To: Lazarus_Long who wrote (44168 ) 2/16/2002 10:15:15 PM From: Lane3 Respond to of 82486 Was that a parody? I read it as a straight effort to try to explain to Dems why the Clintons are such a lightening rod. I don't see anything problematic about that article except that the author seems to accept without question that the Clintons actually did all the things they are accused of. I've never looked closely at most of the charges so I don't know but I would assume that some of the charges are probably untrue or exaggerated. I doubt, for example, that they murdered anyone. His position would have been more credible if he stuck to those things for which there is a lot of evidence. There are certainly plenty of them. To assume the Clintons guilty of the whole list, one has to first detest them, so it's not logical for the author to insist that he detests them because they're guilty of everything. I always appreciate it when people try to explain their position to those who don't get it rather than just dismissing or putting them down. I give the author points for that. I did get one small insight about Clinton-hatred from the article, at least I think so. When I think of public figures I detest, I think my strong feelings come from that fact that the buzzards are adored by others. If they were universally detested, my feelings wouldn't be that strong. Along those lines, I can understand why those who detest Clinton are outraged by the fact that so many still adore him. Personally, I find him a mixed bag--a deeply flawed person who has some assets, too. I wouldn't want him influencing my kids and I wouldn't buy anything from him, but I wouldn't throw him off my property, either. Karen