I think there is a lot to criticize the Clintons for (nice how chummy Bill and BushDaddy have become, eh?). But I still get ticked off at the typical rightwing strategy of "blame the Clintons" for, well, everything! It's not just that it distracts from Bush's truly scandalous actions -- but it also takes away from  well-placed criticism of Bill and Hillary. Ironically, during the Clinton years, the rightwing spin machine often worked in reverse. Back then a real scandal like the Clintons and the Indonesian money trail was ignored -- because Republicans were up to similar schemes! (Such as Tom DeLay and the Koch Brothers/Triad scandal, or Haley Barbour and his Chinese money connection). So instead of pursuing Clinton over a legitimate scandal, the rightwing had to invent a whole array of  pseudo-scandals, such as  Whitewater,  Travelgate, etc, etc.  But now whenever Bush and/or the Republicans are cornered in a  real scandal --  guess what? -- the Rightwing propaganda machine goes into hyperdrive to twist it into a "bipartisan scandal."  As Joe Conason writes:

It is true that the former president's friendship with the Emirate rulers has proved rewarding in the most concrete ways. Like many others around the world, including major corporations, universities, charities and media outlets, they have paid him handsomely over the past several years to deliver speeches, and they contributed to the cost of constructing his library in Little Rock, Ark. Mr. Clinton serves on the board of an investment company that is involved in business deals with Dubai's rulers.

To the full extent demanded by senate rules - which ought to require more information - those foreign sources of family income are disclosed on Mrs. Clinton's personal financial reports. But there is no logical inference that financial emoluments have bought political influence.

On the evening of Feb. 17, while Mr. Clinton was traveling in India, he received a call from two Dubai Ports World executives. According to his spokesman, he listened as they explained their troubles with Washington. He responded by advising them to submit to more thorough federal investigation and to guarantee that, should they eventually prevail, they will greatly enhance security in the U.S. ports they oversee.

Almost simultaneously with that brief conversation on the other side of the world, Sen. Clinton was preparing to introduce legislation that would bar any company owned by a foreign government from owning American port facilities. She announced her plan the same day. Passage of her bill, co- sponsored by New Jersey Democrat Robert Menendez, would instantly and permanently kill the Dubai deal.

So despite her husband's friendship with Dubai, Sen. Clinton acted against the interests of the emirate's rulers. She could easily have deferred to her senior colleague, Sen. Charles Schumer, who has also denounced the Dubai ports deal and introduced restrictive legislation.

As for the former president, he is not an advisor to Dubai Ports World and has publicly endorsed his wife's legislation. “Whether it passes or not,” said the statement released by his office, “he believes this purchase should not be approved unless the security of our ports can be dramatically improved.”

Had either of them endorsed the Dubai deal, the outcry over the former president's connections with the United Arab Emirates would be justified. Instead, she has moved to block the deal, and he has supported her bill - and yet their critics are still inflamed.

To understand this curious situation, it helps to know that what the Clintons actually say or do never matters. They're always wrong.

And then there are members of the Left, especially in the alternative press, that help to promote the distortions of the Rightwing propaganda machine, just for the sake of bashing the Clintons and/or the Democrats. Again, this only helps to dilute the legitimate criticisms that they raise, since it creates a confusion -- akin to the "Boy Who Cried Wolf" syndrome.  It's like, "this week you are parroting the rightwing lies -- but last week you wrote an original piece that had a ring of truth -- or did it???"

Even worse is that it takes the eyes of the opposition off the ball. The real threat to constitutional government is what Bush is doing right now, not Hillary Clinton's presidential aspirations. Besides, will the Neocons ever give up this power? Will electronic voting machines rig the election anyway for his Republican (Neocon-favoring) successor -- Jeb, Condi...and no...in that case...it won't be rigged for Hillary!

Ultimately, what suffers is any shared sense of reality. As the late, great columnist Lars Erik Nelson once said, "The enemy isn’t liberalism. The enemy isn’t conservatism. The enemy is bullshit.” Indeed, that is the enemy of all who belong to the "reality-based community."