Revisiting neutrality on the Clinton entry==
I edited some content about the Richard Mellon Scape adversarial relationship with Clinton that dogged his career for 8 years and even after he left office. Many of the controversies raised during Clinton's term were a DIRECT result of the Scape Arkansas Project and to see any reference to Richard Mellon Scape's part in Clinton's troubles just "disappear" seems like a very "right-wing-view" sanitization of the Wikipedia. 
As the, arguably, most important adversary of Clinton for a lengthy portion of Clinton's political career, to obliterate any mention of this relationship comes close to censorship.
R.M. Scape is one of two very large and looming forces at work in American politics in the early 21st century, the other being George Soros on the left. Their fingerprints, from behind the curtain, certainly draw analogies to the Wizard(s) of Oz.
Please note that I did not vote for Clinton either time, being somewhat more conservative, but I have noticed an apparent right shifted bias developing in areas that touch upon politically related items in the Wikipedia lately - and "it ain't good" as they say. 

This slow erosion of complete disclosure concerning what is stylized as "right wing leaning" viewpoints and the retention of those things which critisize "left wing leaning" viewpoints is subtle but steady - not just here, but across many places on the Wikipedia. While they make me smile sometimes, my inclination toward keeping Wikipedia neutral reins in my mirth.

I would encourage the group to rethink the neutrality of Wikipedia & work very hard to balance the influences on both sides to prevent any more of this "shading" of the Wikipedia.

I know it is very hard to remain absolutely objective but it is imperative that we do so in order to remain a respected source. To remain COMPLETELY factual without opinionated bias, it seems to me Wikipedia should error on the side of INclusion rather than EXclusion.

IdioT.SavanT.i4 06:51 CDST 11 August 2006

==