The outrageous final hours of the Clinton presidency provoked many hitherto-silent Democrats to denounce Clinton as the most unworthy individual ever to occupy the presidency. Former Carter chief-of-staff Hamilton Jordan, for instance, lambastes the Clintons as the “first grifters,” denouncing the extreme corruption of the former first-couple.
 Unfortunately, far too many Democrats continue to defend the indefensible, using the same old Carville/Clinton strategy: misrepresentation, sneers, and slander. Obscure the facts as much as possible so as to hide the real issue. Try to establish some sort of moral equivalency: everybody does it. Most important, attack the motives and integrity of anyone who dares criticize the Great Leader. And finally: repeat, repeat, repeat.
 Clinton’s defenders keep hammering away with the same talking-point slanders and sneers until people are too weary of the subject to debate any further. Those that dare speak the truth about Clinton are lambasted as Clinton-haters, implying that there is something wrong with us when we are outraged by the outrageous.
 Think we shouldn’t be outraged by Clinton and his defenders? Take a stab at the quiz below:
1. In an NBC interview with Lisa Meyers, Juanita Broaderick gave a detailed account of a rape she suffered at the hands of then-Arkansas attorney general Bill Clinton. Journalists uncovered considerable corroborating evidence. Newsweek’s account of the story added the editorial comment  “sounds like our guy,” a sentiment that Elizabeth Gracen, Kathleen Willey, and perhaps many others would second. Nevertheless, it is OK to defend Clinton in this instance because:
a. It’s only about sex.
b. Lisa Meyers, NBC, and Newsweek are all part of a vast right-wing conspiracy.
c. Henry Kissinger murdered the president of Chile.
d. The Republicans want to give us a tax cut we can’t afford.
e. It’s not at all OK. No decent person would defend such conduct.
2. Just prior to a House vote on impeachment, Bill Clinton ordered the bombing of a Sudanese factory that he claimed (without any credible evidence) was manufacturing poison gas for Osama bin Ladin. Attorney General Janet Reno warned him that the bombing violated international law. Nevertheless, it is OK to defend Clinton in this instance because:
a. It’s only about sex.
b. The Sudanese and Janet Reno are part of a vast right-wing conspiracy.
c. Webster’s doesn’t define Tomahawk missiles as “bombs.”
d. We had to bomb right away because of Ramadan–no–wait! That’s Iraq.
e. It’s not at all OK. No decent person would defend such conduct.
 3. In 1996, the Communist Chinese poured thousands of dollars into Clinton’s re-election campaign. In return, Chinese arms merchants got top-level access to the president.  Nevertheless, it is OK to defend Clinton in this instance because:
a. It’s only about sex.
b. They can’t blow us up for at least five years.
c. Hitler was a sinner. Mother Theresa was a sinner. Therefore, Mother Theresa was Hitler.
d. Bill Clinton made the trains run on time.
e. It’s not at all OK. No decent person would defend such conduct.
 
4. Along with Mark Rich, Roger Clinton, Susan McDougal, and several high-level drug dealers, Clinton granted clemency to Mel Reynolds, a former congressman convicted of fraud. It is OK to defend Clinton’s pardon of Reynolds because:
a. Hey! Watch it with those trick questions! I happen to know that Mel Reynolds was the guy who left Congress after being convicted of sexual assault on a minor, child pornography, and obstruction of justice. Like I said, it’s only about sex.
b. It’s the economy, stupid!
c. The Republicans only care about unborn babies.
d. Ken Starr once worked for the tobacco companies.
e. It’s not at all OK. No decent person would approve the Reynolds pardon.
 If you answered “e” to any of the above questions, watch out. You obviously are part of a vast right-wing conspiracy that wants to end social security, pollute every river and stream in America, and institute prayer and Bible reading in the public schools.
 But at least you earned an “A” on this quiz.