Is it possible that the Drudgeman really means to apologize to Bill Clinton, who unlike Mark Foley actually was seduced--and by a legal adult?

Awhile ago I read Howie's update with the startling information that that great news source Matt Drudge (polluting a bit of webspace at right) has joined the Mark Foley fray, claiming that it was those damned House page boys with their infernal seductive ways who turned our Mark's high-minded head--straight into the gutter.

I guess my habit of paying no attention to Drudge-droppings is so deeply ingrained that I didn't give it a second thought until just now when I was catching up on my man Paul Krugman's first column back from vacation (yes, another vacation!), "Things Fall Apart," the "things" in question being the always-artificial coalition between the social conservatives typified by James Dobson's Focus on the Family and the economic conservatives who always seem to command the Bush administration's first loyalty.

"It will be interesting, by the way," Krugman writes, "to see how Dr. Dobson [pictured at left], who declared of Bill Clinton that 'no man has ever done more to debase the presidency,' responds to the Foley scandal. Does the failure of Republican leaders to do anything about a sexual predator in their midst outrage him as much as a Democratic president's consensual affair?"

The reference to old Bill's "consensual affair" suddenly sent my thoughts back to the Drudgeman. In his delusion that it was the male pages who were attempting to seduce poor, innocent Mark ("16-and-17-year-old beasts," he apparently calls the lads), the deranged Drudge has obviously slipped up on his scandals. I'm not here to excuse former President Clinton's poor judgment, but in his case we do know for a fact that it was Monica Lewinsky who went after him--and of course we also know that she was not underage.

And of course I'm not aware of any detail or piece of reporting on the Foley mess that allows a functioning human brain to consider even the possibility that Foley was the victim rather than the instigator of attempted seductions with the pages. It's certainly true that the e-mails I've seen are more discreet than the one extended IM I've read, but even in the e-mails the intent is unmistakable. And the IM (one of a number we have now, I gather) lays it all out. Nobody, not even Matt Drudge, could be stupid enough to misunderstand what's going on there.

Although I don't recall the Drudgeman arguing at the time that Bill Clinton was victimized by a predatory intern (beastly or otherwise), I'm guessing that this is his confused way of making amends. Surely what he meant to say was that, while there is no excuse for Mark Foley's behavior with underage House pages, or the behavior of all the GOP pols (and perhaps media whores?) who stood by and watched, he understands now how unfair the media lynch mob was to President Clinton in those very different circumstances.

In fact, Drudgeman, such an apology would be a fine idea--more for your benefit than for Bill Clinton's. Now all you have to do is rouse yourself from your customary stupor and shake off your habitual dishonesty, just for the short time it would take to get the details straight.