Bob Reich's distaste is noteworthy? Really? This is the guy who wrote "Locked in the Cabinet" which as Jonathan Rauch pointed out is filled with fairy tales.

http://www.slate.com/?id=2447

Any casual observer could tell that Bob Reich is an Obama hack. For more hack jobs see this blog post.

robertreich.blogspot.com/.../why-is-hrc-stooping-so-low.html

and Gene Sperling's rebuttal

www.huffingtonpost.com/.../correcting-the-record-on-_b_75602.html

I have often wondered how liberal friends of mine--good friend whom I know to be decent people of good taste and fine sensibilities-- have such a blind spot about the Clintons.

I want to jump and down and yell, don't you see what lying sleazebags these people are?  Can't you see they are not worthy?

In fact, I probably have done exactly that.

I assume Zengerle is just reporting here.  I hope so, because the only thing I can say is, What assholes! (Nor is that noteworthy for The Nation.)

Sure, the Clintons had their share of missteps -- gays in the military and universal healthcare, both LIBERAL measures.  Against these was the monumental achievement of budget reform, which gave the Democrats, for the first time in generations, a valid claim as the party of fiscal responsibility.  Not to mention one of the most effective lines ever uttered on social policy: "Abortion should be legal and rare." Then, there was Clinton's tearing down, once and for all, of the gender/color barrier in cabinet appointments.

Yes, there was welfare reform, the one arguable -- I say arguable -- case The Nation and their ilk have to make contra Clinton.  But that's about it.  Oh yeah, horror of horrors, he supports executing murderers.

"Smarmily duplicitous underneath?"  "[Advancing] his own unspecified ambitions by dispensing the mother's milk of politics--money?"  Oh, you mean he's a politican.  Oh, you mean he used these means to get thing done.  

No, the Clintons don't score 100%, not high enough, apparently, to please the prima donnas at The Nation.  So what?   The Clintons, BIll in particular as president, scored major, historical achievements.  Nothing illusory about them.  That he didn't score more disappointed us all.  But much of the blame can be laid to the bastards of the GOP Congress, whose all-but-stated agenda was to destroy the president, who came about largely because of Clinton's abortive LIBERAL measures and the courage of the Democratic Congress with budget reform, not to mention payback for Watergate.

No, it's not noteworthy that the tripe that Clinton isn't a "real" liberal comes from The Nation.  As for the estimable Ms. Noonan, I just consider the source.  (And Zengerle is just reporting, right?)

"There are many serious and thoughtful liberals and Democrats who support Mr. Obama..."  And not all Muslims are terrorists.

jm_rice, the bastards in the GOP Congss did not have to destory Bill Clinton, want to that they did.   Bill Clinton is so highly competent, that he destroyed himself.  

The Dem majority may still love him now.  But, historical hindsight will ultimately expose him for the risible figure that he is.

He's destroying himself-- at least the Crown Prince of Davos-land Bill that we've seen post-2001-- in front of our very eyes. Like watching a violent alkie downing his first, second, third Maker's Mark and then turning, red-faced and spluttering (to coin a phrase), from the bar and advancing toward his target, fists at the ready....

Erase the past year, and I can love Bill C. again. I think his was one of the better recent presidencies, personal peccadillos aside. But the sleaziness of the current campaign and his role in particular- well, I can't see him the same again.

the editor of The Nation said recently that Kucinich was the most popular among the staff. Dennsi has what---less thatn 1% support among the electorate? So to cite then as evidence of the displeasure of the democratic or liberal mainstream is ridiculous. you're making a case that you should know to be ridiculous.

What is so odd is that Obama is, like the Clintons, a Centrist -- although more right of center than the Clintons. (Actually, among the Democrats, he is the preferred candidate of the financial industry.)

I never thought a progressive was going to emerge from this nominating fight. But between the two centrist who are now battling it out over the nomination, I have to choose Hillary. Whatever else you say about her, she does have a long, committed history of supporting women's issues and what I call "family welfare" issues that pertain to the welfare of children and other vulnerable populations and the maintenance of strong social resources. Obama, like most male candidates, doesn't appear to have a very deep interest in or understanding of these issues and their importantce to the greater social and economic welfare of the country.

Esmense:  "family welfare"???  Right, like when Bill cut the welfare rolls because he just cared so much about family welfare.  Yeah, make them take three buses to work and then lose their jobs because they have no proper childcare.   Yeah, that's real concern about family welfare.  And she has not, by the way, denounced this incredibly compassionate little move.

miceelf:  "Personal peccadillos."  Oh, you mean sexually exploiting a twenty-year-old intern--about the age of his daughter, mind you--was just a minor thing?  Or his raping of Anita Broaderick? Or, hmm, his refusal to settle with Paula Jones so that we could all have the honor of watching him say, "I did not have sex with that woman"?  And then proceed to perjure himself?  Oh, and this I guess would be the most minor of his peccadillos:  Refusing to bomb Osama when he had the chance.  

Clinton's record on the economy was fueled by the tech boom.  Pure and simple.  He landed with his bum in the butter.

Even with his excellent powers of recollection and his advanced age TULLIUS cannot remember when the last presidential candidate about whom The Nation was enthusiastic won an election.

Can anyone remind him?

Sorry, Channy, sorry Molly -- wrong on so many counts.  Nobody -- neither himself nor the GOP -- destroyed Clinton at all.  His presidency was on balance a success.  The recrimination is that this brilliant man didn't give the country the brilliant eight years he was clearly capable of.  

The bastards of the GOP chose to make a federal case out of Whitewater; they chose to make a federal case out of lying about sex and the willful mischief of what Molly risibly characterizes as a poor defenseless little intern, in truth the incarnation of Heidi Abromowitz.

Molly, your problem with Clinton is obviously personal.  You talk about him like my sister talks about her ex -- he's under your skin.  Every one of your points is spin.  The worst of your inaccuracies is that the economy was fueled by the tech boom instead of vice-versa.  Every economist, from Greenspan down, credits Clinton and his Congress for the budget reform which unleashed the economic boom.  That's history, pure and simple.