Replies

[As for New York Times editorials, weren't they they most consistent voice outside of the Wall Street Journal calling for Clinton to resign?]

Um, no? I guess you never actually READ the New York Times, either.

Let's hop in the Wayback Machine and have a look, shall we?

March 25, 1998, unsigned NYT editorial, "THE PRESIDENCY AND THE WORLD":
[...] Yet America's freedoms and success are envied everywhere. Mr. Clinton carries that strength with him when he travels, and it magnifies both him and the office he occupies. It will not inoculate him from the problems that await his return to Washington, but at a moment of peril in his Administration Mr. Clinton is enjoying the radiance of the nation he represents. [...]
August 03, 1998, NYT editorial by Thomas Friedman:
[...] Clinton has got to say and do now what is necessary to put this case behind him -- in a way that might give at least some chance for him to pursue the progressive agenda, at home and abroad, for which he was elected. He owes that to all the people who believe in the social and economic programs for which he stood, and still might be able to salvage. He owes that to all the people who don't want to see an isolationist, mean-spirited Republican right shaping America's future. [...]
September 30, 1998, unsigned NYT editorial:
[...] This page advocates a negotiated settlement that would allow Mr. Clinton to remain in office in exchange for a censure based on his admission of lying under oath. [...]
December 18, 1998, unsigned NYT editorial, "War at Home and Abroad":
[...] The clearest thinking in the Republican Party is coming from two New Yorkers, Representatives Amo Houghton and Peter King. Yesterday they introduced a censure resolution noting that Mr. Clinton "lied under oath."
December 20, 1998, unsigned NYT editorial, "Impeachment and Beyond":
[...] Yet, with both the White House and the majority party in Congress locked in a crisis of leadership, one element remained unchanged. The way back to stability is adoption of a censure resolution that condemns Mr. Clinton for lying under oath, but allows him to remain in office. [...]
January 6, 1999, unsigned NYT editorial, "Avoiding a Lengthy Trial":
[...] The reason is that some influential Republicans are blocking the plan of their majority leader, Trent Lott, to move the Senate with appropriate speed toward a censure verdict that conforms with the public will, the evidence against Mr. Clinton and the national interest. [...] The senators need to be bigger than Mr. Clinton has been, too. So far Mr. Lott, the minority leader, Tom Daschle, and their pro-censure allies have measured up. [...]

And so on. I can not find any editorial by the NYT editorial staff itself which advocates that Clinton resign. The closest I could find, other than columns by conservatives appearing in the NYTimes, was the following, by a *former* editor of the New York Times, A. M. Rosenthal, who formally retired from the NYT in 1988 (perhaps the last year the NYT had any integrity). The following is from his column expressing his *own* opinion, not the editorial opinion of the New York Times:

December 18, 1998 column by A. M. Rosenthal, "On My Mind: What Clinton Can Do:
[...Bill Clinton has one great service he can offer to his country, only one now -- swift resignation. Democratic leaders, and his true friends out of government, owe it to him to urge him to resign, in the critical interest of all Americans, particularly those he is sending into action. [...] I do not think the President has the courage to resign. But we must say aloud what we think our leaders should do, not duck behind platitudes [...]