor
  • People
  • The Week on the Hill

In politics, loyalty is the coin of the realm. In times of crisis, that commodity is even more valued. So while President Clinton's defenders take comfort in his approval ratings, they are puzzled, and frustrated, by the doubts expressed by some of his former close advisers.

When George Stephanopoulos, now a paid talking head for ABC News, is critical of the President, White House aides dismiss his commentary as part of his job. More vexing are the observations by Clinton's former White House chief of staff, Leon E. Panetta.

His comments that Clinton needs to make a fuller disclosure about his relations with Monica Lewinsky are decoded by Clinton loyalists to mean that he doesn't totally believe the President.

Former Rep. Tony Coelho noted that Panetta has always had an independent streak, and that, perhaps, he misses being at the center of the action. ''Defending the President doesn't get Leon on TV; saying things somewhat analytical does,'' said Coelho.

Panetta, in an interview, chuckled at that critique.

''The one thing that people might be critical of me for is that I'm saying the President ought to tell the truth, which is what I would tell him in the Oval Office. What am I supposed to do? Tell him to lie?'' Contrary to what others might think, Panetta said, ''I take the President at his word.''

His trust isn't a matter of blind faith. Panetta said that during his tenure, the White House staff was on alert to make sure that Clinton didn't find himself in a situation that could be misconstrued: 'We were sensitive to those issues.'' Let's say ''a woman wanted to ride with him in the limo, we took steps to make sure that didn't happen,'' Panetta said. ''In the evenings, we always made sure he had company when he was with friends.''

Clinton, said Panetta, ''was cooperative. I never saw him in a situation that you would call reckless.'' But he added, ''You never control all of the private moments. . . . If it turned out that somehow his dark side prevailed in these moments of temptation, it would be a disappointment.''

A senior Clinton adviser who worked closely with Panetta stressed that White House staff took such actions to keep tongues from wagging, not out of concern for how Clinton might act. ''It is fair to say that the higher echelons of the White House were concerned about the perception that much of the outside world had, including the Fourth Estate, regarding the President and women,'' said Panetta's associate. ''The White House scheduling and advance operations were sensitive to those kinds of situations and took steps to guard against permitting situations that might give rise to speculation.''

For instance, the former colleague cited the long-standing gossip that Clinton and Hollywood superstar Barbra Streisand, who are friends, had a romantic relationship. ''I think that if Mrs. Clinton were on the road, that steps were taken, that if Barbra was to be in town, and staying over(night),
that she would probably stay over at a hotel,'' he said. To make sure that his own remarks weren't misinterpreted, the adviser added: ''I don't want to leave you with the impression he was hopping in bed with Barbra.''

When the President traveled, longtime confidante and White House deputy counsel Bruce R. Lindsey, or presidential counselor Douglas B. Sosnik, would often be around while Clinton was entertaining friends. But the adviser emphasized that it was Clinton who summoned them to his hotel room, often to fill out a group for a game of hearts.

''There was no sequestration or planting somebody up there to make sure nothing happened,'' the source said. ''The implications of Leon's comments is that the President's private life had to be controlled.''

Ever since the Gennifer Flowers controversy in the 1992 campaign, Clinton's defenders say that they and the President knew that there would be a presumption of guilt if accusations arose while he was in the Oval Office. ''There is this nagging question: Did he take as many steps as he could have to ensure that there was as little basis as possible for these kind of allegations?'' said a Clinton loyalist. ''People have a growing sense that he didn't.''

What worries this supporter is that the President's carelessness, even if he didn't do anything untoward, could end up ''eroding his political clout and his political ability to move on fronts that people elected him to move on. I think that is the most serious complaint that you hear among loyalists, who have their different views about the allegations and how he has conducted himself.''

Indeed, Panetta feared that if Clinton were weakened he ''might be willing to compromise away a principle he fought for'' to get the Republican Congress to pass legislation that might boost his standing.

''The balanced budget, fiscal discipline while retaining (Democratic) priorities, that was no easy achievement,'' said Panetta. ''What concerns me and others is that all of these allegations will undermine that legacy and, in so doing, diminish what he achieved. That's what hurts.''

Events ''may work out in a way that protects the legacy,'' said Panetta, ''but with the allegations that continue to swirl around the President, there's no question part of the sense is that whatever role people played in those efforts, all of the sacrifices, and time, and commitment, could somehow be lost.''