Coug,
I've despised Bill Clinton and recognized him as the opportunistic snake he was since he showed up in New Hampshire back in 1992. That's what makes opposing the right's jihad against him such a tough task. If Clinton had some integrity and values I could identify with, I'd maybe even march in the streets on his behalf.
Unfortunately, for decent, tolerant and enlightened people, we're once again forced to decide between the lesser of two evils, i.e. standing up for the electorate and defending the office of a mediocre and tarnished president vs. letting the bloodthirsty right score a victory and set an alarming precedent. What they're in essence doing is bringing the same tactics of political destabilization and subversion of popular will they implemented in Third World countries during the Cold War to the domestic arena. They hate some of Bill's policies and a lot of what he represents, i.e. the opening of American society during the 1960s and 1970s. But you can't him on his policies, because they're not so unpopular. And Americans kinda dig his "vision" of a tolerant society. So what do you do? You call him immoral You allege he's a criminal. You brand him as a heathen. You argue that he does not represent the people and he's mentally unfit to rule.
It's too bad the right is correct in branding him immoral and, thanks to his stupidity and arrogance, in labeling him a criminal. If he had an ounce of integrity, it would have been valiant defending him. I find myself unable to defend him. But I also find myself compelled to attack his attackers, because I dislike them more than I dislike him.
Kind regards,
Borzou |
