In 1998, there were a string of films that attempted to confront, mock and criticize contemporary politics. Wag the Dog features a White House-recruited Hollywood producer creating a distraction--in the form of a fake war--from a risqu sex-scandal threatening the president on the eve of his re-election. Bulworth recounts the tale of a disenchanted and suicidal political icon who finds solace when he begins to speak the truth--rather than his usual lip service--regardless of the consequences of his offensive, yet candid, remarks. And Primary Colors tells the story of an idealistic political aficionado seduced into organizing the presidential campaign of a slick southern governor.

Tomorrow Dreamworks S.K.G. releases Ron Lurie's movie The Contender, the most recent addition to the laundry list of films that have striking correlation with the Clinton administration. In The Contender, the Democratic president nominates a female senator to fill the vice presidential post when the V.P.-elect suddenly dies. Nominee Senator Laine Hanson becomes the object of a smear campaign--a la sexual McCarthyism--orchestrated by a right-wing political predator that probes deep into the secrets of her private life.

Other films, such as Wag the Dog, Bulworth and Primary Colors, have tried to take swings at contemporary politics before and have each failed miserably. Their satirical messages felt tired and exhausted before they had even hit the theatres. In truth, however, those three 1998 movies were released during the heyday of the Lewinsky scandal and no matter how many famous faces or piquant plots producers stuffed into the films, nothing was as entertaining as the Bill, Linda and Monica triangle.

But The Contender is different. This movie takes issue with the very scandal that stole the red carpet from these other movies, as well as from--more importantly--the foreign affairs and domestic concerns that were shoved out of the spotlight throughout the ordeal. The movie also has the potential to raise myriad intriguing questions. Would the tone of the "vast right-wing conspiracy" have altered, for example, had it been the case of a female executive officer engaging in adulterous behavior with a male White House intern? How have party conspiracies altered the political process? Most important, however, is how should Americans confront and consider the intimate details of politicians' personal lives?

By his own doing, President Clinton brought the intimate details of our national politicians into the public arena. When he blatantly lied and publicly denied any "sexual relations with that woman," President Clinton opened the door for the American public and international media to examine and evaluate a candidate on more than his record, his stance on issues and his intellect. He invited them to throw personal character into the lot as well.

And for a fair amount of time, the nation was obsessed. Because of the momentum following the impeachment trial, The Starr Report remains ranked at 7,497 on Amazon.com. Larry Flynt released his own "Flynt Report," an 84-page, advertisement-free expos of the alleged sinful sex lives of Republicans. Months after the scandal's climax, the nation tuned in for Barbara Walter's interview with Monica Lewinsky. The impeachment process, the cigar stories and the blue Gap dress were fodder for endless jokes on late night television and infinite talking head discussions on the cable networks.

But there has been a commendable news drought during this presidential election and I laud the media for their conscientious neglect of issues concerning the private lives of Vice President Al Gore '69 and Texas Gov. George W. Bush. Granted, there were forays into the personal lives of the two presidential front-runners, such as Bush's alleged stint with cocaine and the public release of Gore's Harvard report card, but for the most part this has been a clean media campaign. Journalists have done their fair share of probing into the pasts of the Democratic and Republican nominees but the investigations have basically come up empty. Of course, it may just be that Gore and Bush actually own up to clean records.

Regardless, at its best the media has stuck to the issues most pertinent to the candidates' platforms and at its worst the media has attacked Gore for his wooden stature and Bush for his intellectual prowess--or lack thereof. Thus far, even the presidential and the vice presidential debates have hammered Social Security, environmental preservation and tax reform rather than intimate details of conduct and character. The coverage certainly may not be as interesting as the stories of the Lewinsky era, but the media has conscientiously focused on the candidates' stance on issues which will effect American citizens and members of the international community rather than pry into Gore and Bush's private lives.

All things considered, Dreamworks has selected a fortuitous release date for their film. The Contender opens less than four weeks before November's presidential election and at a date close enough to President Clinton's impeachment trial for the issues of responsibility, respect and accountability to still ring brilliantly clear in the minds of American citizens. Hopefully this film will succeed in reminding us that beside the ingenuity to solve the Medicare crisis and the ability to pronounce Kostunica properly, Americans want a candidate who will restore the respectability to the White House.

The tagline for The Contender reads, "Sometimes you can assassinate a leader without firing a shot." President Clinton may not have fired a gun and he may not have crushed an aspiring politician, but he did disgrace the nation and, frankly, massacre the virtue and the dignity of the Oval Office. May the next President of the United States serve our country well as a model leader and, more importantly, a model citizen.

Jordana R. Lewis '02 is a history and literature concentrator in Eliot House. Her column appears on alternate Thursdays.