During the drive to work this morning, I realized that I had been making a mistake in my analysis of Clinton's decision to sign the welfare bill. My initial take was that this was another instance of pandering by Clinton. But then I thought that Clinton has been saying for some time that he was in favor of many of the provisions that are in the current bill. For instance, last night I came across a newspaper article from March (yes, I do compulsively save newspapers) which stated that he favored a five-year limit on a family's welfare participation. So, in addition to answering affirmatively the question "Does Clinton suck," we also should be asking ourselves "How long has Clinton sucked" and perhaps even "When did he first know that he sucked." Also, we should take note of another pattern in Clinton's behavior. This morning on the radio I listened to his statements that he would be signing the bill even though he did not like its provisions that strip certain benefits from legal immigrants. This is very similar to other instances in which Clinton has signed bills that contain some things that he wants and some things which he at least says that he doesn't want. In the current example, as in the past, he also stated that he would ask Congress to reverse the change that he did not like, even though such a reversal is unlikely to occur until the political composition of the Congress changes. Steven Zahniser [EMAIL PROTECTED]
