"Republican leaders pursued a radical agenda through radical means," reads a display at the new Clinton Presidential Library in Little Rock. "They used new tools and tactics--lawsuits, investigations, new partisan media, front groups, a secret slush fund, and deeply divisive rhetoric--in their battle for political supremacy. The normal give-and-take of public life gave way to what many called the 'politics of personal destruction.' After the Republicans won the Congress in 1994, the fight for power culminated in two government shutdowns and an impeachment battle, bringing partisan opposition to a new high and attempting to deny the very legitimacy of the President's election."

Politics of personal destruction? Have the museum curators ever heard of Clarence Thomas, Raymond Donovan, or Robert Bork? New partisan media? Is that somehow different from the old partisan media? Investigations? Does siccing the IRS on political opponents and opening up the FBI files of Republicans count? Attempting to deny the very legitimacy of the President's election? Did you guys miss the last four years? Deeply divisive rhetoric? What did Hillary say about a "vast, right-wing conspiracy"?

The rant could have come from the mouth of Geraldo Rivera, Robert Wexler, Charles Grodin, Barbara Streisand, or some other Clinton camp-follower of the 1990s. But it didn't. The curators of the Clinton Presidential Library have turned history on its head. Bill Clinton did nothing wrong, you see, and anyone who opposed him was a really, really bad person. Yeah, and if you believe that you still probably believe Bill Clinton didn't inhale, didn't lie to avoid service in Vietnam, and did not have sex with that woman.

Let us not forget Vince Foster.

The New York Post quotes, in part, the text of an exhibit @ Slick Willy's 'Presidential' Library:

"The impeachment battle was not about the Constitution or rule of law, but was instead a quest for power that the president' opponents could not win at the ballot box."

Now, whether it was a quest for power or not is of course irrelevant, because he was impeached because he perjured himself, and if perjury is not a matter of law, then I suppose I can start up a counterfeit money operation because, well, by that logic, counterfeiting is not a "rule of law" either.

My name is spelled BARBRA! I'm pretentious! I don't spell it like everyone else!

Get it right! Or I'll sic Al Franken on you!

It doesn’t take much to pull you right wing nuts out of the woodwork.
Yes I know
Vince Foster was murdered.
Slick Willie was a drug dealer.
The land deal he lost money on was crooked.
No other President did anything like travelgate or filegate.
Ken Starr had no agenda.
There was no right wing conspiracy.
And the best of all ….. lying in a immaterial matter of a dismissed civil suit is reason to remove the President.

Uhh, no other president did anything like travelgate? Watergate? Iran-Contra? Ring any bells? Slick willy wasn't the first and slick willy won't be the last. They're all greedy, lying bastards.

I thought he was the first black president? Does it have a Black History section?

Whatever you think of Clinton, and I think he was a noticeably lousy president, I think its clear that the impeachment was a massive political blunder and a waste of the country's time and energy. The country and the conservative cause would been better served by a congressional censure, which would have left Clinton hanging out to dry before the electorate instead of turning him into a persecuted martyr to the liberal cause.

Impeachment may very well have been a blunder, but still, it follows that he died on his own sword, so to speak. His legacy is tainted not so much that his political opponents impeached him, but because he conducted himself in a way such that his impeachment was inevitable. Whether impeachment was a good use of the country's time is debateable, and I would tend to agree with you that it was not. However, it is still true that Clinton's actions precipitated his impeachment.

In this day of blaming everybody else, Clinton was (and is) the poster boys passing political and personal responsibilities onto anybody else to whom they might stick.

In the Clinton White House, the buck always stopped with somebody else.

To most people, Clinton was and is a colorful rogue. But, he's just another elitist lying weasel and deserves all of the bad press and legacy scalding that his impeachment provided.

Dave -

I disagree with you that impeachment was inevitable; it was a political decision made by the House Republican leadership and, in my opinion, a wrong one.

Of course, none of this exonerates Clinton as regards his conduct, which was appalling and, in my view, shows a lack of feeling towards his family and the pain his infidelities must have caused thiem which indicates a man of deplorable character.

Right on, ASDF. I agree 100%.