And of course the editorial page wags are frothing at the mouth about his "legacy".
Give me a break. If a Democrat wins in '08 or if Dems take back Congress in '06 his supposed legacy will be far different than if those things don't happen. We won't be able to assess his legacy for many decades yet. Look at Kennedy or Nixon, we still haven't agreed on what their legacies are. Hell, look at Lincoln: maybe in 15 or 20 years America will be in a place where Lincoln is reviled for not letting the American schism stand and saving us from the blue/red divide we now face. It seems to me that what is labled the "Clinton legacy" in the press at this point would really be better termed the "Gingrich legacy" of "Starr legacy".
Flippancy and fecetiousness aside, what does it profit us to assign Clinton a legacy at this point?
And, by the way, I like the architecture of the building which seems to be the other major bone of contention.
No comments:
Post a Comment