[billsux]

One problem I have with Clinton bashing is that often times things are repeated that aren't true (Lay stayed in Lincoln Bedroom on his watch) or aren't provable (the Famed Death Lists). Why is it that people deem it necessary to make up things about the Clintons when the simple facts will do? They're both opportunistic, greedy, elitist, limo-liberal socialists. If you keep lying about someone like that you end up with zero credibility and then when you do say something that's true, no one believes you. (not you, libber-tarian, specifically, I know you didn't write this) For example: "Enron's Ken Lay was staying in the Lincoln Bedroom during the Clinton Administration." There's actually nothing concrete that he stayed at the Clinton White House overnight at any time, let alone the famed Lincoln Bedroom (and if there is please point it out to me, the only concrete thing I can find is he did stay at the WH overnight, but it was on the watch of Bush I). And frankly, beating Clinton and the Dems on the head with Enron, is a tad hypocritical. Those guys donated to EVERYONE. Now if you want to go after the Clintons for Loral/China, Global Crossing, the Rich Pardon (among others), etc, etc. go for it, but don't make s--t up, it's not worth it, leave that up to the Clinton Revisionists (and when they do, and they always do, nail 'em!). Basically, there's a LOT of good, true, ammo here, but one wrong "fact" can cause the whole to be tossed out by someone who might be willing to listen (i.e. so-called "moderates", RINOS, Libertarians, right-leaning Dems (yes, there's a few) and so on).

[hapy]

i do love this someone should post this on DU. It wont last long there, but it will be fun to watch them get pi$$ed. They are talking about sending out flyers to colleges, maybe we should add this article to their flyers

[denydenydeny]

Even if Lay did not rent the Lincoln Bedroom, Enron was still well represented at the White House coffees, which I think was the source of the belief that Lay had stayed at the Lincoln.

[Badray]

I agree with you in general, but I'd like to point out that it does not matter if someone gives to one party or both. It does matter if the party (or the President or the Congresscritter) gives something in return for the donation. It's not the donation. It's the quid pro quo.

Clinton was for sale and from what I see of Bush, he is not. He's not as principled or conservative as I'd like, but there is no evidence of corruption on his part.

When Senator Hollings was ranting that he was insulted by getting smaller donations than some members of his committee, what he was really crying about (in all likelihood) was that he sold himself too cheaply.