<<<... into George Walker Bush (despite what all you Democrats and Republicans think, we Libertarians don't see a tinker's damn worth of difference between the two), how will history treat Bill Clinton? Better than Paul Sax will, I'd say, but not all that well if current historians are right.>>>

Jim. In light of your comment above, I thought I would repost my first sentence on the board

<<Gene, I'll take Travis over ...... Ken Starr any day!! <g> ----- jim
o\-S>>

I agree with you Jim, but not for your reasons. Ken Starr chickened out.
He left that SOB draft dodging prevaricating
pervert get away scott free. I cannot think of anyone else in the
history of mankind that could have gotten away with what
Clinton did...and let him walk away grinning, laughing at the American
public, and still not having to admit he lied under
oath.

<<<Here's what a group of historians think, as related in the book "Rating the Presidents" by William J. Ridings, Jr., and
Stuart McIver (this book was published in 1997, so Clinton's rating might be different today).>>>

And just who are these self proclaimed historians? Name me one of these academia individuals who lean toward the right. I'm surprised they don't have Clinton and Carter ranked #1 and #2 and in that order.

I don't know just what kind of president George W. will be, but in this case, I sure was ready to throw out the muddy water before I got some clean clean water to replace it.