[Drew68]

when reading that part about “criminals were scumbags”, I felt that the author should have first defined Clinton as being one of those scumbags. But, the author makes is sound like Clinton was doing the right thing as opposed to his fellow liberals.

That wasn't the point of this article.

The author's only point was that in carrying out an execution during his campaign, Clinton neutralized the "Democrats are soft on crime" charge that Republicans had so successfully used in the past against them, taking it off the table.

Likewise, conservatives shrugging their shoulders over Gomer Pyle's gay marriage is hurting the ability for Democrats to utilize the "Republicans hate gays" charge.

[adorno]

Clinton neutralized the "Democrats are soft on crime" charge that Republicans had so successfully used in the past against them, taking it off the table.

That might be the author's contention, but, I still say that, the author and anybody else that believes what he said, is kidding themselves, and the democrats have always been very weak on crime, and what Clinton did was not with the intention of winning the liberal voters who were and still are weak on crime. Nothing has been taken off the table, and democrats still prove, on a daily basis, that they are very weak on crime. Clinton came very close to losing both of his presidential contests, and his stance on crime had very little to do with his wins.