as progressives we defend his legacy

Which part of the legacy were you referring to? Welfare Reform? DOMA? Prayer in schools? Sister Soulja? The immigration bills in 1996? Not pushing hard enough for the Kyoto Treaty or the International Criminal Court? Putting his personal political career above the interests of his political party or political agenda during the Lewinsky scandal (wherein he incensed rightwing Christians until they went from frothing to rabid)?

If you’re defending that $hit, progressive is the wrong word.

The only part of his Presidential legacy I appreciate is that, perhaps, he stopped more harm from happening than would have otherwise happened. This, in and of itself, might be redemptive given that it’s not so much that “the Bush crew aren’t any better” as that they are far, far, far worse–and worse than Bush’s father as well, who has more in common with Clinton in terms of policy and approach than either do with the Bush the younger.

That “perhaps” I put in there is a big deal though and I certainly don’t have enough evidence to evaluate it yet.

I don’t find most of the Clinton reevaluation convincing, though I can see what you’re basing it on. It seems to me that a lot of it can be explained as the translation of successful governorship tactics (small-state, anyway) to the presidency.

You’re right though: there are damned few “good guys” in this story….