Faced with months of having little good to say about President Bill Clinton, the liberal media has resorted to an old parlor trick--the opinion poll. A "scientific" sampling of people are asked the question--"Do you approve of the job President Clinton is doing?"

Note how nebulous this question is. What IS his "job," anyway? What criteria are you using to evaluate his performance? Note also how this question harkens to the touchy-feely 90's. At best, it is nothing more than an emotional impression.

In fact, the president has few constitutionally defined responsibilities. To name some, he has a veto power, he is the commander-in-chief of the armed forces, and he can get us into wars--usually through a back door. (Does the word "Vietnam" ring a bell?)

As we are bombarded with polls on virtually a daily basis, we now hear that as Clinton's rating goes up, Congress' drops. Interesting. How are we to answer those members of Congress who say that pursuing impeachment is going against the will of the public--citing poll data? But now that Congress is "hated," does this mean that they should all resign--because of the "will of the people?"

The economy--or more specifically MY economy--becomes the ultimate measure. If I personally have a job, and can pay my bills, then the economy must be "good." Of course, if all economic indicators are high, but I personally am unemployed, then is the economy still good?

Recovery is important, as well. Adolf Hitler had astoundingly high approval ratings while bringing Germany back from the depths after WWI. Of course, his program had a couple of flaws, that were to be exposed later.

Slavery had good poll numbers, about 150 years ago. Many people personally disapproved, but wouldn't impose their will on others. That the slave owner was imposing HIS will on others did not seem to matter.

Since his specific job functions are not the point, the president becomes a symbol. Disregarding whether the Nation's symbol should be a debaucher in the White House for the moment, consider that public opinion can ALWAYS be swayed.

Some, such as this writer, remember Woodrow Wilson as the bumbling academic, who did his best to conceive WWII by allowing 3 million Sudeten Germans to be put under Czech rule, in flagrant violation of his own principle of self-determination. Many, though, regard Wilson as some sort of tragic dreamer, whose League of Nations was an idea born too soon.

Some, such as this writer, remember Abraham Lincoln as a racist typical enough of his day, who presided over hundreds of thousands of Americans killing each other. Further, we realize that his Emancipation Proclamation, pertaining only to regions still under Confederate control would make about as much sense as President Roosevelt issuing a similar proclamation covering those interned in Auschwitz in 1941. It did absolutely no good, and he knew it was a meaningless gesture.

Many, though, regard Lincoln as the greatest president, who freed the slaves. Never better could the grim cliché be applied--"Death was a career move."

There is a reason why we have real elections, and not merely poll results on a day-by-day basis. There is time between elections for careful thought. There is time for policies to unfold.

The same applies to football touts and odds. Tell that to the Green Bay Packers, who just lost two games in a row.

Isn't it ironic that those who whine about a "rush to judgment" on the impeachment issue nonetheless run their lives by opinion polls?