In short, another apology that really isn't. Most of the folks who cover Bill Clinton eventually reach a moment of truth. The difference between a Clinton critic and a Clinton apologist is that the apologist hasn't had his moment of truth yet. A few never will. It might be noted that some of the types now writing most skeptically, even scathingly, about this president produced some of the most favorable news coverage he ever got back in the presidential campaign of '92, before their own inevitable moment of truth struck.
People hate to be fooled.
My own moment of truth came in the fall of '91, when the governor and presidential candidate casually, smoothly noted that of course he had favored George Bush's request for war powers in the Persian Gulf earlier that year. I was shaken. That wasn't the way I remembered it at all, or the way I'd been reporting it for months. I asked him if he was sure about that, and he looked at me in the calmest way and said of course he had supported the president. Of course he hadn't.