Reply #18: There's no doubt that some of Clinton's policies caused a certain amount

[BurtWorm]

of harm, especially with respect to people on welfare and on the margins of the global economy, as well as in Iraq (though he inherited that mess from Bush boy's dad, he certainly kept it cooking on their terms).

Still, in most respects, what Clinton did was no worse, and in some respects was vastly better, than what Republicans have done and have been doing. People are, of course, entitled to feel however they want about whomever, but I still find it disturbing to see lefties in bed with the ultra-rightists where the Clintons are concerned. Clinton-hating lefties enabled the ultra-right Clinton-haters who have made American politics into a cesspool. You may blame the state of American politics on Clinton himself. You may feel no responsibility whatsoever for the mess. But just ask yourself why, if Clinton was essentially "as bad" as Reagan or the Bush's, it's only Clinton who is considered a legitimate target across the political spectrum for attack? Why do Republicans or ultrarightists hold fire when the target is one of their own, allowing attacks on Republicans to appear "marginal" and "extreme?" Why don't Dems and lefties have that sense? I ask because I don't know. I'm as guilty of Dem-bashing as any body. But when someone is being persecuted, the way the Clinton's clearly were for phony "crimes" like Whitewater, and their "crimes" are being exploited to advance a far-right agenda, that's when I think you've got to sit up and pay attention. You've got to hold your fire for the targets that deserve a nice blast of buckshot.