By Michael Walsh November 11, 2017
Amidst the flap over Roy Moore in Alabama, this trip down memory lane:
Jane R. Eisner, the editorial page editor of The Philadelphia Inquirer, knew the jagged contours of the debate before it started. Long before the release of Kenneth W. Starr's report, it was clear that some colleagues believed, passionately, that President Clinton's deceit made him unfit to remain in office. An equal number felt just as passionately that his resignation now would weaken the nation's most cherished institutions.
But Ms. Eisner said she was not expecting the feelings of profound exhaustion and ''nausea'' she experienced when finally, after two and a half hours of anguished arguments, Chris Satullo, the deputy editorial page editor, went to write the Sunday editorial that began with the words ''Bill Clinton should resign.''
By yesterday, The Inquirer, once a staunch supporter of the President, was one of at least 115 daily newspapers in the country -- out of more than 1,500 -- to make the same plea to Mr. Clinton.
It didn't matter, of course. Clinton never had the slightest intention of resigning, and his supporters never wanted him to. Indeed, they reveled in his defiance and laughed at the old-fashioned, moralist editors who wanted him to do the right thing. Further, the nation's most influential papers stayed out of the fray:
Among the nation's largest newspapers, USA Today has called for Mr. Clinton's resignation but The New York Times, The Los Angeles Times and The Washington Post have not. ''As a general practice, we don't discuss the details of editorial board deliberations,'' said Howell Raines, the editorial page editor of The New York Times.
(Excerpt) Read more at pjmedia.com ...
