xtcian

It's too early for me to come up with anything except to say that I truly wish I had been there too.

Clinton hatred was bad, I remember (not just Monica, but Somolia, sexual harassment, perjury, Chinese money, Pardongate, etc.), but Bush hatred is clearly of a different order. It drives people to insane lengths and causes them to quake with rage at the mere sight of him or sound of his voice. I've never seen more virulent character assassinations than what lefties throw at Chimpy McBushitler. "Irresponsibly furious" is a fair encapsulation of the phenomenon. And it only makes me love him more.

For just one example of Bush hatred being the driving force of everything Democrats do these days look at the Dubai ports deal. Democrats showed that they were perfectly willing to pander to xenophobic sentiment so long as it was a club they could use to bash the president with. To hell with their supposed principles. The message they sent is that if you're Muslim, even an ally, you can't do business with the United States, even if you would have nothing to do with the security of said ports. how many more would you like?

Monica Lewinsky, Whitewater, Paula Jones, Gennifer Flowers, Adultery, Perjury, Cheating, Lying, blah blah blah ... but wow, what a speaker he was!

I wonder what obscene amount of money Clinton requested to show up at the Pavilion and yack for an hour or two. Because, you know, the Clintons don't have enough money, with their book deals and all.

I voted for Clinton in 1992 -- yes it is true. I see the Clinton years as one big lost opportunity. No, I am not talking about the years after his perjury where he was, in essence, lame duck. For the first 2 years of his Presidency, he has complete control of all chambers of the federal government. What did he do? Zilch.

So, now, every time I hear any leftie bitch and moan about how the USA needs to do this or that (health care, environment, etc.), I can't help but think that the lefties had complete carte blanche for 2 years and did not do shit when they had the chance. Do I think the USA would be better off if they had done something? I don't know. But, nonetheless, an opportunity was lost.

Don't get me wrong -- I feel the exact same way about the current Republicans. There is no excuse for the lack of tax reform, potent education reform, Social Security reform, etc. during the Bush Presidency. Yes, the war has taken the domestic agenda off track, but not completely -- they still found time to pass a boondoggle prescription plan that the country can not afford!

I agree wholeheartedly with Dean from Bub's and Troll's.

it is very hard to argue -- whatever side of the aisle you call home -- that clinton is not one of the most talented politicians of our time. and you know one of the reasons why that is? he has raised "dumbing it down..." a.k.a. speaking to the masses on "their" level... to an art form.

and as a bit of a political junkie, i can only admire this in our former president... oh, and notice that his wife, umm... doesn't share that god-given talent.

LFMD:

At least Clinton earned his money, unlike Shrub who got every dollar he ever made just by virtue of who his daddy is.

Matt:

If the 'Pubs had been united around the Dubai port deal it might have gone forward. Their was plenty of 'Pub opposition, including the memorable "Hell No" letter to the President from Charlotte area wingnut Sue Myrick.

"...people hated Clinton, they could scarcely express why."

That's 100 times more true of Hillary than Bill. As far as we all believe we've come, a strong woman still scares the masses. "I just don't like her" is usually the explanation I get from Hillary haters. Or better yet: "I feel like I could sit down and drink a beer with her husband, but not her." I don't care if I can have a beer with the president - I want him/her to #^*&#$ protect us from terrorists and protect the poor from dying on the street.

Memo to Chip: There is no shame in gaining wealth from you parents. My two little boys are well on their way to the same path, I am proud to say. I am sure that when (not if) Ian is making zillions of dollars in Hollywood, he is still going to make Lucy get a real job so she can earn her own way. Puhleeze!

By the way, do you hold the same disdain for someone who married his wealth (Kerry), someone who lives of daddy's wealth as an illegal bootlegger and now has the overwhelming majority of their funds in Asian non-taxed funds(Kennedys), or someone who got it by chasing ambulances (Edwards).

I am not necessarily condemning any of these 3 guys, but wonder if your condemnation goes there too?

Clinton was actually more of a conservative than I would have preferred. But I at least felt like my rights (especially of the pro-choice variety) were protected during his presidency. And he is a peerless speaker. I don't perceive him as dumbing anything down--in fact, he's more often than not accused of being a policy wonk. The thing is, character issues were never more prevalent than when he was in office, but he never embarrassed me *as a president* or made me feel like America was being represented by a chump. Clinton is brilliant and effortlessly articulate, to mention just two things Chimpy (thank you, Matt) is not. That's one of the reasons I despise Bush so: not even taking policies into consideration, the man has absolutely no public presence. Plus, there's the little fact of his being installed in office to begin with. That makes my blood boil even now.

Not trying to pick any fights here, but . .

Beth -- get over Florida. EVERY (yes, every) single re-count has shown that Bush won it fair and square. Yes, it was unfortunate that BOTH sides played the lawyer game. But, even the NY Times count went Bush's way. That ship has sailed and it is time for you to move on too. Love ya', mean it.

I was gonna say something about the irony of bringing up the DH rule, simply because it might be the one topic that President Bush could speak to better than President Clinton, but as usual, the mere mention of Clinton brings out the incredible anger of the lay person.

The anger that people feel toward President Clinton is a personal anger. I don't understand why it is, I don't know all the specifics, but we should learn what they are because I believe that hostility toward this president is what has led to the overwhelming support for the Republican party.

People are more comfortable with President Bush's perceived honesty than they are with the left's perceived duplicity.

I am a big fan of President Clinton, though he was a bit too conservative/moderate for my taste. That is my issue with Senator H.R. Clinton as well, they are still playing that "move right, triangulate, appeal to the fence-sitters". Thats fine, its politics, I get that, but what is the point of moderating your positions if the middle is just a touch left of facsist?

Clinton's biggest mistake in my opinion was just after he won the election, the two big issues that he decided to tackle were gays in the military and universal health care. At the time, I didn't feel those were the two issues that the newly elected president with tons of political latitude from the electorate should have tackled.
Hillary was the 'face' of universal health care and she was demonized by the opposition and she still carries the baggage from that. On two fronts; completely changing health care and then also the president's WIFE was handling this huge issue, the opposition had plenty of fodder for the remainder of his terms.
Gays in the military is an important issue, but I hate Clinton used up a tremendous amount of political capital to push through what ended up being 'don't ask, don't tell'.
I think that after the Reagan/Bush 12 years, that it was easy to mobilize opposition against these two issues. No one can deny that those two issues were in stark contrast to anything our elected officials had laid out in the preceeding decades.

" Monica Lewinsky, Whitewater, Paula Jones, Gennifer Flowers, Adultery, Perjury, Cheating, Lying, blah blah blah" Remove Whitewater here.... let it go man.. so the guy liked the ladies.. Only recently have presidents had to worry about being 'caught' in such instances. Power and sex are close friends and have been since the beginning of time. Our forefathers never worried about such issues. This does not mean they did not exist. America is the most sexually addicted society in the world, but also everyone is in denial.
I believe the Clinton administration was in damage control mode for the remainder of his terms as a result. I think he could have tackled some other, equally important issues and gotten better results. With a track record, then perhaps he could have more successfully guided the country through these other two issues. We have learned the social security and health insurance are sacred cows at least in the near term.

Dean:

I agree that there is no shame in leaving money to your children. I was referring to the fact that every enterprise Bush led (Arbusto, Harken, Spectrum 7) ended up bankrupt. He did end up as front man for the Texas Rangers. Of course, the way they increased their value was by using eminent domain to seize property for private purposes, which is exactly the kind of thing I'd expect a free market Republican to be against on principle.

I should say I don't actually hate Bush and have tried to really extinguish those tendencies when I see them arise. I also think Clinton deserves real scorn for lying to his friends and family about the Lewinsky matter. That was his most unforgivable

What I dislike about Bush the most is

a) his complete disregard for the fiscal health of this country. I'm actually sympathetic to lower taxes, but not if there is not real effort to redue spending. Bush has not tried to reduce spending, in fact, things like Medicare Part D have saddled us with more debt while being ineffective policy.

b) his "unitary executive" theory under which he uses the idea that we are at permanent war to usurp powers granted by law to the legislative and judicial branches.

Matt--I wasn't around to answer you the other day, but you may remember me as one of the "irresponsibly furious" posters. Anyhow, I just wanted to know why you think we have such a violent reaction to Bush? Three of the things you mention were all pretty much part of the same scandal, and one happened when a new president had been elected (cough). This president can match your Clinton criticisms jab for jab, other than "the ladies". Somalia, you say? I raise you one Iraq. Perjury, you say? Let me count the ways we've been lied to. Don't like Clinton's pardons? How bout the continual and "irresponsible" cronyism that plagues this Administration.

As far as Dubai, correct me if I'm wrong, but was it not a wholly bi-partisan effort to quash the deal?

So once again, I ask you: why do you think we're so rabid in our hatred vs. the Clinton detractors (and keep in mind, there were many who called for *impeachment*)? Could it be because Clinton's largest sin was lying about an extra-marital affair that was none of our business in the first place? Perhaps none of the Clinton naysayers felt personally lied to about things that actually affected them, like war and governmental spying. Maybe they didn't feel cheated and ashamed, like when Bush's friends got tax cuts, and nominated to the Supreme Court. Maybe they weren't terrified of losing their choice over their bodies, their partners, the end of their own lives. Many people defend Bush, and I respect their right to do so. But I don't for a second believe that he inspires confidence, trust, a feeling of security, fairness.

I'm not old enough to remember much Democratic vitriol for Reagan, but to my knowledge it wasn't anywhere near what Bush has received. So...Why?

Deb

Beth: I totally agree. I would never use the term "statesman" to describe Bush, yet Clinton continues to be a consumate statesman.

Deb

" Monica Lewinsky, Whitewater, Paula Jones, Gennifer Flowers, Adultery, Perjury, Cheating, Lying, blah blah blah" Remove Whitewater here.... let it go man.. so the guy liked the ladies.. "

Sure go ahead and remove Whitewater, remove perjury, remove whatever you like. If a man can't be trusted by his own wife then I can place no faith in him.

What was Whitewater about? They didn't prove nuthin' but stupidity, and stupidity is not a crime. Coulda, woulda, shoulda, they didn't... know.

Dammit, I was up on a soap box (or a pedestal?) just a few days ago, asking why we can't all just get along, or something along those naive lines. But before I return to my perch--Dean, what I'm talking about when I reference Bush's installation in office is how the Supreme Court stopped the count before it was finished. Sure, tallies confirmed, what, a year or so later that Bush "won," but a) it was a tad belated; and b) there were so many voting irregularities in Florida that I for one can hardly feel comfortable with that declaration.

Now: seriously, people. You're all fabulously smart and educated and up on the issues, and you all vote. Right? How can we help make things better rather than just bitching and whining and accusing the other party of making all the mistakes? The only thing I can come up with today, at least, is trying to get out the vote. Does everybody in your circle (friends, family, coworkers, etc.) vote? Can we start small, with trying to get, say, our 34-year-old brother-in-law who's never voted IN HIS SHAMEFUL LIFE to just take his complacent ass to the voting booth? When I consider how very few Americans even take advantage of this precious right, I forget about parties. I just want people to cast a fucking vote to begin with, and then we can go from there.

Help? Is there such a thing as working toward the problems together? At all?

I feel my hatred of Bush is mostly personal.

Ian, what were Clinton's feelings on the DH rule?

When Bush fucks up, he hurts the country --- our troops die in a war that he lied about and has no plan for ending (and that we were WRONG for starting in the first place), our deficit increases, our economy suffers from unneeded tax cuts (especially to the rich), our international standing goes from sympathy (9/11) to disdain (the war, torture of prisoners, etc), our rights are eroded, cronyism runs rampant in government contracts and appointments, the religious nuts gain power/political clout... I'd keep going but it disgusts me. He manipulates his sheep using deception, fear and religion, and that understandably worries me - how far can he push them before they wake up and see what terrible things he's done?
Basically everything he's done since 9/11 has been negative. I can't think of ONE thing he's done that I thought was positive for this country.

When Clinton fucked up, he hurt his family. He was an adulterer and lied to cover it up. That's it. That sucks for his family, but as the President? Who cares! It has no bearing on his job as the leader of our country. It is not a national security concern and it shouldn't even be news. I definitely didn't like that he committed perjury, but I don't think he should have been asked those types of questions anyway. If my boss asked me personal questions about my sex life, I think I'd be within my rights to lie or refuse to answer (and I'm not having an affair).

Would any of us be fired from our jobs for having an affair and lying about it? I think not. So why should anyone care that the President did? I'm amazed at how judgmental supposed Christians can be (well, to be honest, the amazement has faded by now because it's been my experience that Christians are more judgmental than not... oh the irony).

To put it bluntly - I am DISGUSTED and ASHAMED of our President. For all the reasons above mostly, but also because it's sad that the leader of our nation has no ability to speak eloquently... or even capably.

He is an insult to all the great men (and admittedly, some not so great either) who have held the office before him.

That's all I can say for now or else I'll get in a bad mood.

Sorry to be so negative Ian, but I hate the evil monkey some people call President. And his shotgun-toting ambassador to Satan as well.

I saw Clinton speak last spring, and I totally agree with everything you say, Ian. Yes, EVERYTHING in your post today.

Sometimes I feel as if everything in our society these days is about being mean. The meanest attitude wins -- whether it's politics, celebrity "journalism," TV reality shows, etc. I see this cynical, nasty worldview trickling into my teenagers' consciousness, too, and I'm so sorry for it. They are nice young people and I try to keep them aware of what it means to live a good, generous life. It's a struggle sometimes. Our current administration is unfortunately the perfect emblem of this contemporary Mean Girls & Guys culture.

beth / scott M. - ROCK ON! thank you for voicing what i was thinking as i read this chain.

i'd take a president who made errors of judgement in his marriage over one who makes errors of judgement in running our country any day.

i'm late for a meeting, but i was getting my fix this morning and wanted to throw props. on a parting note, i'm glad we even have a modern day example of a president who inspired us. gives me hope that not all politicians will run american into the ground for their own vanity.

I have to weigh in on this one, can't help myself it seems...

BUT, the Clinton hatred is something I TRULY don't get.

Here's the thing - a previous poster pointed out some of Clinton's misdeeds - he named a bunch of women, lying, perjury, cheating, and then Whitewater. I can't remember all the particulars about Whitewater, something about the Clintons profiting on a land deal because of their connections and power. (That should sound familiar to Bush, really.) But Whitewater never amounted to much. It was never proved nor were the Clinton's ever charged with any wrongdoing despite YEARS of digging. The rest of it is all related to his sexual misconduct. Something that is between him and his family and his maker (when it comes to that).

It was to the detriment of this country that the republican's pursued the cheating scandal. Nearly all of Clinton's second term in office he had to govern on the one hand and defend himself on the other.

I admit I am someone who has to turn off the tv or radio when Bush comes on. I can't look at the man - his hunched shoulders, squinty darting eyes, lip licking, and then the inappropriate smirks. It's hard to watch someone that shifty. And when he opens his mouth it's even worse! But if that's all it was, his appearance and inability to articulate complete thoughts and sentences, I wouldn't hate him. Feel sorry for him and embarrassed by him, but it wouldn't rise to hatred.

But I feel Bush to be deeply dishonest and morally repugnant. Someone who has risen only through entitlement and connections. Who wouldn't know a day's honest work (and it's not him "clearing brush"). Who looks out for himself and cronies first and foremost. Someone who has no courage or convictions beyond what is most politically expedient. Someone who pays lip service to ideals but undermines them by his actions. Someone who sat and stared into space when told the country was under attack because he had no compass, no experience, no reservoir within himself that could direct him.

I thought this post was about Clinton. I find it humorous that those who defend Clinton's actions choose to do so against a standard which they obviously despise. It's like saying Michael Jackson isn't so bad for being a child molestor because OJ was a murderer.

slick willy's biggest mistake is his wife. PLEASE run her. it's the only way you guys can lose. our guy is handing it to you on a platter.

Well, not that it matters anymore, but the statement that Bush would have won under every — yes, EVERY — recount scenario is false.

The massive study undertaken by AP, the Washington Post and other news organizations found that a STATEWIDE recount of disputed ballots would most likely resulted in a Gore win. The problem for Gore is that he was not asking for a statewide recount, so he would have lost anyway.

But if the question is who actually received more votes in Florida that day in 2000, the answer is probably Gore.

Here's how WaPo reported it in 2001:

"But if Gore had found a way to trigger a statewide recount of all disputed ballots, or if the courts had required it, the result likely would have been different. An examination of uncounted ballots throughout Florida found enough where voter intent was clear to give Gore the narrowest of margins."

I just finished watching a very moving and inspiring "movie" called The Secret (www.whatisthesecret.tv). The Secret, as stated by the movie, is all about The Law of Attraction. Thoughts become things. What we think about is what we get. Like attracts like. Get the picture?

One of the most powerful points in the movie was when they took this philosophy and applied it to politics. Many people get caught up in and focused on all they don’t like and don’t want and become anti-something. According to The Secret philosophy, focusing on what we don’t like and don’t want takes our energy and directs it towards more of what we don’t like or want. Rather, if people are anti war, they should focus on what they can to be pro peace. If they are anti current administration, they should focus on what they can do to be pro new administration.

This really got me thinking. What am I doing to in my own life to help change the tide in a direction that would feel better to me? Am I thinking and imagining what a kick-ass administration would look and feel like? Am I talking to people about positive ways to support future political candidates that I would not only support, but would love to see running this country? No. Instead I just go through my day focusing on how stupid Bush is, how frustrating the current administration is, how sad the current state of our country (and world) is. So on and so on. And where is all my “political energy” going? Towards the stuff I don’t want.

What would happen if everyone (on any side of the political coin) started focusing and putting energy towards more of what they want?

Ian, you could start by writing a blog on how you would imagine the “perfect” political picture looking and feeling?

Okay, perhaps a bit too “woo-woo” for this morning, but I have actually seen this work in my life. What I have focused on I have gotten more of—whether it was good or bad (ever had a self-fulfilling prophecy?). It would be cool to see it work in a positive way on a bigger level…

Craighill, yes, Bill made a mistake marrying an outspoken, passionate, smart woman who wants to do some good in the world and won't shut up about it. Why doncha like her - you wouldn't wanna have a beer with her? Who cares? You could have one with one of our current leaders while he's driving.

As for Clinton, of course he likes DH. ;)

i think it's obvious why people (primarily men) hate clinton and love bush. political preferences can usually be broken down into sex dynamics, and i'd say this is a case of pornstar syndrome.

men who are sexually incompetent don't like to see sexually attractive guys in the drivers' seat. they want to see guys more like themselves.

they despise clinton because he has the looks and charisma, and they like bush because he has none of it and is therefore more like them.

sexually secure guys have no hate for clinton because they are not threatened by him. they identify positively with him and feel a kinship.

[M-E-T-H-O-D O-F- L-O-V-E
It's the method of modern love

M-E-T-H-O-D O-F- L-O-V-E
It's the method of modern love]

[edited for content - mod.]

Ian, PLEASE make Jboogie go away.

I love Bill. I wish he had not had to go away.

OK, I aint a big JBoog fan, but there is not a single thing in his email that is factually inaccurate. Yes, it does not provide a lot of context, but since when is that required in this blog's political debates.

AARRGGHHHHHH. the issue isn't whether or not what j boogie says is factually accurate (although the whole self-inflicted wound thing is about as cockamamie a theory as i've ever heard). the guy is so stupidly blinded by partisan allegience that he can't see or understand the simple truth - EVERY president fucks up & lies in massive and possibly historical ways. Every one. I bet we could come up with a laundry list of 10 - 20 blunders / fibs for everyone who's held the office. the issue at hand i.e. the one i think that today's post has raised, is why Clinton comes across as a sharp, personable, prepared leader & Bush, well, doesn't. Who's more honest? What a fucking retarded question. They've both been classified as Fibberus Majorus, as have most politicians. Move on to the relevant questions, bonerheads.

Kerry's wounds were not self-inflicted. And it's a shame he has to bring it up, because it's worth discussing every one of Clinton's shortcomings. He also signed the defense of marriage contract and bungled some foreign policy with his military hostility, a fact largely forgotten now that military hostility has been re-defined. Clinton was not a supporter of the progressive left, but as a mild right wing president, he wasn't so bad.

every time i see bubba clinton i miss him more and more. who cares if he likes the ladies.

Chip: Yes, you're right. Many Republican's did the same thing.

Deb: "Somalia, you say? I raise you one Iraq." We haven't cut and run in Iraq, encouraging our enemy. "Perjury, you say? Let me count the ways we've been lied to." It adds up to zero. "Don't like Clinton's pardons? How bout the continual and 'irresponsible' cronyism that plagues this Administration." That's probably a fair criticism.

"why do you think we're so rabid in our hatred vs. the Clinton detractors."

The 2000 election was a tough loss for liberals and our response to 9/11 just set them off (Afghanistan and Iraq). Not that there's not fair criticism to be made, but I think many of them are literally suffering from a psychological disorder that disposes the to exaggeration and prevents them from having any perspective.

"Could it be because Clinton's largest sin was lying about an extra-marital affair that was none of our business in the first place?"

It was many things more than just his affairs, and perjury is a serious offense isn't it? If not, I don't want to hear another word about Scooter Libby.

"Perhaps none of the Clinton naysayers felt personally lied to about things that actually affected them, like war and governmental spying."

For the last time, Bush didn't lie about the good faith belief that Saddam was hiding his WMDs. Hundreds of thousands of pages of documents discovered in Baghdad and now being translated suggest he did just that. What's that? You haven't read about it in the New York Times? You don't say! And the NSA terrorist eavesdropping program is legal (according to 5 FISA judges who testified last week as well as a long list of government lawyers (and congressmen) who approved the program. This one is a loser for Democrats, according to polls.

"like when Bush's friends got tax cuts..." I got a tax cut, and am middle-class and haven't yet been invited to any White House parties.

"Maybe they weren't terrified of losing their choice over their bodies..." Many think killing innocent life shouldn't be a "choice."

"the end of their own lives."

Terri's mom didn't want her to die. Neither did her father, her brother or her sister. And yet a judge (who is the government) ordered her to die by starvation on the testimony of a husband who had moved on a decade earlier and started a new family.

"I'm not old enough to remember much Democratic vitriol for Reagan, but to my knowledge it wasn't anywhere near what Bush has received. So...Why?"

I'm almost the same age as Ian and I remember it, but no, it wasn't as bad as Bush. Probably because Reagan didn't preside over any wars, as this president has had to do. I wasn't a big fan of Clinton's foreign policy, but felt he wasn't a bad domestic president. I even defended him on occasions. He was a moderate, and so is Bush, contrary to what the left may think.

Justin: "Well, not that it matters anymore, but the statement that Bush would have won under every — yes, EVERY — recount scenario is false."

The only way Gore would've won Florida is if the Gore/Buchanan overvotes were assigned to him. That can't happen under any legally acceptable standard.

I love watching Clinton speak. He is simply the best political speaker (but not the best formal speech-maker), at a minimum, since they invented television. It helps if you can put aside his weaknesses while watching him, and a lot of people can.

Here a shorthand non-ideological summary of the Clinton years from a hard-nosed political realist:

Clinton did not pursue substantive, and thus risky, matters not so much because he was addicted to being popular, but because he came to realize that he lacked the political support to do so and was highly adverse to risking political ruin. Thus he did not act against the Rwanda genocide, obtained zero votes in the Senate for Kyoto, was a bit timid on terrorism after first WTC bombing, Kenya, and Cole. You can add your favorites to the list.

On the other hand, Bosnia is doing extremely well today -- better than anyone dreamed -- due to U.S. intervention under Clinton. Again, Europe had passed the buck on genocide. Again, the media does not report this good news; here Clinton doesn't get due credit.

The first years of the Clinton Administration were marred by poor management and political mistakes. Bad relations with the press incited them to keep at him about his promise about 'gays in the military'. Hilary's Health Care plan seriously wounded him. Note they are both left-of-center positions. That was the end of trying to do anything big to please liberals!

Clinton only got 43% of the vote in 1992. People really wanted a *balanced budget* (that was all Ross Perot talked about and he got 19%) and economic growth (a perceived Bush failure). No big government schemes and no foreign adventures. At first he only got it half right.

Did anyone see "War Room" when, at the end of election night, Stephenopolous, watching the television calmly says, "It's a landslide." George was so very wrong. Only in the electoral college did Clinton win big. And guess which advisor spent the next two year urging Clinton to govern like a liberal? Guess which advisor was given the cold shoulder and eventually quit after Clinton decided to move right with his new guy Dick Morris?

After *he* and his party got whacked in the 1994 midterm elections, Clinton knew his re-election required him to go along with a Newt's conservative majority congress. "The Era of Big Government is Over."

Clinton would eventually sign 8 of the 10 elements of the Contract With America -- and get re-elected with 49% of the vote.

Capital gains taxes were cut. Welfare was reformed. The economy really took off and Clinton got his share of credit. The right really hated that. Later, Clinton and Newt had a purely political fight over the budget and Willie kicked Newt's ass.

But you won't understand the Clinton administration until you recognize that the mainstream liberal establishment always distrusted him. (in contrast, Hollywood always loved him because they are vain and needy; Clinton does fine with such people).

Serious followers of Clinton knew very well that his move to the right as president was a repeat of his move to the right in Arkansas. It completely confirmed their suspicions that he had no principles. For example, the NY Times and WaPo always understood Clinton and had no problem running endless articles about Whitewater and then Monica.

*That* is a key reason why impeachment went as far as it did. People who would have had the back of most Dems presidents did not (strongly) support him.

Clinton got whacked from both sides, but survived by very effectively playing to the broad middle.

And to do so he had, moreover, to take no chances. He never had sufficient and broad enough support to do anything big. So he gave us smart and empathic happy talk. Nothing bad enough to knock him off occurred, although Waco quite a strain.

That is why decision to put his thing in young Monica was so stupid and selfish on his part. By then, he knew very well that he could not afford to get caught doing something like that and still accomplish anything in his second term. He did it anyway.

Turns out Clinton was the perfect first post-Cold War president. For the most part, America wanted to feel good and avoid big problems as much as possible. That was Clinton.

Today we have a Republican President who ran as a big government ("compassionate") conservative and that is exactly what we got: big spending domestically, and then with 9/11, militarily, too. The current Republican Congress is now does what they accused the Democrats of doing: spend our money, buy votes, get re-elected. Terrible combination.

Even though I am a big City lawyer who spends his time around smart, highly-articulate people, part of me really liked the fact that Bush is about as articulate as your average bus driver. There was something endearing about it. But I also realize it has seriously hampered his effectiveness (and popularity) because he cannot effectively explain his policies. Bush is the opposite of Clinton in that respect -- Clinton could put lipstick on a pig and convince you to kiss it -- not once -- but over and over again.

Even if Bush does a total Clinton, people don't get it or forget about it. Like, banning telemarketing calls. Anyone miss those? Anyone remember that Bush Administration did that? If Clinton did that he have talked about it all the time.

Bush is not that interested in reminding you about some nice little thing he did. He is taking huge risks, not only to his poll numbers, but his place in history. We probably won't know for ten or twenty years how those things turns out.

Just lay off the Clintons. They haven't done and can't do nearly as much damage to this country or even the world as the Bushes have. Night!

Wow. Reading that was just like listening to Mike Patrick and Dick Vitale call a Duke game.

Read into that what you like.

Zel - give me a break. He's not President anymore, and you STILL want to rain on my fucking parade. Can't you be content with the White House, the Senate, the House of Reps, the Supreme Court, and every major media outlet? Sheesh.

Please, Ian, give me a break. He's not President anymore, and yet you shower manna and praise on him as if he is the best thing to walk the Earth since George Washington himself.

I do have two questions, in all seriousness:

1. I only discovered your blog in the past few weeks, and have been lurking until this week. You have a loyal readership of about 20 or 30 people who comment consistently on your posts; yet I have only posted twice and have received replies from you both times. I am flattered, don't get me wrong, but others post more vile things than I do yet receive no rebuke from you. Just wondering if it was a newbie thing or had I struck a nerve or exactly what.

2. Why do you assume I am a Republican based on my two posts so far? If we actually had a discussion, I think you would find me to be much more of a curmudgeon, but they don't seem to have a party for that. I simply took you to task for thinking that a welterweight (I hesistate to use "lightweight") like John Kerry could unseat a sitting president; and for your man-crush on Bill Clinton. Give me time and I'm sure I'll go off on someone you don't like and we'll agree on something.

In the meantime, it's nice to be noticed.

This is your house. If'n y'all want to glorify and praise Billy, so be it. It's all muddy water under the bridge.

We (us Conservs) did it post-Reagan and we'll probably do it post GW.

All I've got to say is, it's going to be tough to sneak a "sheep in wolves clothing" into the West Wing anytime soon; Billy C. took prime advantage of the times and the political landscape. (also any chicks he came across- LOL- but given he's married to Hill, can we really judge him to harshly? Not I)

More cold H2O: I just don't see it happening anytime soon for y'all as long as the Evil Ones are out there. Another reason to fight and win!

B2

"Every major media outlet"?

Oh my.

Seriously, Ian. Is there a postcard in the mail? I was planning on saving it for when your television show wins an Emmy. Reflected glory, and all that.

P.S. Re "right-wing" media: http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110008202

Dean said:

"I voted for Clinton in 1992 -- yes it is true. I see the Clinton years as one big lost opportunity. No, I am not talking about the years after his perjury where he was, in essence, lame duck. For the first 2 years of his Presidency, he has complete control of all chambers of the federal government. What did he do? Zilch."

I'm late to the party, but I must point out that Clinton got quite a lot done in his first two years in office.

He passed NAFTA. He passed the Family and Medical Leave Act. He expanded the Earned Income Tax Credit. He got the Brady Bill passed. He passed his first budget, which raised taxes on the top 2% of Americans and set future limits that later forced Republicans to cut spending. (Look what two minutes on Wikipedia can do!)

And, of course, he pressed for nation-wide health insurance.

Those seem to me sufficient accomplishments for two years in office. If the health care gambit had succeeded, we'd be speaking of Clinton's first two years as the most productive in U.S. history, would we not?

- Nate

I hold a deep personal affection for President Clinton. The 1992 election was the first national election I followed, and with Ross Perot in the ring it was a great election to cut one's teeth on. I was a junior/senior in high school and the blossoming of Clinton's presidential fortunes mirrored the blossoming of my political consciousness. Clinton, to put it bluntly, was my first president. And like my first boyfriend or my first teacher, or my first babysitter there will always a be special place for him in my heart. And to the extent that I romanticize him, I cannot be objective.

I think we liberals underestimate how much the same phenomenon may be taking place among many Bush supporters. Clinton was so hated by the right, they felt so humiliated and baffled by him, that Bush must have felt like a savior, the man who delivered America's conservatives from nearly a decade of detested liberal rule. Just think if in 2008 a liberal wins the White House how passionately GRATEFUL we will all be, how enamored of the man who finally - finally -toppled what for years has felt like a dictatorship in which we have no voice.

Nostalgia aside, the single most important fact about the Clinton presidency is that it was under his watch that the Democratic party lost control of the United States Congress. That was a crippling loss. We reel from it still, and it is a loss the responsibility for which falls, if not squarely, then at least askew, on the shoulders of Bill Clinton. For that reason, and it is reason enough, Bill Clinton's presidency was a disaster for American liberalism. Yet though he dealt our party and our principles the most devastating defeat in half a century, you can walk this country coast to coast and never find a liberal with a bad word to say about him. That'a fact worth pondering the next time you are awestruck by the blind loyalty of the Bush supporter. One of the pitfalls of blind loyalty is that only someone ELSE's are visible.

As for Clinton hatred, I understand it, though I don't share it. There's a large portion of the population who believes in the "unity of virtue". That's a hoity-toity phrase for the very simple notion that there's no such thing as a Monday Wednesday Friday scoundrel. There's no such thing as a man willing to prevaricate in the bedroom but not in the boardroom. There's no such thing as a man who will steal from a widow but not from an orphan. Clinton was a seriel adulterer. Everybody knew it, long before Lewinsky and the blue dress. We liberals knew it. We didn't care. We didn't care what KIND of man he was so long as he supported the right policy. There's something to be said for that position. It might even be the right one. But to look half of America in the face and say that we love our country, that we respect the presidency, that we wish to be a nation worthy of admiration but that we don't care what KIND of man we put in the Oval Office...well, you can see how that would poison the waters, can't you?

- Nate