Replies

Suddenly, the Democratic Party is realizing that the Clinton presidency was not an unqualified success and that it is time to retire his concepts from public display.

I'd like to know where this is happening...

As President Bush is inaugurated for a second term this week, we should remember that there are principles and policies in government other than Clinton's belief that it is better to be "wrong and strong" than "right and weak."

I've read this again and again and still do not comprehend what it means in this context. To say "other than" implies opposition, either an inverse or converse of what follows.

The inverse is crazy: it is better to be "not wrong and strong" than "not right and weak." Figuring out the sense of this requires a bit of Zen meditation to straighten out, if indeed that is even possible.

The converse offers a glimmer of understanding: it is better to be "right and strong" than "wrong and weak."

Even this has its difficulties. I think what confuses me is that the article seems to want to be constructively critical of the Democrat party but then concludes with exactly what is the problem: the Democrat party is wrong and weak. The Republican party is right and strong; to become that, the Democrat party will have to abandon the lefty weirdos and become Republican!

Do I need more coffee to understand this? Or is this simply liberal logic, warm and fuzzy somehow, but vague and ultimately invalid?

While Mother Clinton was wailing about electoral fraud and her financial manager's indictment Speaking of electoral fraud, perhaps we need to review the PARDONS FOR SALE that elected Hillary. Perhaps the "New Square Four" will jog her memory. Read chapter 11 of The Final Days (author Barbara Olson): (pg 143-145)