Next Week
There's increasing speculation that that's when Starr will send his report to Congress. As far as we can tell, this rumor seems more solid than a lot of the rumors that float around Washington.

Political Economy
The Hotline today quotes a number of analysts arguing that stock-market jitters, by themselves, won't have any political repercussions; they would have to lead to higher unemployment or other harm to the "real" economy first. Don't be so sure. As Michael Barone has argued recently, Americans are increasingly voting on wealth, not income. In his re-election bid, President Bush lost the most ground in places where unemployment wasn't particularly high but housing values had tanked.

And stocks have been a rapidly rising share of household wealth. More than half of households with incomes between $25,000 and $50,000 own stock. The average value of their stocks was about $39,000 in 1995 (according to the Federal Reserve Board's 1995 Survey of Consumer Finance). Keoghs, IRAs, 401(k)s, and other plans rose 41 per cent as a proportion of total family assets between 1989 and 1995. (See Richard Nadler's "Stocks Populi," NR, March 9, 1998, for more on the growth of the investor class and its likely political effects.)

Market declines, in other words, now have immediate effects on the wealth of many millions of Americans. Stocks probably haven't fallen enough for them to feel it - yet - but if they do, it could have quick effects on President Clinton's political stock too.

We Hear. . .
. . . that David Gergen was spotted at the tony Maclean 7-11 leafing through the tabloids, one by one, for their coverage of Monica. Way to stay in touch with the vox pop, Dave!

Schoolboy Bill
Shortly before jetting off to Russia on Monday, President Clinton raced down to Fairfax County, Va., for a quick speech on education at Herndon Elementary School. A few local dignitaries were on hand to greet him, but one wasn't: School Board Member Jane K. Strauss, a Democrat. "I will not be attending the event on Monday because I do not approve of the president's behavior," she wrote colleagues on Friday, according to the Washington Post. "His sexual misconduct, lies, and obstruction of the investigation are wrong. I am especially displeased with his pronouncements about the need for high moral character among youth when his own behavior is blatantly immoral."

Congressional Democrats have not yet turned on Clinton, but a growing number of their grassroots colleagues want nothing to do with the Liar-in-Chief. Strauss may represent a growing trend: small-time pols, who usually flock to events where they can shake the President's hand in front of a crowd, staying far away.

Clinton's speech was itself hardly noteworthy (let's make education an "American issue," not a partisan one, he said), but it did contain one certifiably weird statement: "It's a worthy challenge for a great country to prove that we can take all this diversity, not just racial and ethnic and religious diversity, but diversity of life circumstances, and still give every single child a shot at living his or her dream."

Diversity of life circumstances? Mr. President, that's why Jane Strauss doesn't want to be seen with you.