"John H" wrote in message

I find it strange that any time a Bush administration official has a
positive comment, he is telling a lie. Anytime the administration
sources (unnamed) have a negative comment, it is printed as the whole,
total truth. Can you explain that?

Yes I can. The stupidest thing the GOP did in the last decade (aside from
letting Ken Starr run amok) was to impeach Clinton for lying about the blow
job. This was compounded by the fact they damn well knew they didn't have
the numbers in Congress to ever *hope* to get a conviction. Instead of
spending 8 years "investigating" the Clintons, the GOP would have better
spent the time working the issues.

Add to that, the Florida election fiasco. No matter who "won" that little
fiasco, you can bet the other side was gonna be ****ED. It turned out the
DNC lost "the battle of Fla." and thusly the war for the White House.

The combination of these two events has resulted in a very, VERY *angry*
Democratic base, and ushered in a new low to the term "mudslinging". What's
happening now, has as much to do with *retaliation* as it does with the
"plain facts". Bush presents as an ample target for the Dems to be sure.
But he never had a prayer in *hell* of getting a fair shake. If you think he
did, you're dreaming.

The next question is: Can the "angry DNC" sell itself to the American
People? I personally think ratcheting down the angry rhetoric a bit could
only help. What might sell well to the Party Faithfull, might not sell as
well in the national election.

-W