Should Clinton have resigned?

[BurtWorm]

Did anyone see the Watergate retrospective with Bob Woodward and a small panel (including Richard Reeves and Charles Taylor of the Nixon Library) that was rerun on CSPAN yesterday afternoon? Toward the end, one of Taylor's cronies stood up in the audience and made a speech praising Nixon for having the "decency" to resign "unlike a certain later president." It was one of those moments when you want to punch the TV screen. Who *really* were the indecent ones during the impeachment? :grr:

But it got me to thinking about what might have happened if Clinton had resigned in 1997, instantly bestowing on Gore the advantage of real incumbency over Bush in 2000. I still don't think Gore was guaranteed an outright victory. Bush's little brother still owned Florida. The Republicans had made themselves into Democrat-eating machines in the 1990s. They very likely would have stolen the White House anyway, with the complicity of the media. There was absolutely no guarantee that the Democrats had the power, resources or will to stop the onslaught.

So, it seems to me, it was just as well that Clinton stayed put and fought the Republicans to a victory for Constitutional process and democratic will. In fact, I'm sorry to say, it was the last time the Democrats in Washington stood fast, fought and won. (Although you have to give them props on the judicial filibustering, though they won't have won on those until the Bushists are out of power.)