blaming Clinton

[glthompson]

Doug Millison wrote:

> Well, if you had been following independent journalism the past decade and
> more, you'd know that the Clinton Administration got a thorough going-over,
> in addition to the relentless trashing by the U.S. corporate media
> (Whitewater-Monica-younameit).  A hallmark of the
> progressive/Green/activist movement in the U.S. is that it rightly sees
> little difference between Democrats and Republicans. . . .

Perhaps that's why the Republicans are underwriting Green candidates in
Washington state, as reported last summer? Or why corporate donations,
entertainment and information industries aside, run so heavily in their
direction?

"Rightly sees little difference"? Then their blinders are firmly in place. How
happy is the progressive movement to have Attorney General Ashcroft? Or a James
Watt disciple over the Interior Department? Or the prospect of drilling the
Alaskan wilderness to sell the oil on the world market?

Is it that activists, like Cold Warriors, like to have enemies to galvanize the
troops? Are we better off with a president so reliant on his advisers for his
understanding of foreign policy? (Depends on which adviser, I suppose . . .)
Has activists' access to policy-makers improved since the Supremes decided the
election for us?

With all due respect, this "no difference" line is election-year cant. I
appreciate the Alternet posts and other sources of information, but would like
to encourage a piffle-filter if available.

Gary Thompson