Replies

"There was nothing to Clinton if you discount his voracious sexual appetite."

Well, I hate to say a good word about Clinton, so let me start with: of course you are right. And with Gennifer Flowers and the draft-dodging it was obvious he was a no-good-nik. But when he first ran for pres. he did at least try to position himself as a "new" democrat. There was none of this old-hat "people vs. the powerful" crap. And heck, that would have been A LOT easier to take from Bill Clinton than it is from Al Gore or John Kerry, children of privilege that they were and remain.

So what can I say, Clinton was bad, but Kerry is unbearable. A rich phoney, a toff as the Brits say.

Bush better beat his hiney, and he won't get it done without the base. I hope W's ready to fight the culture wars, because I think they are going to be a big factor this year.

You're right about Clinton being able to sell himself as a "New Democrat", and he was able to do so because he lacks the patrician-marrying-into-wealth background of Kerry. There is nothing "New Democrat" about Kerry. He's old line liberal, old money New Englander, the same caste as the Kennedys without the Irish mafia connection. If Kerry plays the populist it will be an outright lie, but that won't stop the sheeple from voting for him. Clinton was able to play the populist line naturally because that was what he was, poor white trash. Being so doesn't make you bad. Clinton was bad because of his actions, the choices he made, and the beliefs he held. He didn't marry into a fortune twice, although the Rodhams were comfortable upper middle class types.

Bush and the 'Pubs can't let this crap go answered. If Kerry sweeps the remaining primaries he'll have eight months or so to hammer away at Bush. He doesn't need to worry about money to buy air time. The press will give it to him "free" (using the ruse that the Democratic nominee is "news", and of course the Republican President isn't), and, if it doesn't, he'll buy it with his own, er, wife's, money.