I must be out of it, but I don't know any good journalists who have excused Clinton's problems.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
It was OK for the media to pursue Former President Clinton year after year for lying about a private, consensual sexual affair, but we have five justices who committed one of the biggest crimes in American History, and it ceased to be a big story.
Every journalist who is not too stupid or too full of himself to notice what is going on knows that what he does is morally indefensible.
There has always been tension between reporters and the administration, particularly when it comes to war in the modern era. You can go to Kennedy or Johnson and see that they weren't happy with David Halberstam or Morley Safer.
The things journalists should pay attention to are the issues the political leadership agrees on, rather than to their supposed antagonisms.
What Clinton did with Lewinsky was despicable but was no threat to the nation. That he lied about it repeatedly and to the public is a reason for us to cease to trust him and for him to resign.
There's a kind of journalistic narcissism that New York-based journalists are guilty of.
I do think the biggest problem newspapers have is loss of trust, and I feel that's a result of failure to speak truth to power.
Clinton was very early on aware of the problem of international terrorism.
I think Clinton fatigue was a real thing. It's just hard to get comfortable with Gore - it was hard for him to project who he is, the person people know in private.
There have been as many investigative reporters on this newspaper working on Clinton's many problems as I can remember there were working on Watergate.