Josh Marshall explores the Bush-hating vs Clinton-hating debate

By ten o'clock this morning, by the time I left for the train station, I had already received a flood of email about last night's post about the parallels between Bush-hating and Clinton-hating.

Of course, the response was shaped by the fact that the TPM audience leans Democratic --- though probably not as much as most people think. And many of those responses could be summarized as follows: animus toward President Bush simply doesn't compare to that against President Clinton --- whether in the sheer degree of rage, the organized nature of it, or simply its mania. Emailers also noted two other distinctions: One was that animus toward President Bush isn't nearly as tied to the president as a person, as it was in Clinton's case. The other was that intense opposition to President Bush is, quite simply, far more justified.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/

Is the hatred based on unproven fantasy (the "murder" of Vince Foster, which was, in fact, a suicide, as even Ken Starr finally had to conclude) or on actual events (the illegal invasion of Iraq with the attendant deaths of uncounted thousands)?

.....to paint the righteous anger of a wronged republic as simple personal animus.

The attacks of the Bush WH on democracy are trivialized when its critics are accused of blind hatred.