So he should have been like Clinton and denied everything?
Admitting to it and apologizing was the right thing to do regardless of whether it was the political thing to do. However the bigger question is, "Is this the result of a new found integrity that has developed since those days? Or is California electing a Clintonesque womanizer who doesn't have either a firm or correct set of values."
I hope it's the former.
No. I think he should have said "no comment". If "most of the article was untrue" as he stated, then not dignifying it would have been the best course of action.
Had the women wanted to press charges, they could have and should have. If he was guilty of something, it would have come out. What next? Is he going to admit to changing someone's premium coffee with Folger's Crystals?
This "I'm not perfect" act is getting to be a little to much. He did what he did. His victims (if there were any) had their chance to set things right when it happened.
Vague admissions of non-specified actions are neither noble or helpful. If he wants to apologize to specific people for specific actions ... that's one thing. But blanket apologies to "whoever I may have offended" probably doesn't console anyone either.
The way he went about this was completely lose/lose, IMHO.
No, he shouldn't lie.
I don't plan on voting for AS. But having seen this crap pulled on many other republicans on election eve in this state I'm pining for just one to tell the local press to shove their allegations. No one is going to change their vote based on some movie set horseplay - if thats indeed all there is to this.