Still mad about Clinton

Not on the right (of course they still loathe him), but on the left. From Marc Cooper's blog, chiding liberals who feel good about Bill Clinton, on the eve of his book tour:

Clinton’s transgressions didn’t rise to a crime against the state. But he was nevertheless a moral and political embarrassment. A born trimmer, his personal behavior was a perfect match with his feckless public opportunism. He lied (not as a witness) but as a defendant in a sexual harassment case; he plotted to obstruct justice; he clearly suborned perjury; and he was porking an intern less than half his age in the Oval Office.

Simply, Bill Clinton should have resigned. And if not, then the Democratic congressional leadership should have publicly demanded his stepping down. I’m proud to say that – allotted by The Nation in October 1998 a scant 700 word island in a months-wide sea of otherwise Clinton apologia-- Micah Sifry, Doug Ireland and I (none of us Democrats) jointly editorialized for Clinton to hand in his resignation.

No way. The Democrats rallied to Slick Willie and the rest is history. If Clinton, however, had stepped down and Al Gore had become President in the fall of 1998, I’d bet the farm that he’d won two years later in a landslide.

No one better than former Republican-strategist-turned-populist Kevin Phillips in his new book on the Bush Dynasty details how widespread voter repulsion with Clinton allowed a pipsqueak like Dubya to even have a shot at winning.

Cooper also is glad the week-long media adulation for Reagan has finally ended: "I hope so, because one more day of the fawning, supine, downright embarrasing, whoring coverage of his funeral and I would have been ready to jump into the grave right on top of him." (I'm glad to see Cooper has moved on from making fun of protecting kids from fatal peanut allergies...)