I have considered the legacies of other presidents I have voted for (or not) over the years, pretty much since the 1970s. (I am 38 years old BTW) I thought Nixon did some great stuff in China but he was a megalomaniac and quite probably insane. I still think very highly of Jimmy Carter. He is still out there and behaving as a true elder statesman should. Ford? I think he still gets out on the golf course occasionally. He didn't do much and, being a dull choice for vice president, perhaps was never meant to.I always hated Reagan as a president and still do and think the enormous amount of love and admiration people felt for this doddering old fool has merely been reduced to pity. And I do pity him, somewhat. But I hated him for what he did to this country and the rest of the world, including his outrageous wasteful spending on the nuclear arsenal and the useless strategic defense initiative. Bush the first? Dishonest, war-mongering, incompetent, embroiled in scandal that his CIA cronies and cabinet apologists protected him from. Clinton? See above. Bush the second? A smirking, spoiled moron born into money and privilege who doesn't have the courage God gave a weasel or the integrity God gave a roundworm.

I find your comments rather patronizing at times. For you to say I have a "right" to think Clinton was a great president, but to ignore the concrete reasons I gave for thinking that way, means you simply don't value my opinion. Why? Because it differs from yours, I guess. But my opinion of him has come from paying attention for eight years. Not from any mindset I held before his presidency or in general or anything to do with my party affiliations in the past, present or future. My respect for his legacy has to do with what he DID. And I don't need "enough time" to elapse before I can evaluate this idiot in the White House now. I am quite capable of doing it now, and of predicting how he will be seen by future generations. If he even lasts out his term.

Elsewhere you implied I must be approving of someone else's rant because they agreed with ME. Well, DUH. I probably wouldn't aprove of it half so highly if I disagreed with it, unless it was merely eloquent, if wrong-headed. But it had better be exceptional, along the lines of George Will (who I once told, in person, that I did not agree with very much of what he had to say, but I did enjoy the way in which he said it. "Fair enough" he said to me.)