Salon Newsreal | We interrupt this impeachment ...

A L S O+T O D A Y

Dear Henry
Historians talk back to House impeachment managers
Reactions to the president's speech
Experts discuss Clinton's performance and what effects his proposals would have on the actual problems he identified as priorities

What might have been
By Joan Walsh
It's hard to watch this president perform so well, knowing that he has already undermined his -- and our -- hopes for any real legislative success

Diamond in the Ruff
By Harry Jaffe
The president's lawyer, a lone figure in his wheelchair in the well of the Senate, could not have been a more effective defender

The State of the Union
Prepared text of President Clinton's State of the Union address

T A B L E+T A L K
Ignore the talking heads! Discuss your thoughts on Clinton's State of the Union address in the Politics area of Table Talk
___________________
Visit barnesandnoble.com for politics books on both sides of the aisle
___________________

Portrait of a political "pit bull"
By Russ Baker
Rep. Dan Burton, who called President Clinton a "scumbag," has a few questions to answer about his own behavior
(12/22/98)

R E C E N T L Y
Clinton's Star Wars sequel
By Christopher Hitchens
The president pays off the military by funding a notorious boondoggle
(01/19/99)
Impeachment diary III
By Anonymous
In the absence of real action, Senate insiders give the House Boyz low grades, rue the end of bipartisan cooperation and spread a whole lotta rumors about Trent Lott
(01/15/99)
American gerontocracy
By Christopher Shea
Is the mental capacity of the aged leaders judging President Clinton a fit subject for commentary?
(01/15/99)
Counting the dead children
By Jeff Stein
Critics blast U.S. sanctions that kill Iraqi babies, but leave Saddam fat and happy
(01/15/99)
Cracks in the bipartisan façade
By Joshua Micah Marshall
As House Republicans tried to depict their impeachment vendetta as a brave civil rights struggle, the important action was all taking place off-camera
(01/15/99)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Browse the
Newsreal Archives
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

spacer

WE INTERRUPT THIS IMPEACHMENT ... | PAGE 1, 2
- - - - - - - - - -
Even those who don't think the president should resign have been angry at his refusal to follow the Presidential Tragedy script. Most of establishment Washington doesn't really want the president kicked out of office -- not because they love the man, but because it seems out of proportion, it offends their sense of judgment and restraint. What drives them to distraction is Clinton's unwillingness to sit still and be ashamed. In the days after Clinton's impeachment, commentators gritted their teeth in frustration that even the shattering House vote against him hadn't reduced Clinton to moping dejection. In discussions of an appropriate penalty that were bantered about on TV chat shows, one of the principle qualifications was that it be something so humiliating and crushing that Clinton wouldn't be able to be up again a few days later, running the country. When he told the Los Angeles Times' Elizabeth Shogren that it didn't feel that bad being impeached and that history would, at least in part, vindicate him, the pundits howled.
Washington Post columnist Jim Glassman excoriated Clinton for hosting the House Democrats on the White House lawn just after the impeachment vote. "The appropriate response to impeachment," Glassman whined, "is not brassy defiance but silence, contemplation, shame and departure." Glassman's kindred spirit, Christopher Matthews, took the same line. He railed against Clinton for his "macabre pep rally" and for refusing to "mope around the White House living quarters" as would have been proper after having been impeached. In other words, for refusing the play by the Presidential Tragedy script. Didn't Clinton know he was supposed to slip into a deep depression and hole up in the White House until a handful of sexagenarian Senate Democrats walked over to tell him it was time to pack it in, or conversely, agreed to forgive him and let him go back to running the country -- dejectedly -- again?
But Clinton realized early on what others came to belatedly: It's very difficult to pry a president from office if he just refuses to go. And that's driven the pundits crazy. Of course, Clinton's critics would counter that this is precisely the point. Clinton should have the decency and honor, the respect for himself and his office, to walk off the public stage and take responsibility for his misdeeds.
Glassman, Matthews and their indignant colleagues rightly understand that Clinton refuses to concede the legitimacy of the drive to impeach him. In fact, that's what's really behind all the calls for Clinton to come clean, to admit this or that misdeed, to show that he "gets it," that he takes responsibility and so forth. For most Americans, Clinton has apologized enough -- perhaps too much. (If there's one thing Clinton has done this year that really has transgressed the bounds of good taste it's his repeated, maudlin apologies. If he keeps it up, it may rise to the level of an impeachable offense.)
But apologizing for his personal misdeeds will never satisfy his critics. And, truth be told, neither will any apologies for misleading the public, or lying, or anything else. What Clinton's critics want aren't apologies, but vindication. They want the president to apologize in a particular way, and carry himself in a particular manner, so that he retroactively validates the idiot jihad that Kenneth Starr, the right wing and many in the press corps have been waging against him and his administration for at least four years. What drives the critics to distraction is that Clinton has steadfastly refused to do that; and the public has, in general, supported him in his refusal.
So giving the State of the Union address isn't anything out of the ordinary for Clinton. He's just following the script he set out for himself when this whole mess started. He'll drive his critics up the wall and probably get a bump in the polls while he's at it.
SALON | Jan. 20, 1999
Joshua Micah Marshall is associate editor of the American Prospect and has been covering the impeachment hearings for Salon.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Clinton in Crisis
Salon's complete coverage of the investigation, impeachment and trial of the president.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Become a Salon member. Click here.

A L S O+T O D A Y Dear Henry Historians talk back to House impeachment managers Reactions to the president's speech Experts discuss Clinton's performance and what effects his proposals would have on the actual problems he identified as priorities What might have been By Joan Walsh It's hard to watch this president perform so well, knowing that he has already undermined his -- and our -- hopes for any real legislative success Diamond in the Ruff By Harry Jaffe The president's lawyer, a lone figure in his wheelchair in the well of the Senate, could not have been a more effective defender The State of the Union Prepared text of President Clinton's State of the Union address T A B L E+T A L K Ignore the talking heads! Discuss your thoughts on Clinton's State of the Union address in the Politics area of Table Talk ___________________ Visit barnesandnoble.com for politics books on both sides of the aisle ___________________ Portrait of a political "pit bull" By Russ Baker Rep. Dan Burton, who called President Clinton a "scumbag," has a few questions to answer about his own behavior (12/22/98) R E C E N T L Y Clinton's Star Wars sequel By Christopher Hitchens The president pays off the military by funding a notorious boondoggle (01/19/99) Impeachment diary III By Anonymous In the absence of real action, Senate insiders give the House Boyz low grades, rue the end of bipartisan cooperation and spread a whole lotta rumors about Trent Lott (01/15/99) American gerontocracy By Christopher Shea Is the mental capacity of the aged leaders judging President Clinton a fit subject for commentary? (01/15/99) Counting the dead children By Jeff Stein Critics blast U.S. sanctions that kill Iraqi babies, but leave Saddam fat and happy (01/15/99) Cracks in the bipartisan façade By Joshua Micah Marshall As House Republicans tried to depict their impeachment vendetta as a brave civil rights struggle, the important action was all taking place off-camera (01/15/99) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Browse the Newsreal Archives - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
		WE INTERRUPT THIS IMPEACHMENT ... \| PAGE 1, 2 - - - - - - - - - - Even those who don't think the president should resign have been angry at his refusal to follow the Presidential Tragedy script. Most of establishment Washington doesn't really want the president kicked out of office -- not because they love the man, but because it seems out of proportion, it offends their sense of judgment and restraint. What drives them to distraction is Clinton's unwillingness to sit still and be ashamed. In the days after Clinton's impeachment, commentators gritted their teeth in frustration that even the shattering House vote against him hadn't reduced Clinton to moping dejection. In discussions of an appropriate penalty that were bantered about on TV chat shows, one of the principle qualifications was that it be something so humiliating and crushing that Clinton wouldn't be able to be up again a few days later, running the country. When he told the Los Angeles Times' Elizabeth Shogren that it didn't feel that bad being impeached and that history would, at least in part, vindicate him, the pundits howled. Washington Post columnist Jim Glassman excoriated Clinton for hosting the House Democrats on the White House lawn just after the impeachment vote. "The appropriate response to impeachment," Glassman whined, "is not brassy defiance but silence, contemplation, shame and departure." Glassman's kindred spirit, Christopher Matthews, took the same line. He railed against Clinton for his "macabre pep rally" and for refusing to "mope around the White House living quarters" as would have been proper after having been impeached. In other words, for refusing the play by the Presidential Tragedy script. Didn't Clinton know he was supposed to slip into a deep depression and hole up in the White House until a handful of sexagenarian Senate Democrats walked over to tell him it was time to pack it in, or conversely, agreed to forgive him and let him go back to running the country -- dejectedly -- again? But Clinton realized early on what others came to belatedly: It's very difficult to pry a president from office if he just refuses to go. And that's driven the pundits crazy. Of course, Clinton's critics would counter that this is precisely the point. Clinton should have the decency and honor, the respect for himself and his office, to walk off the public stage and take responsibility for his misdeeds. Glassman, Matthews and their indignant colleagues rightly understand that Clinton refuses to concede the legitimacy of the drive to impeach him. In fact, that's what's really behind all the calls for Clinton to come clean, to admit this or that misdeed, to show that he "gets it," that he takes responsibility and so forth. For most Americans, Clinton has apologized enough -- perhaps too much. (If there's one thing Clinton has done this year that really has transgressed the bounds of good taste it's his repeated, maudlin apologies. If he keeps it up, it may rise to the level of an impeachable offense.) But apologizing for his personal misdeeds will never satisfy his critics. And, truth be told, neither will any apologies for misleading the public, or lying, or anything else. What Clinton's critics want aren't apologies, but vindication. They want the president to apologize in a particular way, and carry himself in a particular manner, so that he retroactively validates the idiot jihad that Kenneth Starr, the right wing and many in the press corps have been waging against him and his administration for at least four years. What drives the critics to distraction is that Clinton has steadfastly refused to do that; and the public has, in general, supported him in his refusal. So giving the State of the Union address isn't anything out of the ordinary for Clinton. He's just following the script he set out for himself when this whole mess started. He'll drive his critics up the wall and probably get a bump in the polls while he's at it. SALON \| Jan. 20, 1999 Joshua Micah Marshall is associate editor of the American Prospect and has been covering the impeachment hearings for Salon. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Clinton in Crisis Salon's complete coverage of the investigation, impeachment and trial of the president. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Become a Salon member. Click here.