Carl Remick wrote:
> In policy terms, Clinton is certainly a putz (the mot juste for this
> man, IMHO),
My clear memory of u.s. politics goes back to 1945 or so, more vaguely to 1940. And it seems to me that this excuse has been offered for virtualy every Democratic leader during that period of nearly 6 decades. It is exactly the same as the old (alleged) peasant superstition that all would be well if only the Czar knew about their troubles or if only the King were strong enough to overcome the evil intentions of his evil noble advisors. It is the same serious error that underlies the universal use of "McCarthy Era" to describe the Truman Era.
Clinton is not confused.
He is not weak.
He is not lacking in courage.
He is a courageous and principled leader -- and his principles are those of big capital. I bet behind the scenes he and Mr. Bennett are good buddies.
Carrol