I actually feel that even if Obama has only one term, history will judge him as having been more effective than Clinton, and having accomplished more as president.
A lot of Democrats want to dust away the Lewinsky scandal as nothing, but in fact it shows a grave failure of judgment at best on Clinton’s part, one that almost derailed his presidency, and that was a massive distraction for most of his second term. Yes the GOP are culpable here, but Clinton was not innocent.
And so what? We’ve also have genocidal killers, slaveholders, promoters of torture, supporters of terrorism, and just plain fools as President; after all that some marital infidelity is hardly some huge blemish on the office. And personally I’d be surprised if most Presidents weren’t sleeping around; the difference is, again, that the Republicans decided to drag it into the limelight.
Seriously? It’s not the Republican’s doing, it’s Clinton’s.
You can keep claiming otherwise, but it doesn’t change anything. There would be nothing to, ‘drag into the limelight’, if he’d kept it in his pants.
And, ‘other presidents did it!’, makes you sound childish and peevish.
Oh, and you seem to hate it when other people make the kind of foolish equivocating arguments that you are now resorting to.
That’s ‘what’.
Hmm a hard choice, I went with Bill Clinton but OTOH Barack Obama isn’t too different and does seem to be less skeletons in his closet.
Bill Clinton instituted DOMA and Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell while Barack Obama is working to repeal the former and has repealed the latter, in addition Clinton failed in his health care reform while Obama succedeed.
Obama.
I voted for Clinton twice but the Marc Rich pardon was such a sleazy ending. Enough.
Back when it was enacted, DADT was seen as an improvement over the previous state of affairs, where the military was actively investigating and prosecuting gay soldiers. It wasn’t universally praised by the LGBT community at the time, but in retrospect it was definitely a step in the right direction.
Clinton for sure. He’s a much better politician. Obama has been a pretty terrible president in standing up to republicans, in my opinion. Clinton did a better job as a messenger, getting across WHY people should be liberal, progressive, etc. Obama doesn’t do this well at all, and pushes people more towards conservatism.
As far as dealing with Republicans goes, Clinton was by far more effective. He seemed to know exactly when to draw a line in the sand and exactly when to compromise, and he ended up being the political winner no matter what happened. He got credit for the deficit reduction, the GOP got blamed for the shutdowns.
Again, Obama’s “health care reform” is a joke, something originally created by the Republicans as a spoiler and opposed by Clinton. He didn’t succeed at anything but installing a program designed from the start to hand money to insurance companies and prevent genuine reform. And Obama only caved in and made some show of supporting homosexual rights after years of being browbeaten over his pandering to the bigots.
They are so much the same. So very very much the same. But I’ll take the fake-progressive who’s actually sort of black and speaks standard Midwestern English over the fake-progressive who is only “down with” the blacks and talks in a drawl. I don’t really want to hear another presidential candidate with an Arkansas-Texas twang for a long while.
Also, Clinton was a stupid horndog.
Put me down for Clinton. Obama’s good, but he’s not the statesman and leader that Clinton was. Of course, Reagan was better still.
Uh oh, Clinton’s closing the gap! Comeback kid!
For this reason, I’d vote for neither (Reagan came up with a sane compromise on free trade agreements, which are typically imposed on third world countries - open borders between countries with free trade agreements, so the farmers disposessed due to being unable to compete with US subsidies can travel to where wealth is being created). Bill Clinton instead reinforced the borders. Der Trihs outlined a few reasons for not voting for Obama given there’s not an insane opponent. I’d add the fact that he’s engaged in unilateral executive actions resulting in the death of military targets, including a 16 year old US citizen.
DOMA made me emigrate, so I have a particular hatred for Bill Clinton. This is despite the fact that I recognize that Obama would have signed that like a shot in 1996, while a 2008–12 B. Clinton probably wouldn’t. Hard to separate the men from their history.
Agreed. I’ll even go so far as to say that absent the Lewinsky scandal, Gore would have won, thus giving us GWB. So history turned on a bj. And not in a good way.
That isn’t an argument against free trade but rather an argument to stop subsidizing American farmers.
That’s a good thing in my book, no different from Lincoln ordering the deaths of Confederate troops. By this logic FDR would be utterly evil for ordering Dresden, Hamburg, and Tokyo firebombed (strategic bombings of German cities generally had little effect although somewhat more for Japanese cities since in those industry and residential areas were mixed).
Republicans currently (at least Romney) support the same thing, except for the mandate (and even then they don’t mind that on a state level). Plus Clinton failed while Obama succedeed.
Repealing DADT came in the first year of Obama’s presidency.
Filed in the House in June of 2009 and promptly passed, and did not make it to the President’s desk until 20 Dec 2010 due to filibusters, riders, amendments, etc. in the Senate (filibuster-proof majority my ass, there were more than enough Dems in that 09-10 Senate afraid of doing anything “too liberal” until after the election…).
I voted a few days ago, but here are my reasons:
Clinton created DADT - Obama repealed it.
Clinton signed DOMA - Obama refuses to defend it.
Clinton tried health-care reform - Obama signed it.
Clinton tried to kill OBL - Obama killed him.
Clinton had a few succeses, no doubt about it, but I think on the balance Obama has been a more effective president.
As Adam Smith puts it: