>Typical Clinton apologist.

Now, now, Mark. Let's try not to get personal here. You have your views and I have mine, but there's no need to start calling names, OK? I'm no more a "typical Clinton apologist" than you're a "typical Clinton attacker," right? :)

>First we do not just let criminals off just because the majority think it is OK to excuse.

Actually, we do (sometimes). Prosecutors, judges, sheriffs, presidents and legislators are all elected by the people. They make decisions whether to prosecute people based (partly) on the public interest.

>If there is sufficient evidence of perjury, etc., Clinton should pay the price regardless of what the public thinks.

Maybe. But we don't punish all crimes. We didn't punish George Bush for lying about raising taxes. We didn't punish Dan Quayle for dodging the draft (nor Clinton). We probably won't punish Kenneth Starr for leaking grand jury testimony. And when it comes to letting people off the hook, the guy who really takes the cake was a certain Republican named Gerald Ford.

>The only difference is there is a double standard in this country, one for Democrats and another for Republicans. It is fairly evident that Republicans are held to and maintain the higher one.

It's not evident to me. If you want to prove a proposition, you've got to do better than simply assert it.

> If this had been a Republican Prez, NOW, and other liberal groups would have run him out of office during Genifer Flowers revelations.

No Republican president within memory has been attractive enough to women to make that a problem. Gennifer Flowers was a consensual relationship, wasn't it? Why would NOW care?

BTW, I suppose you think our press is quite liberal, too. How do you account for the fact that the press seems much more interested in impeaching Clinton than the public? :)