As a conservative, I am often baffled by how someone can be such a supporter of Bill Clinton. I do understand however that there are many intelligent, reasonable people who were throughout his administration and remain so today.
It is difficult to have a calm, fact based discussion involving Clinton because he was such a lightning rod for both sides. I hope this doesn’t digress into Clinton-bashing.
What I want to know is what you see in Bill Clinton. Please back up your assertion with somethig he either did, or attempted to do but was stymied. Also, please show how he was personally responsible for what you claim. Don’t say, “There was a beautiful sunset on June 21, 1997 and Clinton was President so he gets the credit.” If you think you got 5% more when you sold your house in 1999, tell us how Clinton’s policies or actions helped.
Conservatives- There is ample room for you to lob a few sarcastic grenades here…please refrain.
Perhaps this is more of an IMHO type thing, but I am going to start it off in GD because of the subject matter.
Well I was hoping I wouldn’t have to ask for this not to be a Bush-bashing tourney either. I thought about saying that, but seeing as I tried to create a well balanced, even handed OP, I assumed it was not necessary. I was wrong.
Please re-read my OP and come back and try to post something along the lines of what I am requested.
I was very specific in trying to create an atmosphere where facts told the story and not gross emotions and exagerations.
well, there are two reaons that I can see why my folks voted for him, and why I am partial to him.
he reached out to the black community in a way not seen before. I think that salon had a good article on this- i’ll post a link if i can find it. it’s basically a treatment of the black community as a serious political and cultural force to be dealt with. he pushed for a lot of African-Americans in appointed positions- positions where they could affect policy changes. how effective were they? dunno. But i am not surprised when he is ‘claimed’ by African American as ‘their’ president. Even if it was all bullshit, at least he took them seriously enough to go out and talk to them.
even though my family is not black, we took this as a good sign for us as non-whites, if that makes sense. it’s the little things that count.
he was a dirt poor kid that got off his ass, did what needed to be done, and made it out of poverty by getting an education. this is a HUGE draw for some people- he is American class mobility in action. though, by the same token, i think that a lot of people resent him for it.
don’t forget the martyr thing. i’ve never seen my parents more pro-Clinton than during the investigation, where he was perceived as being beseiged on all sides by groups for what was considered a personal matter by many. So once again, he was the underdog…that plays well with the public.
just my thoughts. I think that he was certainly better than average…but my parents would like him to convert to Catholocism so that he can be sainted. I think my dad still votes for him (write-in).
a little story: got a call from my dad a few years ago.
Me: hey dad, what’s up?
Dad: hey boy- guess what? you thought that moving to Arkansas would get you close to Mr. Clinton…but now he’s moving up to New York with me! Ha! click
newcrasher, who mentioned Bush? I was comparing Clinton to all other US presidents in my living memory. Nevertheless, apologies - I will be more specific about what I mean by “diplomatic capability”.
I do not believe the Good Friday agreement would have been possible without his personal and earnest intervention, even accounting for the sterling work of senator George Mitchell.
(Other examples of his personal diplomatic ability come to mind but this will do for now.)
Incidentally, I am no particular fan of Clinton but his press conferences and speeches were at least easy to watch without cringing.
The appeal of Clinton wasn’t in anything he did, really, just like I get the impression that, for a lot of conservatives, the appeal of Reagan wasn’t in anything he had done. The two men both had a certain charm…you would listen and say “This man cares about me and wants to help me”.
I never liked Clinton in political terms and saw him as a sell-out. But I have to admit often finding myself surprisingly charmed by his speaking style and affect. The man had charisma. There’s a lot to be said for someone who is that intelligent and that articulate while, at the same time that able to speak to people from every walk of life–and to win them over. He had a way of coming across as optimistic, confident and can-do without seeming simple-minded and arrogant.
there is no doubt that clinton was the best orator that we have had as a president since, i think jfk… there is a lot more to that than just the fact he could deliver a great press conference… he was able to speak to the american public in a way few presidents could… fdr, jfk, reagen, clinton, lincoln, all were great orators and able to make the american public believe in them simply with words… i think it goes beyond charisma, and almost to the realm of teacher/student relationships, in that some people automatically held respect for him just on his ability to connect.
he also had a great domestic policy… we all can remember what he did for welfare, and of course, there is nafta (even though some were GREATLY against this, i believe it did help to open up our economy and possibly had as much of an impact on the roaring 90’s as the tech sector did)
Stonebow had a great point with the martyr arguement… the right handled the impeachment so poorly that they managed to make everyone feel sorry for and connect with clinton on a new level… anyone who has ever felt that the world is against them (which is most of us at some point in life) was able to indentify with clinton’s plight against tyranny as they saw it.
Being a great manager involves understanding that there are times when the appropriate action is no action. Clinton, being the “manager” of our government (at least of the Executive branch) understood this. While I agree that Clinton had very little to do with the start of the strong economy, he had everything to do with maintaining it, and even prolonging it.
Could you imagine if GWB had that strong economy? He would’ve single-handedly destroyed it. He would’ve tried to push enormous tax cuts that would have crowded out the intense investment going on. Basically, GWB (or Reagan for that matter) would’ve acted when no action was required.
Same thing with Iraq. Saddam wasn’t a problem until Bush decided that he was. We’re finding out that Saddam was absolutely no threat to the US, or any other country for that matter. But Bush wanted to make his mark. In reality, no action was required.
10-20 years from now, someone will ask what Bush did. Well, he pushed through some very large tax cuts, and he won a war!
But the truth will come out and be printed in the history books: Bush’s tax cuts caused a rebounding economy to once again collapse, and his war was basically a personal vendetta and a business opportunity.
This thread is about Clinton’s appeal. There are plenty of other threads for debating the merits or pitfalls of Bush’s policies. I really, REALLY had hoped to keep this thread on topic.
Again, I am looking for your opinions on Clinton, backed up with facts. Your assertions about what Bush would have done under different circumstances, the necessity (or lack thereof) of this war, and your prognosis for 20 years down the road are not really relevant to what Clinton has done.
I appreciate those who have articulately described what Clinton means to them. I do think it weakens any argument when in order to describe the strengths of one person, you need to denigrate another. Lets hope moving forward in this thread we can avoid this.
I think Clinton was a bad president but a great politician. Probably one of the best this country has ever seen. He had an uncanny ability to connect with people and make people believe he was one of them. He appealed to good old boys and intellectuals. He signed welfare reform and yet is beloved by black America. He had charm and charisma, was very articulate and had huge ambition. He was totally shameless, impossible to embarass and a great liar. He was the best thing to happen to Republicans since Eishenhower, but the Democrats still love him
JJ, as someone who voted twice for Clinton, I must second newcrasher’s response to you – if Clinton had merit, he had it regardless of whether or not Bush does.
I would add something more – I think Clinton did a pretty good job of countering hate with, if not love, a little less hate. His much-vaunted ‘third way’ politics would have been impossible otherwise.
When Clinton took office, I (who voted for him) had a lot of hate for those I saw as irrationally critical of him.
But over the course of the next few years, I was noticed how Clinton himself tended to face those people and speak level-headedly.
I know the OP asked for facts, and I can’t offer too many – but I do recall when he spoke at Arlington in 1993, there was a large contingent of veterans who stood up and, in unison, turned their back to him.
He responded by saying, basically, I acknowledge your position – will you now listen to mine?
There were instances of petty, sniping politics (and I’m sure many more the public never heard).
But incidents like the above caused me to question my feelings, and ultimately, to try to hate less.
His acting skills. He just had a flowing style of speech and he could turn on the tears when needed. I think this is what made him popular. He was so skilled at acting that I feel it was hard to read him to judge whether or not he actually believed what he was saying, but he said it with conviction.
And oddly enough this was the thing that grated on me about his speaking style. He sounded so much like the Southern Baptist evangelists that I had a hard time believing as well.
Then you really don’t understand the appeal of peace and prosperity?
A number of people really have tried to reply with facts, such as those (sometimes simply stated, to be sure, but facts nonetheless). Are you going to dismiss the facts that don’t fit the conclusion you have already reached?
I am not dismissing ANYTHING. As I stated before, I appreciate the people who actually took the time to tell me what Clinton did that made them like him. You on the other hand, simply stated that I dont understand the appeal of peace and prosperity. I KNOW THE 90s WERE GREAT!! Tell me WHY Clintonwas responsible. I am not putting him down or anyone else down who supports him. In my OP I asked for specific examples of his behaviors/decision/policies/acts etc that made you like him.
Some people have followed along and responded to the OP with their opinions as well as facts showing a little of why they feel the way they do.
You have not. I realize a “number of people” have responded as requested in the OP. I do not understand why you have not. I simply requested you to tell me why Clinton was more responsible for peace and prosperity than he is for warm kittens and key lime pie. I KNOW he is the President, but I am asking for what he did AS THE PRESIDENT that warrants your support.
Clinton was articulate, presided over a time of prosperity, and didn’t make any major screwups - pretty much all I hope for in a President. He was personally responsible for his articulateness because he didn’t lip synch while someone else spoke for him. He was personally responsible for presiding over a time of prosperity because he was able to win the election.