I keep marvelling at Jonathan Chait's "Case for Bush Hatred." He writes, "One reason Bush hatred is seen as inherently irrational is that its immediate precursor, hatred of Bill Clinton, really did have a paranoid tinge." What the heck does that mean? It only makes sense if you assume that only Conservatives can be paranoid. Arguing that Bush's reference to the British report about Saddam's shopping in Africa for yellowcake was a lie that undercut the whole basis for deposing the Iraqi tyrant is perhaps understandable, but these people seem to really believe it. Even when they concede that the war was justified, they still can't let go of that pig's ear of rhetoric. It's as though they have a need to find a lie from Bush as bald-faced as Clinton's finger-wagging reference to "that woman." But if this is the best they can come up with, they should be embarrassed to put it out there.

It was obvious to everybody that Clinton should never have been trusted with the keys to the family car, but to the Democrats, he was their ticket to power. They defended him and beat back impeachment with arguments that would make Mayor Daly blush, and they did so with the rage of a mama Grizzly. That rage hasn't subsided, and it is still driving them to a frenzy. They can't understand why Bush should be so successful when he says things like "strategery." It goes against everything they've believed in their whole lives--success is the reward for good grades and an Ivy League degree. But Bush isn't smart enough!!!

All I can say is that there are different kinds of intelligence, and Bush has the kind that they don't understand, and never will. Clinton has the kind of intelligence that allows him to recite long lists of trivia, yet believe, apparently, that oral sex isn't sex.