Our soon-to-be –ex-president has been constantly worried about his legacy/place in history. Well, for me it is quite clear-Bill Clinton has done us all a big favor-never again will any school ager think the President of the USA is somebody special-he/she is just another jiving politician. No longer will we be taken in or awed by such a person-we know know the president is mostly WORSE than US! However, out of fairness, I should mention a few points:
(1) BOSNIA: the US Army is now bogged down. There is no exit strategy, no plan, and no resolution of anything. We have spent $2 billion+ on destroying the infrastructure of Serbia (and caused untold suffering to the Serbian people)…and Milosevic was just re-elected!
(2) IRAQ: we are wearing out the aiForce and the navy, in endlessly policing Saddam Hussein-and Germany is busy rebuilding Iraq’s war machine!
(3) So thank you Bill Clinton, may you have fun building your presidential library!
Aside from scandal, I think his most notable legacy is in redefining modern left liberalism. “Liberal” had already changed meanings early in the century (Thomas Jefferson used to be called a liberal, and Aaron Burr a conservative). And now, it is changing its definition again right before our very eyes.
Today’s left liberalism is yesterday’s centrism. Jimmy Carter tried to do it, but Bill Clinton succeeded.
You know, people said the same of richard Nixon, and countless other presidents before him. Unfortunately, our sense of history is quite short. People will forget.
Personally I am very much put off by Clinton’s recent talk about creating a “legacy”? His legacy is the body of work from throughout his administration, it isn’t something to be cobbled together at the end and held up as something he wants to be remembered by.
IMHO, regardless of whether or not Clinton is successful in creating a “legacy” in what’s left of his presidential term, we the American public won’t soon forget Clinton because he won’t go away. Just like Jesse Jackson, he’ll find ways to keeping putting himself into the public spotlight for a long, long time.
PatrickM:
I don’t mean to sound like a Clinton-lover…those who’ve seen my posts re: his impeachment know I’m not…but it’s unfair to try to paint him as someone who hadn’t bothered trying to leave a massive impact on the world until his last years in office. I mean, he tried to nationalize America’s health care industry. He tried (and do a small degree, succeeded) to bring peace to Bosnia. He’d been involved in Middle East peace efforts since long before this last-ditch round of talks at Camp David. He did get the Brady Bill passed.
Now, I’ll grant you that he’s currently seeking some big splash that will replace history’s memory of his indiscretions as its image of him. However, since that happened only last year, he didn’t quite have much time for that.
I don’t think we can really start talking about what Clinton’s legacy was for at least another ten years. We’re too close to it right now, and one’s legacy is defined as what standing body of work one has accomplished which affects the future. Said future isn’t here yet, and so it’s hard to say. Take welfare reform/removal- will it be a help to the self-sufficiency of the lower classes (as conservatives claim) or will it wreak a swath of destruction upon those who need help the most (as liberals claim, and these are both gross overgeneralizations, so let’s not tangent this discussion)? Or, for that matter, will a future President re-instate welfare and render the entire issue moot? Anything can happen; pointless to try and state a definitive at this point.
And we haven’t even begun to see the deluge of tell-all books from former staff members and associates, or memos revealed by FIFA, giving a full disclosure to the behind-the-scenes deals and the true extent of some of the scandals.
And how do future Presidents act? Will ‘triangulation’ become a standard part of national politics, or will a backlash be seen as both parties move further towards ideological extremes? Will the ‘politics of personal destruction’ come to an end as both parties realize the damage done in the wake of impeachement, or will it continue onwards, destroying other Presidents? And if it does, will Clinton be seen as an early instigator in such policies through demagougery against Congress, or will he be seen as an early victim due to the Lewinsky scandal?
It’s all just way too early to really tell.
John:
FIFA? The soccer organization???
Chaim Mattis Keller
As further evidence, isn’t it amazing how the “liberal” President Clinton vetoed a school choice plan for those most in need of them: black D.C. schoolchildren. The Liberals of yore would be ashamed.
cmkeller: My G-d, man, don’t you realize the extent of their power? Think about it! As soon as Clinton took office, the D.C. United soccer team began winning games. Suddenly, across the country, local soccer organizations began springing up, and interest in the World Cup actually took on serious levels! Do you think it’s a coincidence that Clinton had so much support from so-called ‘soccer moms’?
It’s a giant left wing-conspiracy, man! Think about it! It’s a European sport, and all of Europe’s governments are left-wing! It inspires vast riots and fighting! And while it seems to do nothing more than inspire boredom in Americans, in fact, it is designed to be boring to good, red-blooded Americans. You see, once you’ve fallen asleep, they begin announcing those subliminal messages telling you that the government needs more of your money, that spending upon defense is pointless, than the U.S. should surrender to the United Nations- all in the hopes of getting good, normal Americans- the kind of decent, caring person who would normally agree with everything a true intellectual like Rush Limbaugh says- to vote for the Democrats and help bring about the New World Order!
Sorry. I meant FOIA (Freedom of Information Act), but somehow I managed to channel Krispy Original there (on more than one level, apparently!).
Apologies to Coldfire for this post.
One thing to remember about those soccer folks, though. After this election, they won’t have Bill Clinton to kick around any more…
<ducking and running :D>
Chaim Mattis Keller
I think domestically, Clinton was a non-factor. I think the presidency and even Congress are having less and less impact on the workings of our economy, and I don’t imagine that would change in a Republican administration.
I think an argument can be made that Clinton has been the worst foreign policy president of at least the past 70 years. Can’t think of any accomplishments; I can think of many gaffes.
And, as previously mentioned, when he chose not to resign after sullying the office of the presidency (sex with an employee in the work place; lying under oath and to the American people, “It depends on what your definition of ‘is’ is,” etc.), he did more to diminish people’s view of that office than anyone before him. Nixon’s acts were more egregious, but at least he eventually came to his senses and did the honorable thing.
Billy Boy got you all fooled, he’s the slippery-est son of gun to occupy the White House to date. He cares nothing about legacy, he’s simply diverting our attentioiin away from the shenanigans with the new crop of interns.
What? You mean the Soccer people are not happy with him either? I thought they were moslty liberals.
sheesh, tradesilicon. It’s just a joke, combining an old Nixon line with soccer player’s penchant for kicking things.
Chaim Mattis Keller
reminds me of a comic from that Great American thinker, Ted Rall. I think everyone can laugh at this one.
Chaim,
Sili me, I forgot the darn smiley at the end of that sentence, indicating that I really like your joke, and I was jokin’ right back atcha. ( 
)
Should have been:
What? You mean the Soccer people are not happy with him either? I thought they were moslty liberals.
Sili