>Personal hatred and vitriolic attacks don't bother me. I loved
>that he went after Clinton like he did. I don't know what you
>thought of it back then, but people seem to be reflecting on
>that period of time and are now content to deem his Clinton
>bashing as some sort of a deranged obsession. How much of that
>is revisionist? How many of those folks were saying that at
>the time? I'd be interested in knowing if the people casting
>that light on that era are doing so because they are looking
>back with their current opinions Hitch.

I was saying that-- and so was Bob Somersby.

Clinton's POLICIES, while not to my *exact* liking are SHITLOADS better than this asshole in office now. And Hitchen's (and the rest of the medias) obsession with Monica, Bill and Gore are largely to blame for our current situation.

7 short years ago the political discourse was "Why is Al Gore saying he invented the internet, wrote Love Story, discovered Love Canal? It's because a woman told him to wear Earth Tones while doing fuzzy math."

Tell me that wasn't the level of discourse.

And now our fucking press wants to know if "Hillary's voice is too shrewish to be presidential."

Give me a fucking break. Hitchen's may have been your political Mr. Blackwell (worse dressed), but he's a batshit, brain-damaged , extremist zealot who is wrong on policy much of the time, AND absolutely wrong with his support of this transparently illegal occupation of Iraq.

Links:
http://www.dailyhowler.com/h031099_1.shtml
http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh070204.shtml
http://www.salon.com/books/feature/1999/06/07/hitchens/print.html