According to the White House spin doctors this week's votes in the impeachment trial of President Clinton demonstrate conclusively the partisan nature of the case against him. While this is not the full story, it is difficult to disagree with the main thrust of the criticism - or to ignore the politics involved. Unless next week's depositions from three witnesses reveal quite new and startling evidence - and that cannot be ruled out - it looks as if the vote against Mr Clinton cannot be carried. Only one Democratic senator voted against him, and the indications are now that a number of Republicans might vote with him rather than risk electoral defeat, given the firm conviction of two thirds of voters that the trial should be stopped forthwith. That will leave the Senate to decide whether and how to censure the president for misconduct in office. Already the effort has begun to win the post-impeachment argument. Mr Clinton and his party have no intention of being defined solely in terms of the impeachment trial, as presidential and congressional elections loom next year. They sense a potentially decisive partisan advantage over their opponents.
Leaders of the Republicans in the Senate have been caught between their knowledge of this unyieldingly hostile public opinion and the passionate conviction that the issue should be pursued to the bitter end. Outside Washington many senior Republican figures have repeatedly called for the trial to be speedily concluded. But the activist religious conservatism of its new right-wing has been sufficient to maintain the momentum in the Washington impeachment process, finding common cause with legal and corporate hostility among the congressional party to Mr Clinton's political agenda and personal behaviour.
Out among the voters, however, the latest polls show the Democrats with a decisive advantage on issues such as education, health and social security. Mr Clinton's State of the Union address, in which he put forward a proposal to spend budget surpluses on the pension system rather than cut taxes as the Republicans advocate, has gone down well and promises to be a vote winner; so has the balanced budget on which it is based.
Such political currents were fully at play in this week's unsuccessful negotiations to find a compromise formula allowing the trial to end more speedily without calling witnesses. In the event the partisan vote in favour of calling three of them for depositions, with the option of introducing some of the videotaped evidence on the floor of the house, or even having them testify in person, contains a deadline of sorts, February 12th, by which the final votes would be taken. It would be foolish to assume things will reach that point smoothly, but at least there is a prospect of bringing the matter to a close. Mr Clinton's recklessness, dishonesty and political misjudgements throughout the Lewinsky affair deserve censure, not conviction and removal from office. On the evidence heard so far there is insufficient to convict him on the perjury and obstruction of justice charges. It is a relief to foresee an end to this extraordinary episode, in a way that will probably not weaken a president who has otherwise many achievements domestically and internationally to his credit.