>More acutely, however, the scandals that surrounded his
>Presidency made it impossible to convert into any kind of a
>rallying-point. He was plainly guilty of the charges-molestation in
>Arkansas, perjury and obstruction of justice in Washington-against him,
>which were fully impeachable: the Constitution calling for the removal of
>a President culpable even of 'misdemeanours' short of such breaches of the
>law, which in other fields of office would have swiftly led to resignation
>or dismissal. Widespread resistance to this logic, strong enough to block
>it, comprised a number of elements. Partisan loyalties were affronted
>among Democrats and the academic following attached to the Party. Cultural
>susceptibilities were aroused by fears of Grundyism. Popular aversion to
>impeachment, however, rested on a much more powerful bedrock of
>sentiment-attachment to the quasi-monarchical status of the Presidential
>office itself, as embodiment of national identity in the world at large, a
>late-twentieth-century fixation foreign to the Founders. But if popular
>opinion did not want impeachment, instinctively seeking to protect the
>Presidency, for the same reasons it did not relish Clinton's conduct, an
>indignity to the office not easily forgotten...
Anderson should really step down from that lofty summit he inhabits. He forgets that the impeachment drive was led by some truly horrible people and that many of us who were no fans of Clinton viewed his enemies with deep alarm. But of course that doesn't matter to Anderson, who dismissed "cultural antipathies" to the Bush admin as of little political significance - and here he belittles that as "fears of Grundyism." Also, Clinton was quite popular, and left office with approval ratings as high as Bush's are now. Gore distanced himself from Clinton. It's true that Clinton had also distanced himself from his own party, and left no real political legacy, but next to Bush, Clinton's scandals look like really minor stuff. And far more entertaining.
Doug