Clinton and Consequences
Well, we hope they're happy. Everyone who asked the President to say those magic words - to give them one more excuse not to confront just what kind of man we have given the presidency - now has what he asked for. The President is sorry, (he's always sorry on foreign soil). Feel better?

We've heard a lot about feelings of late. Former Clinton aides feel betrayed. The public feels disgusted, and wonders what Hillary feels. The air is thick with talk of closure and forgiveness.

We know how Clinton spokesman Joe Lockhart feels: light of heart, apparently. After missing a flight from Russia to Ireland, he said, "I take responsibility for my own actions. I deeply regret it. I'm dealing with the people I hurt the most." No big deal, the White House must be a laugh riot.

Joe Lieberman unburdened himself of his feelings, too, "feelings of disappointment and anger." David Gergen, that dependable and admirably bipartisan sycophant, said, "He spoke with an eloquence that recalled the old giants like Webster, Clay, and Calhoun in the Senate" (Hotline 9/4/98). In fact, it was the second disappointing speech by a New Democrat in a month, a failure of rhetoric and a failure of nerve.

Having laid out (some of) the reasons Clinton cannot any more exercise leadership, Lieberman proceeded to dismiss calls for resignation on the grounds that we need his leadership. No doubt it is prudent for Sen. Lieberman to keep his options open. We'll spare the accolades.

His speech, along with those of Daniel Patrick Moynihan and Bob Kerrey, should at least close off the White House's main line of defense, i.e., its attack on Kenneth Starr. Whatever his faults, the trio said, the blame for this situation rests on Clinton alone.

But the attack machine is not through. The President speaks of forgiveness, and the quality of his mercy is not strained: it falls on Ken Starr and Saddam Hussein alike, on Scott Ritter and terrorists in Sudan, on Paul McHale and Billy Dale. But the President is sorry. No wonder Joe Lockhart is laughing.

Non-Believers
The Washington Post's new religion reporter Hanna Rosin took another swing at the Catholic Church and its teachings on Friday. In a gushing article about a priest in Rochester, N.Y., who allows women to perform parts of the sacrament, offers communion to non-Catholics, and blesses same-sex marriages, Rosin makes much of parishioners' support for their pastor. What she fails to realize is that Catholics who don't believe in heresy probably wouldn't attend Corpus Christi Catholic Church in the first place.

Rosin accuses Pope John Paul II of instigating a "crackdown" against dissidents in order to "lay down his legacy." Actually, the Pope isn't worrying about the history books like some lame-duck president. He believes in a higher Judge, whose dictates he is simply following. It's a shame that the Post's religion reporter fails to see this--or, worse, is on a crusade against it.