I've had a number of letters on my article which appeared in Salon, asking, frankly, what I was saying. This is an ambiguous comment on my writing skills; but I appreciate the interest. So here goes.
Anti-Clinton Republicans always said that defending Bill Clinton was just a matter of defending anyone with a 'D' after their name from any charge whatsoever. Or perhaps defending anyone named Clinton from any charge whatsoever. Speaking for myself at least I can assure that wasn't the case. It would be better to say that it was about defending a good person against a politically motivated witch-hunt even if that person had himself had done some boneheaded things which had greatly complicated his situation.
Do I think Democrats should jump on the self-righteous Bob Barr bandwagon? No.
Do I think Gary Condit should resign because he had one or a hundred extra-marital affairs? No.
Do I think Gary Condit should resign because he's impeded the investigation into Levy's disappearance? I'm uncertain on this; but I don't think so. Not yet at least. (I'll explain more on that in a later post).
Do I think (given the larger factors in play here) that congressional Democrats should be giving any consideration to the fact that this could lead to the loss of Condit's congressional seat? No.
Do I think elected Democrats should (without moral posturing or grandstanding) say that Gary Condit should cooperate in every way possible with the police investigation (personal embarrassment and political fallout notwithstanding) and that to date he doesn't appear to have done so? Absolutely.