...but it still confuses me, so I'll say it again.
I was just reading one of the liberal blogs I read for amusement, and they were going on and on about Bush (because he's conveniently back in the public eye, ready to distract, right when even the blandest of liberals are really pissed at Obama), and they were talking about all of the horrible things his administration was "responsible" for--wars, economic disaster, and so on.
And here's my thing--even if you accept the premise (which I don't, obviously) that there is some kind of huge difference between Clinton (in this example) and Bush, and their respective administrations, or similar differences between any two consecutive administrations in our political system, and you think that those differences can lead to wars that kill millions of people and economic crises that impoverish millions more, and so on and so on and so on...
...then doesn't that mean that democracy, especially in a country as hugely powerful as the U.S., is a horrible way to run things? I mean, I don't disagree, as far as that goes, but I think most liberals would at least say they did.
News from the corporate world #4 should be coming shortly.