As a liberal, Clinton was something of a disappointment. He was too pro-business, etc. Basically went center to right of center on most issues.
Which is why the GOP right absolutely hates him. You not supposed to be a Dem and right of center. If this became general knowledge, that would kill the main GOP strategy since 1964.
This is also why they really, really, really, hate Hillary. She’s even more towards the right than Bill. She was one of the biggest Iraq war hawks in the Senate. The GOP is scared to death of her running for president since she would get all the liberal and most of the center to just right of center vote.
So all you see in the “liberal media” are repeated declarations that they are liberals, never mind the facts.
With the one exception of infidelity, there really isn’t anything to mark him at all. And as for that issue, at least he didn’t keep his mistress on the US payroll for over a decade. He is about in the middle as far as fidelity and US presidents are concerned. Dubya was hardly an angel in this area, but he has the advantage of not being forced to testify on it.
“Rescue his reputation”? where did that come from???
What ftg said. Clinton was a moderately decent President who just happened to have been broadsided by the rising tide of the right-wing smear machine. He certainly wasn’t half as liberal or half as sinister as his detractors painted him to be, and anyone who believes he was needs to step away from the radio.
The best he can hope for is for history to show that he was, eventually, the victim of a coordinated attack by the Right – who I believe are overdue to have their own sinister machinations revealed.
I think that Clinton will be largely forgotten…in 20 years most people will only remember Monica Lewinsky. If Clinto ends his days as a senior consort to President Hillary, he may well be rehabilitated. Other than that, he will join mediocrities like Jimmy Carter, Gerald Ford, and Eisenhower and be largely forgotten.
Nobody I know has any idea what the Clinton memorial library in Little Rock will contain…Clinton seems to have no interest at all in his home state, so I expect that the only frequent visitor to the place will be the cleaning lady.
I can see it now,a graduate American History student writes a book about Clinton (in the year 2034)…and finds out that Bill is still alive!
If you can’t get blown in the oval office, what the hell’s the point of being President?
Administratively speaking, Clinton was probably the most successful POTUS since FDR. He will be remembered for an unprecedented economic boom, for his personal charisma, for his ability to connect with people and for what most people now understand was a purely political impeachment for an absurdly trivial offense. The more time goes by, the more the Republicans will become figures of ridicule for the blow job impeachment.
Nobody really cared about the blow job. Even Clinton haters didn’t care about the blow job. The blow job was just an excuse to GET CLINTON, by any possible means. Intelligent people understand that and the perspective of time will make it even more clear.
I understand that Clinton will address his sexual addiction in his book which may help to humanize him a little. Of course those who have been brainwashed to hate him will not read the book or care how he explains himself anyway.
The success of Clinton’s administration speaks for itself, thiugh and he will be vindicated by history.
DTC: You’re wrong, a lot of us did care about the blow job. Not the actual fact of it but the lying about it. I voted for the guy, but was totaly disgusted by the lies. The POTUS should not come out on national tv and lie staight faced to us (and if it turns out that gwb did the same I will revile him as well and more so because the issues are so much more improtant). The main issue is trust. If the POTUS lies about something as trivial as a blow job between two adults and tries to parse the definition of what “is” is, he is treating the american public as idiots below his concern.
I don’t care about the sex life of the pres as long as it doesn’t effect national security. I waited and waited for Clinton come out and say “Yeah, so what?” What’s the worst that could happen? Hillary wouldn’t boink him for a couple of days? He’d make the front page of the National Enquirer? He wasn’t up for re-election. What was the big deal to saying “Yeah, and your mother wears army boots?”
I certainly didn’t care about a blow job in the Oval Office. I care that he lied under oath to save his own ass.
I am not too sure what Clinton’s legacy will be or what it should be. On the one hand his presidency was one of the best times in Americas recent history. The economy boomed, international relations were mostly good and there were no major blunders. The problem with this is that you can’t point to anything specific that Clinton did to cause or foster these conditions.
On the other hand it can be said that Clinton did not combat terrorism effectively and his presidency presided over multiple terrorist attacks. Our response was limited to a few cruise missles. Who knows if we had invaded and destroyed Al Qaeda’s base we might not have had 9/11? I don’t think that he will be remembered for this. For the most part responsibility for 9/11 has been swept under the rug and is largely being overshadowed by the Iraq war. He also did lie under oath and was impeached for that. That part of the scandal won’t be remembered if you ask your average American why Clinton was impeached they will answer becuase he got a BJ not becuase he lied under oath.
I think Clinton will end up being remembered as an average to good president that happened to be president during a good time in American History.
I think that in the future (probably well into the future, as in decades from now), the most remarkable thing about the Clinton presidency will be the campaign against it. Clinton’s opposition was organized, well-funded, unscrupulous, and determined to the point of obsession, and their efforts were sufficient to turn some minor issues that didn’t even involve affairs of state into an impeachment, even as Clinton enjoyed popular support and high approval ratings.
Whether this results in Clinton looking far better than he really deserves remains to be seen.
O.K. What the fuck is that all about. I made a simple statement that Clinton could have done more to combat terrorism and you guys bring up Reagen. What the flippidy fuck does what Reagen did have to do with whether Clinton was a good president or not. Why the hell don’t you drop your Republicans bad Democrats good bullshit for one fucking thread and just respond to the damn posts?
Democrats suck, too. I think everyone is a moron on equal levels.
You need some “standard” to measure against when you start alking about one position. Obviously, Clinton could have done more against terrorism. However, he certainly did a better job than Reagan did.
Much the same way the Pubbies yelp about “but Saddam was worse” when talking about our atrocities.
Of course, for you to say that requires you to ignore the realpolitik of the situation. The Soviet Union was in Afghanistan, and it was US policy to resist any Soviet expansion into other spheres of influence. We backed Saddam Hussein because he was making war with Iraq, and given the hostage situation and the whole “Death To America” stuff that was going on there, it was determined that “the enemy of my enemy is my friend”.
Sometimes you deal with scummy people, even in something as simple as your day-to-day job. That doesn’t mean that you have to like them, and that doesn’t mean that when you’re finished with them you won’t eventually have to oppose them, it’s just the necessity of the moment. Exhibit A: Joseph Stalin and Chairman Mao, World War II.
I’m amazed that you people go out of your way to ignore the realities of the situation simply to try to score points. That it turned out badly later doesn’t mean that it wasn’t in our interests 20 years ago.
