we can just keep the MSM under control, we should do okay. I just heard Josh Green of The Atlantic criticize Clinton for passing his 1993 budget without any Republican support; surely he doesn't they would do anything to help a Democrat succeed. They were especially unwilling because it included a tax increase on their rich selves and friends. The increase was necessary unless Clinton was willing, which he wasn't, to make big cuts in social programs. That budget was the first and necessary step to the later surplus which Bush gave to the rich.

Then I heard Rachel Sklar of Huffington Post criticize Clinton for trying to give gays civil right, the right to serve openly in the army as a prelude to more complete civil rights. She, however, will surely not support Obama if he throws gays or women's reproductive right under the bus to keep the GOP happy.

Maybe he should cut taxes for the rich and give up on a stimulus package for the middle class. Or maybe he should advocate strip-mining and drilling. Or maybe he should give up on his health care plan and adopt McCain's. Maybe he should keep troops in Iraq and send them to Afghanistan. Most of the moderate GOP from moderate districts are gone. Goodbye Chris Shays. That leave the right-wing from right-wing districts. They don't want what Democrats and Obama want.

So then Josh and Rachel, ignorant of history and ethics as they proved to be, claim that most Republicans would work with Obama because their constituents would want them too. No, no, their constituents elected people like Tom DeLay and Newt Gringrich then and their replacement today because they are right-wing true believers too.

The GOP doesn't believe in raising taxes on the rich. They believe in cutting domestic spending and cutting taxes for the rich. Moreover, they don't want Obama to succeed any more than they wanted Clinton to succeed. They want their power back. They believed then and if you really listen to them now they believe now the way to do that is to make Obama and the Democrats fail.

How does the GOP benefit if the Democrats succeed? They don't want to be members of the minority. If the Democrats succeed they will be. Therefore they will do all they can to make Obama and the Democrats fail and regain power. It worked against Clinton and the Democrats before and they will try again. They already are, with the help of fools in the press who analytical skills are on a par with Josh and Rachel.

Your post was thoughtful, but you made one significant mistake in recounting our history. In 1993 Bill Clinton RAISED TAXES on the rich while cutting some spending.

The result was the best economy since we started measuring: a huge budget surplus; 22 million new jobs; wage growth for the working poor, the middle class, and the rich (the only time in the last 40 years that wages increased for the working poor and the middle class); low inflation; no military deaths despite saving the Bosnians and the Kosovians from genocide.

Taxes Increases do not always lead to job loss and a slow economy. In fact, Bush II cut taxes and the result was huge deficits and job losses and stagnant income for the middle class.

Neither Hillary nor Bill Clinton supported the war in Iraq. She voted to give Bush the authority in order to threaten Saddam Hussein so that he would let the inspectors in and thus PREVENT war. Hussein did, but Bush invaded anyway. Both Clinton's, however, repeatedly spoke out again an invasion in the months preceding the invasion. The are a number of interviews and speeches that reflect their opposition to an invasion, BEFORE an invasion. Indeed, Bush specifically promised Hillary, in person, that he would not use the vote to invade Iraq. He lied to us; he lied to her; and he lied to Biden, Kerry, etc. But that was before most people knew what a complete and utter liar Bush was.

Obama may have claimed judgment not experience was important, but he knew that you don't wade into the snake pit without snake handlers, experienced and competent snake handlers. He had two choices: experienced handlers or experienced snakes. Not being a stupid man or one bound by the hobgoblin of a foolish consistency, he chose the Clinton snake handlers instead of the Bush snakes--with a few outsiders for good measure. The Carter people, though good, never learned how to handle snakes and the JFK and Johnson ones were too old or dead. Plus, for the most part the Clinton policies worked and could have been more fully implemented with a Democratic Congress instead of the Newts, so adopting them was smart. We'll see how liberal he is in the future, but for now cut him some slack.

Well, I agree in part. I knew Bush was a liar and never trusted him about anything, ever. But, I'm not particularly charitable when it comes to Bushes, father or son. I read a wonderful article a few years ago about the father's flirtation with with racists and Birchers in Texas when he ran for the House. I read about papa Bush's emissaries, Lee Atwater's minions, sent to Arkansas (to meet with the racist Jim Johnson who hated Clinton for working to keep him from office) to dig up or manufacture dirt about Clinton. They expected him to run. And I remember the Willie Horton and flag attacks on Dukakis. I read a lot about junior and expected even worse from him, so I wasn't surprised. But Hillary, unlike me, is a Christian and more forgiving (at least she tries to be--read her autobiography and Bill's), more inclined to give the benefit of the doubt. So, I don't hold it against her that she gave a new president, after 9/11, a brief moment of the benefit of the doubt.