Troll,

Well, I'm not an economist, but I never saw the boom of the Clinton economy in the people around me. And I've read that the US gnp was and is counted in a different way than elsewhere, and formerly. The basic idea is if you're a baker, how many loaves of bread can you bake in a work day. But in the US we count the value, the idea that the bread is enhanced, is just better. Also, many tech advances used to be in the area of work reduction, now they are mostly work-expansion. You can work at home, in the car, on a boat, on a plane. It's hard to count the baker's hours, baking those loaves, anymore. And the added values especially in the computer and digital industry are hard to account for in terms of real value to anyone. How many of the things your computer could do do you ever get around to using?

    If we have to have tv presidents--they're all repulsive, Clinton biting his lower lip, acting EARNEST as HELL, or Bush wrinkling his brow, acting like he's Thinking--if we must, I suppose Clinton did the right thing in cheerleading the economy. Because that can add up, actually, I suppose.

   I think Saddam deposed is important in and of itself. The means is a question. But it's odd how it's been the thing to call him by his first name, as Bush does, in posing questions about how nations feel about "Saddam". Substitute any familiar-sounding name and it sounds like one is discussing how to kill a playground bully. Even Hitler was "Mr.Hitler" in the news back then.