Impeachment hearings in the House Judiciary Committee were perfunctory, but the floor debate was raucous. In the end, the House voted on four articles of impeachment, two of which passed on a bipartisan basis in December 1998 during Congress’s post-election lame duck session. Five Democrats joined 223 Republicans in voting for a charge of perjury, and five Democrats joined 216 Republicans in voting for a charge of obstruction of justice. A second perjury charge and an abuse of power charge failed.
But unlike the Trump impeachment inquiry now underway, Clinton’s impeachment was bipartisan and the charges against him were easy to understand.
The author has a valid point (that Pelosi couldn't get a single R vote in favor of her partisan "inquiry").
BUT that does not mean that every vote where you get just two votes from the opposing party is "bipartisan". Bipartisan means you have strong support from both sides, not monolithic support from one side and a few votes from the other.
By the author's own analysis, the vote AGAINST the Clinton impeachment was an order of magnitude more bipartisan than the vote against the Pelosi "inquiry".
Why is this significant? Because when we get to the Senate and Romney and Collins support conviction, the press should not be able to claim (as this author would suggest) that there was "bipartisan consensus for removal."
This article is a good example of an author who has a valid point, but twists history to make his valid point seem unassailable.
The author was probably using “bipartisan” somewhat tongue-in-cheek. It was a rhetorical device to simply contrast to the zero Republican support FOR impeachment.
It obviously is not truly bi-partisan because, as you point out, there was not strong support by both sides. But it is true that the “No” vote was more bipartisan than the “Yes” vote.