And what exactly, would those be? Seems to me that he sat on his ass much of the time, as far as civil rights was concerned.
Well,
Here are my thoughts. I believe that Clinton will be viewed as a President who had lofty ideals but dropped those ideals when polls showed that he was losing ground. I think, but do not know, that Clinton will be known as the first President that based his platform on poll results and not on any particular political belief. I say that because I cannot remember one issue where Clinton held his ground against the polling numbers. If I am wrong please let me know.
I also think that Clinton will be known for making the stupidest political mistake in history. That mistake, of coarse, is lying about Monica. I believe that if Clinton had said “I had an improper relationship with her” that he would have defused the issue. The pubbies would have played that up but most people didn’t care about the sex. The ones who had a problem cared about the lies. The pubbies wouldn’t have gained any ground outside of their base if Clinton admitted it.
As far as the ecnonomy goes, Bill Gates, Steve Jobs and Andy Grove(SP?) will get more credit for the 90’s boom than Clinton.
Clinton will probably earn a 5, maybe 6 but nothing more. Clinton didn’t really change anything and his best moments are pretty tame.
Slee
On he other hand, you can certainly associate Clinton directly with the Kosovo war, the intervention in Bosnia, and various military attacks on Iraq. I, too, find it puzzling that Clinton’s Presidency is regarded as a peaceful one; it was as warlike as any President’s.
That said, Clinton will be largely forgotten, along the lines of Eisenhower (as a President,) Ford, Coolidge, et al. Clinton did nothing of the importance needed for a big entry in a history text.
E.g.,
– the Civil Rights Act of 1957 http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/1957_civil_rights_act.htm
– Sending federal troops to Little Rock, Arkansas to enforce school integration http://www.ghg.net/hollaway/civil/civil31.htm
I have no problem with that assessment, to the extent that we blame George Bush I for the 1993 attack on the WTC.
Airman Doors, the military engagements you listed (among the terror attacks that arguably weren’t military in character at all) were significant, but hardly on the level of major wars. You could go through the Eisenhower administration and find just as many or more. For America in the fully-internationalist, postwar era, it counts as relative peace - and the largest engagements, Kosove and Bosnia, will count as successes in extending peace.
Sam, you supported what I said about greatness, despite your odd choice of words that seem indicate your reflex to dispute anything I say. Whatever, dude.
sleestak, the first President to care about polls, or popular support however transient? The first?
Neurotik, I suggested that the standards of judgment themselves were inappropriate and may change in the future. Asking about Coolidge, since you mentioned him, was an attempt to explore that. What do you think?
Ah, I see. I agree that the standards are inappropriate. Wartime presidents often get higher rankings just because of what went on during their presidency. It’s kind of unfair to the peacetime presidents, for obvious reasons. But I don’t know how fair they can be.
I dunno much about Coolidge. He was pretty non-descript personality wise and pretty much just ran a hands-off domestic policy. This led in part to the Great Depression. FDR put in reforms that have seemed to work well, although certainly not perfectly.
Of course, this is slightly unfair to Coolidge since there wasn’t exactly a clamoring for tough stock markets regs. He was something of a product of his times. Also, prior to FDR the president just didn’t hold the lofty position that he does today. Congress was still the primary legislative body and the president didn’t dominate the agenda as much as he does today.
So while Clinton presided over a fairly similar time of peace and prosperity with large stock market gains and then a subsequent crash with no major military conflicts going on at the time that the US was involved in, it’s not entirely analogous because more is expected of the presidency these days. But how much more could Clinton have done? I dunno, I don’t think much.
So I don’t know what any of this means. What would Coolidge have done during the Great Depression, or WW II, or WW I, or the Civil War, or Vietnam or whatever? How about Clinton in those circumstances? I really don’t know. So is Coolidge’s or Clinton’s place in history fair? Probably not, but given lack of circumstances it’s the best we can do.
Of course, in the end, it’s just a silly list. 
No, I am not blaming Clinton for 9/11. But, my point is that the said peace and prosperity cannot be viewed in isolation (and I did give a poor loaded example). A president’s term clearly has longer-term influences and if Al-Qaeda were growing in strength during his administration as evinced by the series of attacks overseas, it was only a matter of time before “domestic peace” was threatened. So, it is myopic in more than one way to claim that he kept the peace.
I think that Clinton will be rated as the worst officeholder in the history of the USA through 2000. He brought more shame and dishonor to the office than any three other presidents that I can think of, combined.
Selling our secrets to the Chinese, getting blowjobs while discussing issues of national security on the phone and committing perjury are not things that make for a great Presidency.
December,
It doesn’t help you when in the link provided it says that Isenhower didn’t understand parts of the bill.:rolleyes: :rolleyes:
Also, what did the Bill actually accomplish besides being the first civil rights legislation in 82 years and the bill itself little more then a mere gesture, if that?
Ike still seems to have done little except sit on his ass when it came to Civil rights.
Sigh…
It was only a matter of time.
:rolleyes:
I think the thing that made Republicans the maddest about Clinton was that he didn’t turn out to be that bad of a president. The predictions that were made prior to his first election never happened. Clinton was the consummate politician and nothing more. He didn’t do anything either bad or good to be remembered by. History will treat him as someone who could please the most people at the time.
If the public perception of the difference between the two main US political parties becomes an association of the Democratic Party with fiscal responsibility plus their conventionally liberal stances on civil rights and personal freedoms, Clinton will loom large in history as being the President who redefined the Democratic Party.
I think it is too early to tell, especially since we have yet to see whether subsequent Democratic administrations will be as fiscally conservative as Clinton’s – meanwhile, the Republicans have not done anything meaingful to reclaim their former mantle as the party of fiscal responsibility, and (regardless of why and regardless of assigning fault) we do once again have a Republican administration coinciding with an economy on the rocks.
It seems to me that Clinton’s chief accomplishment was the economic prosperity that happened on his watch, however, I don’t know how much credit he’s entitled to take for this. For most of his presidency Clinton dealt with a GOP Congress that limited Clinton’s initiatives; Clinton used the effective tactic of co-opting the GOP Congress’ positions and making them his own. Triangulation, I think Dick Morris called it. That’s shrewd politics and Clinton will certainly be remembered as a master politician, but I don’t think that that alone makes someone a great president.
I’m no economist, but the stock market bubble and the Enron/Arthur Andersen and similar fiasco’s were building during the Clinton administration and came to a head shortly after W took over. Is it Bush’s fault, or Clinton’s fault, or Congress’ fault, that the SEC was such a lapdog that it let such things happen? How do we parcel out the blame or the credit? Beats me. I know Gore is now claiming that everything good that happened in the 90’s was due to the Clinton-Gore Administration, but I don’t quite believe him.
If I had to guess how Bill will be remembered, I’ll say that he was spectactularly average. I’ll give him a 5 out of 10.
Who was President Clinton? What was she like? Who knows?
Clinton will not be remembered, either as good or bad; perhaps at best as unimportant.
Presidents are not remembered for what they did but rather the leadership and quality of appointments of their administration. At that level, Clinton was a miserable failure.
At the political level, he came from nowhere, brought nothing, left nothing behind, but was able to raise substantial funds which assisted the political campaigns of many Democrats. He will be well remembered as a skilled political hustler, and not much more.
It amazes me how any discussion of Clinton’s merit always seems to converge towards Ronald Reagan.
Both were skilled politicians, which POed their opponents no end. (Clinton’s detractors say he was ‘nothing but a hustler’; Reagan’s call him ‘an actor’ – you tell me what the difference is).
Both were born to humble circumstances, and rose up on pretty much nothing but ability and work. (Compare that with both candidates in the last presidential election).
Both were very lucky beneficiaries of relatively good times.
Both had HUGE gaps in their abilities and/or habits.
I’m still proud to have voted for both.
Well, I think that Clinton was the first President who based his policy on polls. I admit that other Presidents modified their policy based on polls but Clinton is the first to base his policies solely on polls. Clinton had some big ideas but he never backed those ideas up. For example: Clinton wanted to create a National Health Care System. The polls were against Clinton so he bailed on the idea. He never brought the idea up again. If Clinton really believed in the idea he would push it.
There is a difference between watching polls and accepting polls as the way to run the country.
Clinton lost his mandate when he let the polls define his agenda.
Slee
Liar, sexual predator, rapist, thief, bribe taker, party boy, opportunist, and above all, LUCKY.
Clinton will be remembered as we do Andrew Johnson, and that is for being impeached. He will also be remembered as a competent president with a fundamental character flaw, just as Nixon is remembered. Were it not for the Lewinsky affair, he would have been remembered as the last president to run a budget surplus. The eight years of his presidency will be remembered as one of the longest runs of peace and prosperity. I would give him a solid 6 out of 10.
Clinton will be remembered as the target and victim of a rabidly partisan Republican Party.
It will be a cautionary tale, much like that of the McCarthy era.