>I have no doubt that Nixon with
>>a rightwing Congress would have terrorized minorities and the poor and
>>Clinton with filibuster-proof majorities in Congress would now be remembered
>>as the savior of labor and health care in this country. That is the true
>>measure of the difference between the men.
>>
>
>A counterfactual difference. No doubt, Clinton's a nice guy in sme
>ways and if he had spine and sopport he woulda do0ne the right
>thing, but hedidn't, so he did the wrong thing, and in Nathan's
>double standard, he gets credit, while Nixon, whom everone agrees
>was a nasty, getsd blamed for not only the evil that hedid, but also
>the evil that Nathan has no dobt that he would have done if given a
>chance, Sheesh, Natahn, for a smart guy, you raelly are twisted
>sometimes. jks
What did Clinton put up an all-out fight for? NAFTA and little else. And his health insurance plan was an abomination - a deeply compromised, incomprehensibly complex thing that no one but a few policy wonks could get enthusiastic about. And its defeat was the political death of any sane health care financing plan. But he meant well I'm sure.
Doug