Clinton. I think he has better political skills. Although I think Obama’s a better person overall.
I think Obama is a much better person. Clinton was a better president. To some extent, it’s because he’s was the ultimate politician (Democrat division, see Reagan for Republicans), and people tend to prefer politicians to statesmen.
On the Republican side, I would vote for Romney because he seems a better person that GWB, even if Romney is possibly just as clueless as GHWB when it comes to the common person. And since I don’t go with most current Republican ideas, in this case I’d want someone who is decent but less likely to move the country in his own direction.
My meta-analysis of this poll is that the majority of pro-Clinton voters are rightwing Obama-haters who, if you gave them a choice between Obama and Beelzebub, would find a way to rationalize voting for the dude with cloven feet. In fact most of them wouldn’t have (and didn’t) voted for Clinton when they had the chance, and would have thought long and hard about a Hitler-Goebbels ticket rather than voting for ol’ Bubba.
Too early to tell. Clinton had 8 years and Obama has not finished his first term. It’s not always easy to get things accomplished in a single term. Getting re-elected often brings a lot of momentum with it that helps get things done.
Well, to be fair, some of it was on Monica…
So, what you are saying is that in fact the current attacks on Romney not turning in more than two years of his tax returns ARE a load of horseshit. Well, glad we worked that out Der. 
The thing is, what an acting president does, even in his or maybe someday her personal life MATTERS. They are under a microscope…and they know that going in. I don’t mind that the guy got an intern to give him a blow job…what I did mind was that he got caught at it.
As to the OP, I’d go with Clinton. I think by any measure he accomplished more, and despite hostile Republicans he was able to get SOME bi-partisan initiatives, and presided over one of the largest economic booms in history. Yeah, he was flawed, and made mistakes, but overall I’d vote for the Bubba Dog over Barry if that were the choice right now.
I’d lean toward Clinton, but I’d be a little concerned about his health. I understand he’s gone all veganish and slimmed down a lot, but throwing him back in the boiler room might finish him off.
Clinton was more corrupt, but also more capable.
Obama is more honest, but less effective mostly because of his inexperience.
Both of them have left wings belief systems that are outside of mainstream american politics.
Because of this both of them got strong push back from the voters at the two year mark.
But only Clinton was pragmatic enough to realize this and dial it back and start governing from the middle. For that reason I voted Clinton.
Admittedly, Obama inherited a worse mess than Clinton and the political climate has changed, but it seems to me that Clinton got more done. Sure, Obama has gotten a lot of obstructionism, but Clinton didn’t get it all that much easier. Not only that, but he took over in a recession, though admittedly a smaller one but, IIRC, it was handled by his first term and we had some of the best years ever economically in his second term. Here, the economic situation seems more or less the same as it was 3 1/2 years ago.
Both are great men, I chose Bill just because he’s more of a fighter. As much as I like Obama, he seems to cling (not to guns or religion) to the notion of being a post-partisan president. Sure, it would have been historic for a president to usher in a new Era Of Good Feeling, but the other side has no interest in such a thing. At least Bill knows when he’s in a fight.
I voted Obama. In the context of the GOP redefining compromise as complete Democratic capitulation and a GOP stance declaring that removing Obama was a higher priority than good governance and even harming their own constituencies to further that position, I think Obama has done surprisingly well.
Clinton is the better politician by far. Which is why I picked Obama.
It amazes me that some people still buy into the image of what Obama sold himself as. Post-partisan? Wow. If Obama is post-partisan, George Bush is George Washington. I’ve never seen a President angrily attack the opposition party and its figures by name as much as he does. Or use them as an excuse for his failures, an excuse his dead ender followers accept at face value.
Perhaps, compared to his stance on torture. Then again, his not paying of taxes would make his claims that the rest of the country needs to live austerely a little suspect. If Clinton were introducing legislation that’d subsidise adultery and claimed to be promoting the general welfare with no self interest in doing so, suddenly his indiscretions would be entirely relevant.
I remember 1994-95, and find it quite comparable to 2010-11. I also remember that while Obama went a bit too far in trying to work with an opposition that wasn’t interested in compromise, Clinton is the guy who invented ‘triangulation’ which is what got us on the slippery slope that Obama merely took us slightly further down before (hopefully) wising up.
I’m going to call it a wash between the two of them in that department.
I don’t see where Clinton was more liberal than Obama in any key area. Though I wouldn’t mind seeing Obama pushing the “people who work hard and play by the rules” bit, because the point that people who work hard and play by the rules should get a decent life out of the bargain, rather than getting chewed up and spat out by our wonderful capitalist system and our increasingly threadbare safety net.
Obama managed to pass something akin to universal health care, if he can stay in office to make sure it doesn’t get gutted in 2013.
I think Obama’s focus and ruthlessness in going after al-Qaeda has shown up the supposed tough-guy administration of Bush and Cheney, as well as being generally more adept in the military part of foreign policy than Clinton’s team was.
Finally, Obama is much more self-disciplined than Clinton was. The fact is that Gennifer Flowers, Paula Jones, and Monica Lewinsky hurt Clinton’s Presidency, the Paula Jones scandal hurt Democrats generally in the 1994 midterm, and the Lewinsky scandal put Gore in an awkward position that he really never figured out how to get out of, and that Bush took full advantage of in 2000. Without Lewinsky, I think the good guys would have won that one. With Obama, you don’t have to worry about that crap popping up.
Obama. No contest.
Do you really have to be “self-disciplined” to remain zipped around such homely creatures? How about “perceptive” or even “skankophobic”?