You're right in tnat the '90s weren't that long ago. The world changes very quickly, howeverm and i see dramatic changes in how politicians are covered even in the last 4 years. The '00s were pre UTube and cell phone videos, please note. Each successive graduating class of politicians will have more to contend with.

Look at what Britain's royalty has to deal with nowadays, in comparison to the past.

It's not about the Republicans. It's about the times.

I agree. However, the only person we have to thank for that is Sen. Obama.

It was only due to the MSM's interest in Obama that they responded so negatively to Bill Clinton's often uncontrollable anger. It was fascinating to see op-ed pieces by Democrats who were “shocked and appalled” at Bill Clinton's rage, or the Clinton's dirty tricks…as if they were something new.

They were only “new” in that they were now turned on a well-liked Democrat.

Obama's cool (he gets stressed under pressure…but I have seen no reports of rage) contrasted strikingly with Bill Clinton's volcano.

The 1990s weren't that long ago, Runasim. My god…even then, we knew details of Clinton's sex life…but NEVER about his anger. That was kept safely out of the public eye by the MSM.

Will we see reports on HRC's foul language (out of camera range, as with Bill, every second word is “F-this” or “F-that) , or her paranoia (she has Enemies Lists that are positively Nixonian). Both of these are well known.

I support HRC because I think her platform is the best…and she has always been in tight control.

As with Pacatrue…I think this is a non-issue in general.

For all of the above, I feel The Washington Post's huge article on McCain is a partisan hit…as there has never been one (to my memory) on Bill's rage pre-Obama.

I note the WaPo article does make passing reference at the end to Bill Clinton's anger issues. I believe this is only a “fig-leaf” of nonpartisanship, given the WaPo's lack of coverage of the most notorious (D.) temper in Washington of the past generation.

There is another, and better to way, to look at it. The rages of both Clinton and McCain are unacceptable, although sometimes understandable.

Part of this is just a matter of changing times re the degree of intursiveness into private lives and habits. Clinton's rages in current times, during this campaign,
have certainly been covered extensively.
McCain is a candidate during current times, not in past eras.

The world is not out to get Republicans.
The media are equal opportunity drive-by killers.

Sometimes, it's going to be McCain's turn to get caught in the headlights.

Bill Cinton'ts temper has also been referred to as 'legendary', although not much reached the press until his politics involved his wife, at ticklish and emotional situation, I can appreciate. In the meantime, he was a most popular president abroad, loved around the globe. During the Israeli war in Lebanon, some Lebanese were appealing to him to intervene.

Of couse, a major difference is that McCain would arrive on the international scene with a ready made agenda and an enemies' list, unlike Clinton's time.

I saw McCain recently fumble on a question about Reagan's economics.
Is that age or is it simply that he hasn't studied up on history enough?

All the attention has been on the Hillary-Obama contest.
We really need to know a lot more about McCain.

What utter rubbish!

Bill Clinton “purple rages” were legendary! EVERY morning of his presidency, the first thing Bill Clinton would do would be to shout and curse at the first aide he enountered…until his face turned “purple” with rage.

George Stephanopolous writes in his book on the Clinton White House that he felt it was his role in the administration to be the one who took the brunt of Clinton's rage first thing, before he could rage and curse at his nice middle-aged secretary or any other unlucky aide.

Stephanopolous became so stressed by this daily experience of Clinton rage that he developed a rash, and grew a beard to conceal it.

Bill Clinton's “purple rages” were widely known in the media and political circles. Did anyone regard it as “disqualifying” him from the presidency?

No. However, when a Republican who shows flashes of temper … NOT Bill Clinton's daily free floating rage … you suddenly regard it as “disqualifying” him from the presidency.

The Double Standard on the part of the Washington Post here is striking. (Oh, and don't forget to toss the age smear into the mix.)

Dem. Bill Clinton can curse and rage…Bill is wonderful. Cover for him!
Repub. McCain occasionally shows flashes of temper … a serious concern. Cover it massively!