Democrats are increasingly seeing President Clinton's speech on Monday night as a political failure which has unleashed a torrent of anger among some of his most loyal supporters. It has also created problems no one at the White House anticipated, they believe.
"It's not only opportunity lost, it's additional troubles gained," a former administration official said. "If one of your goals has to be to try to bring this to closure in some reasonable time frame, the opportunity was there Monday night and was lost."
The litany of problems includes an emboldened Republican Party determined to see the investigation through to the end, and a Democratic Party for now deflated and demoralised by a Clinton performance that fell far short of expectations.
Other problems include editorial opinion from newspapers across the country that has been extremely harsh in condemning Mr Clinton's speech, a White House staff whose credibility has been compromised for the battles ahead, and the threat of further problems from Mr Starr's investigation. This is now in its final stages.
Some Democrats yesterday attributed part of the under whelming response from Capitol Hill to most politicians being on holiday or in their home states, and not feeling the need to say much. If Mr Clinton's approval ratings remain strong - as they have so far this week - Democrats will quickly rally behind him.
They also predicted that, unless Mr Starr's report provides convincing evidence of obstruction of justice by Mr Clinton, many politicians will call for the House to take no action against the President, if for no other reason than to show a united front in the midterm elections.
Democrats fear the President's speech makes it more likely that the Starr investigation will overwhelm any other message they hope to deliver during the autumn campaign - the opposite of what they had hoped and the White House intended.
Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan of New York called the speech "not adequate" because Mr Clinton failed to apologise for his relationship with Ms Monica Lewinsky and for attacking Mr Starr.
The political reaction to the President's speech was far different from anything White House officials anticipated. With overnight polls showing the President's approval rating holding strong and reports from focus groups showing a good response to what Mr Clinton had to say, they were caught off guard by the response from Capitol Hill.
Most Republican leaders advise waiting until Mr Starr reports to Congress before they recommend a course of action. Most Americans still oppose impeachment, according to polls.
Friends of the administration expressed anger that Mr Clinton had allowed his anger at Mr Starr to overrule a White House political team skilled in crisis management which wanted more contrition and less defiance.
"Everybody was certain he would rise to the occasion and for the first time he didn't do it," one former administration official said.
Said another veteran of Mr Clinton's first term, "Everybody agrees he blew it . . . He could have killed this in January or he could have killed it on Monday, and he didn't do it either time."
AFP adds:- Vice-President Al Gore may have planned in 1995 to divert illegally some of the funds he was raising for the party to the re-election campaigns of himself and Mr Clinton, the New York Times said yesterday.
The information is contained in a memo of a November 1995 meeting between Mr Gore and campaign officials, government officials told the newspaper.