What was the most positive legacy of the Clinton Administration?

You could make a solid argument for having introduced Arkansas Democrat-Gazette editor Paul Greenberg to a national audience–although Bill Clinton himself would doubtless consider this a dubious achievement. In addition to being an acute observer with an eye for the telling (or damning) detail, Greenberg’s prose goes down like an exquisite Key Lime Pie–smooth and sharp, all at once.

Like most of his columns, today’s edition is a gem.


22 Responses to “Legacy”

  1. Helen Says:

    As a lifelong democrat I feel I should be offended by the attacks on Clinton. But I just don’t have the energy for that anymore.

    Compared to the war against the islamic terrorists, Clinton fades to insignificance.

    When Seattle and San Francisco are destroyed by nuclear weapons, Clinton will have plenty to say if he survives. But most people will have far more important things to do with their time than listen to him.

  2. rosignol Says:

    Helen, NYC, DC, and LA are all more likely targets than Seattle. And I’m not just saying that because I live here.

  3. John Climacus Says:

    Greenberg and Wes Pruden definitely made the 90s tolerable if not enjoyable.

  4. Rich Says:

    NYC, DC, and LA are all more likely targets than Seattle

    Very true, for “conventional” attacks, but NYC, DC, and LA can’t be reached via a missle from North Korea…

    Have a Nice Day.

  5. Steve Edge Says:

    You are probably a nice person, but you are a bleeping idiot! What you and others on the left just don’t get is called history. Historically, no country has made peace with aggressors except by subugation or defeating them in battle. That is a hard fact. I know what you are thinking,”we invaded Afghanistan and Iraq!” Therefore we must be the aggressors. We didn’t start this. The Islamofascists started it. We will finish it. I find it telling that those of you on the left think that our president is more evil than Saddam or the mullahs in Iran. Plus you froth at the mouth at what you call Bush’s lies, yet it was okay for Clinton to lie because it was about his personal behavior.(even though it wasn’t) Here is a clue. If I do something that effects someone else, it is no longer personal behavior. One last thing, Seattle is in less danger because of the actions of George W. Bush!

  6. Ed Driscoll Says:


    That’s a not a good way to make friends and influence people. Based solely on her comments here, she is a nice person. And she doesn’t deserve that kind of haranguing in response to an entirely innocuous post.


  7. Steve Edge Says:

    Sometimes the truth is uncomfortable. That’s not my fault. Deal with it. If I have mistated something or am factually wrong, I would like to be corrected. As doc Russia would say,

    Respectfully Submitted

  8. rosignol Says:

    Steve, I suggest you read this:

    Compared to the war against the islamic terrorists, Clinton fades to insignificance.

    And this:

    …Clinton will have plenty to say if he survives. But most people will have far more important things to do with their time than listen to him.

    Tellya what: I’ll tell you where I found those comments, if you tell me where on this thread you found any mention of Bush, any alleged lying on Bush’s part, or any defense of Clinton’s perjury.

    Seriously, chill out. Have a martini. Read twice, post once. Your time here will be much more pleasant that way.

  9. Pamela Says:

    I don’t remember wher4e I read it but it was about making the most of a nuke by starting in the west. Seattle San Fransisco LA. Because of the winds it would make the most of radioactive fallout.

  10. Steve Edge Says:

    I’m sorry. How foolish of me. I’m sure there was no “implied” insult to anyone. Certainly because there was no mention of Bush, there was no insult directed his way. I read between the lines. This is what I tell people about the left. I’m no longer religious, but I remember my bible school training. The left calls a truth a lie and the lie the truth.I give you the ties between Al Queda and Iraq.(at least according to Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton) If I’m wrong, show me. I still havn’t heard you address the content of what I said. That dosn’t make Helen or you or anyone else a bad person. I want to always be respectfull. Disagreement does not equal disrespect. I want honest and factual debate. I would be thrilled to sit down with you or anyone else (including Bill Clinton) and have a beer and discuss this.


  11. Steven DallaVicenza Says:


  12. erp Says:

    Greenberg is indeed a wonderful chronicler of contemporary events. He should stop wasting his time writing about bubba. I didn’t read what he had to say, nor what anybody else has to say about the legacy, the book, the egomania.

    The only thing I want to read about bubba and bubbette is that they are being led away in chains to a maximum security prison where they will be incarcerated for the rest of their lives with no access to the media.

    I’m trying to stay in shape, so I will live long enough for my dream to come true.

  13. joe shropshire Says:

    Helen : since we are on the topic of whose city is most vulnerable, conventional thinking goes something like this. Any nuclear attack has to be deniable (that is, has to go through Al Qaeda or some other non-state-actor) so that the US can’t identify a state target for retaliation. That makes a missile strike probably the least likely option. The most vulnerable targets are cities that a weapon could be smuggled into. Right now everybody is most worried about containerized cargo, because the containers get loaded at some factory and shipped by rail or truck to the embarking port, nobody ever looks inside ’em, and the sheer volume coming into the US means that only a very small fraction of the incoming stuff ever gets inspected. Currently on the East Coast the heaviest volume container port is Newark, NJ; on the West Coast I think it’s actually Long Beach. Seattle/Tacoma is a major port, San Francisco/Oakland not as much. There are also a lot of very heavy volume (>50 million tons / year ) ports on the Gulf coast : Corpus Christi, Baton Rouge, Tampa. The $64,000 question for target selection then becomes : does AQ or whoever place priority on attacking the highest-visibility targets (New York/DC) or do they go for the highest probability of success? If it’s the latter you may see the first such attack on a port that does very high container voume but which AQ thinks is lower on the Coast Guard/Homeland Security priority list. Personally I’d stay out of Galveston for the next few years just for that reason, although I’m sure I could think of others.

  14. Mike M Says:

    The harder Clinton works, the smaller his legacy becomes. There’s only so many times you can say “hey, look at me!” before people just tune out.

    Not even the hardcore libs can defend Clinton anymore. The best they can do is deflect and launch into some attack on Bush or Newt Gingrich.

    Greatness doesn’t need to be pumped up and pointed out. If it’s not readily obvious, it’s probably not there.

  15. ron Says:

    shit,I live in galveston

  16. Doug Says:

    SF is an unlikely target due to the relatively liberal atmosphere. SoCal is also unlikely. California is another country that happens to be attached to the US. In fact, some would say California is another planet. Although I am not claiming to know what target the terrorists have in mind, it may not be a city but another kind of attack that nobody is expecting.

  17. Pamela Says:

    OT Iraq is now a soveriegn nation. 2 days early!!

  18. Steve Says:

    SF is an unlikely target due to the relatively liberal atmosphere.

    I really don’t think AQ takes the liberal atmosphere of the city into account. If anything taking out the high homosexual population of SF would be a double bonus for them since radical Islam states homosexuality is punishable by death.

    Until there is a solid way to lock down nukes and prevent proliferation, no city is really safe.

  19. Bostonian Says:


  20. Silicon Valley Jim Says:

    Paul Greenberg was the first one to call Clinton “Slick Willie” in print. Seldom has a name been more appropriate. He deserves immortality for that alone.

  21. La Femme Crickita Says:

    He finally left office.

  22. Michael Lonie Says:

    The target of choice for Radical Islamist terrorists is New York City. That way, you kill the most Jews.

    Slick Willie’s legacy is likely to be that the President is above the law and need not obey it. At any rate a Democrat is if he’s got at least 34 Democrats in the Senate.

    I thought that issue was settled in January 1649 with a short, sharp shock but here was Slick Willie, at the end of the 20th Century, defending himself by giving us the constitutional theory of King Charles I. And the liberals, so called, overwhelmingly swallowed this nonsense.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: