Clinton...where's the beef?

There have been quite a few threads here attacking “The Religious Right”, “The Republicans”, “The Conservatives”, etc for being critical of Bill Clinton. There are a number of posts where people are vehemently coming to his defense, usually aginst the aforementioned groups.

So here’s your chance:
Defend him. Help me understand why the polls said he was the most wildly popular President ever (my personal “conspiracy theory” is that poll results are skewed and controlled by the organizations that conduct them and not to be trusted). What did he do that was so great? What were his noteworthy accomplishments? Blowjobs in the white house? Big deal. He’s not the only one, and even I can get better looking women, and I don’t hold any powerful positions. And please, please don’t say “The Economy!!” unless you can provide specific verifiable actions he took that caused the economy to prosper.

What will be written about him when he takes his place next to the other great leaders of our Nation:[list=1][li]Washington: fought and won the revolution, []Jefferson: drafted the Declaration of Independence, []Madison: drafted most of the Bill of Rights, []Lincoln: issued the Emancipation Proclamation and kept the Union intact, []F. Roosevelt: Brought us out of the Depression and through WWII, Kennedy: Cuban Missile Crisis, battle of wits against Kruschev, banged Marilyn Monroe.[/li][li]Clinton: Impeached for perjury, Gave missile guidance to China (allegedly) in exchange for campaign contributions, arbitrarily bombed 3rd world countries coincidentally at times when he was under close scrutiny, and liked unattractive and domineering women.[/li][/list=1]


For the record, I don’t think Bush and Reagan were particularly appealing either, but I’m genuinely curious to know why people worship this clown to such a degree.

any particular reason you posted a new thread??

yes, you’re asking “where’s the beef?” vs, ‘yours’, but…

wait a second. You’re doing the reverse, looking for Clinton supporters to explain why they support him. well, there’s certainly some in the other thread as well, but I think many folks may skip this thread entirely, thinking that it was intended to be posted to the others 'cause the name is so similar.

The mods can modify the name if you e-mail them and ask them nicely (assuming of course that’s what you want to do)>

As a matter of fact, YES. This thread starts with the premise opposite the one you linked. Stoid asks why you hate Clinton. I ask why you love him.

I assume you’re too young to remember the Wendy’s “Where’s the beef?!” commercials, or you wouldn’t have to ask. You also seem not to have read the OP, but only the subject.

I am not one of Clinton’s supporters, but I will offer an opinion as to what caused his popularity.

Anytime a person you support is attacked by someone who you dislike, there is a tendency to rally around your guy. This will cause you to overlook your guy’s faults, and exaggerate his virtues. The Clinton popularity with the Democrats, such as it is, is a result of unceasing attacks on him by political opponents during his term in office.

As for the general public, “It’s the economy, stupid”. You and I may have a hard time figuring out how Clinton deserves to get credit (and I suspect that future historians will not credit him for this - look up Calvin Coolidge). But polls show that the “great unwashed” masses do believe that he deserves credit for it. (Also, he benefited from a rebound effect due to the unpopularity of the Monica mess).

I believe those are the sources of his great popularity. But if you are looking for someone willing to defend the validity of his popularity, I will leave it to my liberal colleagues.

Actually I like the thread title, I chose it specifically as a play on Stoid’s words and the Wendy’s commercial.

I don’t really want the title changed, but I suppose I could look into it…

IzzyR: Yeah I see your point, and that’s about what I can figure out, but I really am hoping to hear what his actual supporters have to say in his defense.

Joe -started answering this, saw your next comment that showed you realized that I did read the entire OP, and that I realized that you were going at it from a different angle. The similarity in titles is close enough for old people like me with poor vision that we might gloss over it thinking it was the same. (that was a veiled reference to yes, I’m old enough to remember Clara’s ads for Wendy’s). carry on.

I sincerely hope this is a joke.

Colloun… take a gander at the Dan Rather thread.

My personal theory about Clinton is that a lot of people don’t think about electing a President so much as they elect a guy to either take the blame or get the credit. Clinton got elected and coincidentally (some argue) the economy boomed. Ergo, “Clinton made economy good.”

This would also explain why Reagan gets so much heat for “overspending” when it was more the fault of the congress at the time.

Basically, if you’re a congressman, you can do whatever the hell you want, and the blokes in the White House take the rap. :smiley:

Sure glad you said allegedly. Bush allegedly committed treason by convincing iran not to release the hostages till after the election. Nixon allegedly did his bit to derail peace talks with vietnam. The policies that relate to missle guidance technology transfers were started by the republicans. George Bush is married to Babs.

The perjury made me sick to my stomach. Well, not the perjury but the abuse of the justice system to nail the President.

Personally I didn’t think much of Clinton until I saw him withstand wingnut attacks like this.

I did. Unimpressed. Scylla needs to chill. I see no reason to posit pervasive prejudice. Frequent poor statistical research design? Sure, but I think it more or less evens out.


That’s really not what this thread was intended to be about. You’re not striking a death blow to me by telling me that Reagan Bush and Nixon were also criminals. That’s irrelevant.

If the only reason you like Clinton is that he’s no worse than some other recent jerk-offs, then that’s pretty lame, pardon the editorial.

That was a half joke. I’m sure you’re familiar with the saying “…lies, damn lies, and statistics”, yes?
I’m leery of polls and always have been. There’s no easier way to convince a conformity-hungry population to your side of the fence than to tell them that 9 out of 10 dentists who chew gum prefer your ideology. Advertisers have known this for years, and I’d be shocked to find out that political machinists haven’t. Even if the results reported are 100% accurate, it still doesn’t matter because, as I’m sure you know, the poll can be skewed by the wording of the questions, the selection of the sample population, the polling methods, etc. Numerous times during the last quarter of 2000, I saw breaking reports, urgently telling me that Bush or Gore has improved his standing by 1/4 of a percentage point. Discussion and pontification ensued normally. But then the reporter would mumble while signing off that the margin of error is on the order of ±5%, which I think we can agree is a window of 10 percentage points.

Meaning essentially that they were discussing NOTHING at all. Now whether the polls are manipulated to manufacture ratings or to attempt to fix an election makes no difference. The fact is, I believe they are manipulated by all sides in all directions, and therefore meaningless to me. If you choose to accept them and feel like they really mean something, then knock yourself out, but I get the sense that you’re too intelligent to swallow blindly what you’re spoon-fed from CNN.

Regarding Reagan/Bush/Carter and the October Surprise…
Here we get into hazy ground. I’m inclined to believe the timing of the end of the hostage crisis was engineered by SOMEBODY in the Reagan/Bush camp, what with GHWB being former CIA head and all (don’t try to tell me that he doesn’t still have strings he can pull), but I’m reluctant at the same time to admit it because I don’t want to have to listen to the cries of “conspiracy theory! conspiracy theory! run and hide from the black helicopters!”

I simply find it far too difficult to believe that a) the one of the premier military machines in the world was completely unable to plan a small operation to extract hostages from a 3rd rate power like Iran, b) we were also unable to keep this operation under wraps long enough that the Iranians weren’t there waiting for it, c) an election whose outcome likely hinged on the timing of said crisis was won by the former head of the CIA, d) the fact that Iran decided to release the hostages on the day of their inauguration was purely coincidental, AND e) Said President’s administration was later found to be delivering military hardware to Iran.

Any of those alone I could believe was coincidence. Any two or three I could really try to believe. But all five? Come on. Occam’s razor tells me that the simpler explanation–that there was some covert dialog between Reagan/Bush’s people and the Ayatollah’s people–is likely closer to the correct one.

Mind you I’m not claiming it’s a fact, merely that it’s the explanation that for my money best fits the available facts. If I were on trial for a crime, less evidence than that would be more than sufficient to bury me.

And before you tell me that that kind of thing can’t happen, I’m well aware that politics and the mechanics of power and rule have been rife with maneuvering and intrigue as long as the concept of rule has existed. There’s no way I’ll ever believe that our own government is immune to it. Just look at Congress if you don’t believe me.

I freely confess that my initial passion for Clinton was almost exclusively about two things: his charisma, and simply that he was a Democrat. He was the first candidate since Robert Kennedy who managed to be both things at once. I had spent pretty much my entire conscious life up to that point hating my president. My one opportunity to not hate my president, the years 1976-1980, was an unusually rich period of self-absorption and chemical alteration, which, combined, left me a bit apathetic. I was coming out of it just as Ronnie took the stage and scared me to death.

So Clinton was exciting both in himself, and in what he represented.

Since then…well, my feelings are mixed. Mostly I’m deeply sad, and while he was certainly no saint, and his own stupid weaknesses helped his enemies, I do believe he was targeted by the right, which certainly didn’t make me feel any more warmly toward them.

I finally got a president I really liked, 30 years after the last one, and he had to spend 8 years fighting off constant “investigations”, also known as simple harassment. Damn shame.

He coulda been a contendah.



*Originally posted by Joe_Cool *
** Kennedy: Cuban Missile Crisis, battle of wits against Kruschev, banged Marilyn Monroe. **

You seriously underestimate, JFK. He “banged” lots more women than just Marilyn Monroe.

Good point, but I think the suggestion that there was a trade of technology for campaign contributions is utterly ludicrous. That some are prepared to believe an allegation this serious based on zero evidence is an indication of what Clinton had to deal with.

Yeah, but who the hell gave a damn about all the other women?