Ok, Glenn, I completely agree with you that there is no equivalence between what Monica did to Clinton and what Bush/Cheney, et. al. did to the country, the constitution, the world. But, nevertheless...

The tragedy of what Clinton did was that it was so stupid, so unnecessary, so narcissistic. And it shows that those kinds of acts by people with power and responsibility can have terrible consequences. He threw away the last two years--25%! of his Presidency. Along with Ralph Nader and the fact that Al Gore was such a stiff, led to Bush's being elected and everything that came after. Clinton has to bear some accountability for that, even though he certainly didn't intend it.

One last point. I suspect that when you hear people ascribe some characteristics to all "bloggers," you have the same visceral reaction that I do when you and others refer to the "MSM." The media in this country is incredibly diverse; I think it is irresponsible to paint all of it--even what you characterize as "main stream" with the same broad brush. I also think it is a cop out to blame the media for the bad decisions that voters have made (and will make again, I'm sure). As an example, Maureen Dowd should not be taken seriously as a political commentator. She is trying and failing to be an east coast liberal version of Molly Ivins, and much of what she writes is for effect.

Glenn--Forgive me (truly, I'm not being sarcastic). You used the terms "standard Beltway thinking" and "modern journalists" and "Beltway journalists." You may have a distinction between that term and "Main stream media" which I don't understand. What do they mean--just the reporters who cover the White House and Congress?

No,of course Clinton didn't throw away the last two years of his presidency by being impeached. He threw them away by having a sexual dalliance with someone he had no reason to think he could trust. He made it worse, apparently, by allowing her to think that he cared about her (even loved her, if you credit her side of the story) And all to feed his ego, not just his need for sexual pleasure.

He did all this in disregard of the consequences--which would have been severe even if he had never been impeached.

He made it worse by not settling the Paula Jones case before he had to give a deposition--one in which he knew that he wouldn't be able to tell "the whole truth and nothing but the truth."

I would have no problem with President Clinton's arranging to get a blow job--he just needed to do it with someone who would have been willing to go to jail rather than rat him out. Someone like Barry Bonds' drug dealer.

According to CNN, voters ages 30-44 (which I recognize include some, but not all, Gen Xers), voted for Bush 53-46 in 2004, when there could be no excuse for not knowing just who and what he was and what he'd done. You may have protested, and you deserve admiration for it, but the fact is that very few, including Gen Xers, took to the streets in protest against what Bush was doing in anything like the sustained way that happened in the Civil Rights movement or against the War in Vietnam. Why? Because there was no draft. What does that say? It says that as long as the war didn't affect "us," we were too busy leading our lives to fight against it.

I find your "poor me, I'm such a victim" refrain deeply disappointing. It's your world--make what you can of it. Every generation blames it parents for the way it was treated and for the mess it was left with. And at some point you grow up and start taking responsibility.

How ignorant you sound (I say sound, not are--I'm speaking only of this post). When do you think the environmental movement started (the EPA was created in 1970), and who do you think was a significant part of it? When do you think the second wave of feminism started (Title IX and the ERA were passed by Congress in 1972, although the ERA was never ratified by enough states), and who do you think was a significant part of it?

Every generation inherits problems; the question is what it does about them.

Mike, I congratulate you for your life of public service and activism. I hope that more members of each succeeding generation choose to give their time and effort to public service and not just to work that benefits themselves.

But I doubt it. Most people care more about themselves, their children, etc. than they care about others. And I don't think that there is anything so terrible about that.

But let's not lose sight of what the Boomers did do. They completely transformed the American workplace, making it possible for women to have jobs and careers that were unthinkable a generation before. Yes, we still have a way to go, but "we've come a long way, baby." In the process, they transformed the American family as well.

In my opinion, this was very much "walking the walk."

that this election represents a significant ideological shift to the left. Salon has a link to this story: http://www.salon.com/wires/ap/2008/11/08/D94ALE380_party_vs_ideology/index.html

which suggests otherwise. (I am not saying it is right, but it is data).

I agree with the posters who want Obama to, and predict that he will, "go smart." I suspect that he will do some things that progressives/liberals will applaud and others which they will decry. I just hope that they won't tear him down just because he isn't 100% what they'd like him to be, as so often happens (and as Ralph Nader has so disgracefully already begun to do).