What was so bad about Clinton?

Great Debates
61

Sure, Clinton wasn’t perfect. I disagreed with several of his polcies, including his “signing of anti-gun laws”. But let’s get real- the public supposedly wanted these laws, and Congress passed them- and note the Dems did not have control over Congress. Sure, I still think his decision to sign the stupid bills was wrong- but so?

Then there is the “pro-China” part. Sure, we sold out to China… but so has every Administration since Nixon. Unless you can tell me that somehow I missed the GOP- in control of both Congress & the White House has pulled “most favoured nation” status & I somehow missed it. The Red Chinese know how to spread the loot around- and both parties are guilty as hell of being on the “bribery” (OK, “soft campaign contributions”) bandwagon.

Yeah- he got his dick sucked by a woman not his wife. As pointed out- so did Ike. I don’t see Ike being hung out to dry on this. It seems many Presidents have done the same.

So- why do so many hate Clinton so much? Well- because he actually had a successful administration. Maybe he did luck out on that economy thing- but WOW!!, what a coinicidence! The economy started going up when he first won (yeah, true, there were indications it was already on the way up in the last portion of Bush Sr.), and it started really tanking when he lost the election. I don’t know if his policies really made the economy so great- but I do know one thing- if the economy had been bad- it would have been 100% blamed on him.

Next- because he- depsite all attempts to throw mud at him- remained hugely popular. Drove the GOP nuts. I got a clue for you guys- most of America didn’t really care that he was getting his knob gobbled in the Oval Office. Either we thought “yeah, we’d be getting blow jobs, too”, or we thought: “I don’t care if he’s shagging sheep on the Whitehouse lawn- my portfolio is doing GREAT!”. Starr & his ilk still can’t figure out that altho we wanted the juicy details, we still wouldn’t hate Bill no matter what evidence of sexual misconduct he came up with. What’s worse- after years & years & millions of $$ spent- if all Starr could come up with was a semen stained dress- most of us thought (correctly) : “witch hunt”. The whole thing just made Clinton look good & Starr look bad.

But the real reason? The new idea of the GOP to polarize politics & demonize the opposition. Sure, the Dems sling some mud too, but this new idea of extreme hatred of the Democratic canditate (who ever it is) is hurting American unity. I predict the same thing will happen to whoever the Dems nominate for the next election- blowjobs or no. The GOP will demonize the guy, no matter who he is. There won’t be any of this “my honorable opponent” stuff- they will drum up the same extreme hatred of the guy. Just you see.

62

I can’t tell you how many scrawny democrats George Will shoved into a locker…

My take?
Clinton didn’t pass the old Nixon “Would you buy a used car from this man?” test, and I’m a democrat and voted for him the first time. Over the course of his presidency I stopped believing what he said was true- sure, I knew “I didn’t inhale” was a lie. But the lies started adding up. Travelgate. Susan McDougal going to jail rather than testify before a jury about his doings. Jesse Jackson “counseling” him. “I did not have sexual relations with that woman.” And the icing on the cake was the stuff he did on the way out the door- like making changes that he didn’t have to implement (as laudable as more stringent environmental standards are, he should’ve done that a while back and made sure they were put into place, not this “let the next guy worry about that” crap), pardoning major campaign donors, and (the one that caused me to lose what little respect I had left for him) pardoning sleazebag Mel Reynolds.

63

I loved the way that Vietnam military records and youthful drug use became an irrelvant issue to the GOP when Dubya went up against Vietnam vet Al Gore (who admitted to smoking pot, though Dubya remained loudly quiet on the issue of substances).

64

Personally, I find the sort of “moral clarity” (i.e., dividing the world up into good v. evil, us v. them, etc.) prized by El Jeffe to be both repugnant and dangerous. I don’t believe it is ever a good thing to shut down one’s understanding or quest for knowledge in the interest of “feeling good” about one’s self.

In politics, allows leaders without real vision to define themselves negatively, by reference to the enemy, the “bad guy.” Genuine leaders define themselves in positive terms.

It is therefore no surprise that as a mode of thinking, or of perceiving the world, “moral clarity” is the defining characteristic of the fanatic, always has been, always will be, regardless of ideology. In fact, there is really no more pure example of “moral clarity” than Osama bin Laden, which suggests that those who hold this sort of rhetoric in high esteem should try a more self-critical approach.

65

Wait a minute, Sampiro, are you sure Cleveland didn’t support that kid? The way I heard it, nobody really knew who the kid’s was (the mother was a little ahead of the curve in terms of sexual liberation), but Grover acknowledged it could have been him, so he opened his wallet.

Too bad the conversation has gotten away from Iraq. I was kind of enjoying that. What kind of a guy likes talking about U.N. inspections more than adulterous sex? I really am a pussifying liberal! What kind of response from Clinton would have been appropriate to Butler’s December 1998 contention that Hussein was not allowing the inspections to move forward? I don’t mean to shout but I’m afraid this point is going to be lost in a river of sex.

Oh well. Maybe I should just accept that I made my point and move on. :expressionless:

66

Great thread, lots of good points.

I would add:

The media didn’t used to report a lot of presidential peccadilloes that it now does, and Clinton was the first President to get the full barrage of ‘warts-and-all’ media treatment. (Although I think they were certainly licking their chops over Quayle).

Ironically, Clinton served as an icebreaker of sorts: before him, I doubt we ever would have elected a guy with a very public drinking problem.

67

Well, not to sound like Bill Clinton, but it hinges on how you define the word “support”. He paid an orphan asylum $5 per week for the child’s support for a while (which would imply it wasn’t an Oliver Twist hellhole but a more middle class affair) and later arranged for the kid’s private adoption. He had the child’s mother committed to a different kind of asylum, though by all accounts she needed it (alcoholism, mental illness, depression, etc.).
Cleveland also had top secret surgery on board a private yacht because more than a century ago he believed the press’s delving into private affairs was becoming dangerous. Frances Folsom (whose cousin Amelia was the 23rd [by some counts, as high as 82nd by others] and favorite wife of Brigham Young, but that’s another story) was the first First Lady to remarry, incidentally.

68

I would like to amend my last post to read “the first President to get the full barrage of ‘warts-and-all’ media treatment while in office.”

69

And of course the moral model of the country would raise his children to be upstanding citizens who follow the laws of the state and the country.
Right? Or is that none of our business, like cocaine use?

70

The right wing is still pissed about Watergate. It will never get over the humiliation it was dealt, and this stewing hatred beared its head during the Clinton administration.

Expect the same thing to happen to the next Democratic president.

71

The right wing is still pissed about Watergate. It will never get over the humiliation it was dealt, and this stewing hatred bared its head during the Clinton administration.

Expect the same thing to happen to the next Democratic president.

72

OK, a couple of points that haven’t been brought up before…

I have never understood why this was such a big deal. So Hilary fires the White House Travel office staff and replaces them with hand-picked personnel. So?. They are there at the sufference of the President – if he wants to replace them with one-eyed Episcopalien kangaroos, that’s one of the perks of the job!

I take you’re referring to Marc Rich, who was charged with tax evasion (gad! cut off his head!) under the RICO statute (which was later declared “out of policy”), had already paid a huge fine and had taken a deal that the DOJ had initially offered. He had already moved to Switzerland when the federal judge decided he didn’t like the deal and wanted Rich back – to stand trial for a crime they don’t even arrest people for anymore and that he had already paid his fine in good faith. Gee, knowing that he’s walking around somewhere out there is keeping me up nights. :rolleyes:

OTOH, Poppy Bush pardoned all the Iran-contra goons (Weinberger, North, Poindexter [who now heads our Office of Information Awareness – oh, joy!]) probably because they could have sang like canaries on the stand and he’d been sweating the rest of life away in a Country Club prison. And “St. Ronnie the Drooling” would be his next-cell neighbor.

73

I’ll give my opinion, and beg forgiveness for touching on points already mentioned.

Let’s define the scope of this discussion. The question is not why some people were disappointed in some of WJC’s policies, or why the opposition party found reasons to BE an opposition party, or why a percentage of the population didn’t care for his manner-personality-looks-wife. These things go with the job.

The question is: why the EXTREME hatred of the man, far beyond anything I’ve seen in my lifetime or read about in the history of the presidency. (I would guess you would have to go back to the South’s attitude toward Lincoln during the course of the Civil War to find anything comparable.)

Reasons?

  1. As the one Demo presidential candidate who was thought to endanger the Republican stranglehold on the South (you may recall that this was supposed to be unbreakable), Bill threatened the GOP’s main prize from the post-Eisenhower era. Therefore–

  2. He was being villified and demonized by Republican/conservative operatives before he announced his candidacy (it was known for years that he planned to seek the office). The Whitewater “scandal” is an example, but basically any scrap of innuendo was dredged up, blown up, and thrown up by The Great Right-Wing Conspiracy. So the electoral audience was well-prepped to give a negative reading to what, in prior years, would be written off as the usual political smear job. Because of that–

  3. Bill took office already distrusted by many, and viewed as a person of bad character. So the reversals common to presidents who are too explicit in their campaign promises (“I will end discrimination against gays in the military with a single stroke of my pen”) became in Bill’s case a confirmation of both ineptitude and betrayal (no points to be awarded for whatever less-than-ideal progress was actually made, nor for turning public attention to the matter in the first place). This led to–

  4. A first-year feeding frenzy by the national media. I’m thinking not only of Time’s “Incredible Shrinking President,” but the heat generated by his withdrawal of a nominee for I-don’t-recall-what, which led to the notorious “promiscuity” essay by the husband of said nominee. Because the media had been trained to view WJC as “slick willie,” he was basically held to a “why don’t you fall on your sword like a real hero” standard–no credit for incremental progress in the face of, not only conservative and Republican opposition, but also–

  5. Backstabbing by liberals and Democrats. Clinton espoused a sensible (and winning) “third-way” approach which offended various locked-in Democratic pressure groups and their paid public spokespersons–people who aren’t doing their job unless they decry in public. As a gay man I was disappointed that we had to settle for Don’t-Ask-Don’t-Tell–but disgusted with fairweather First Friend David Mixner, who decided to affix his fat ass to the White House fence to protest–NOT the hysterical rightwing homophobes who made the political price for antidiscrimination an unbearable one–but the man who pushed the issue in the first place and won a half-a-loaf victory.

Clinton would now be remembered as the FDR of decent national health care if “his” party had given him the benefit of the doubt during those crucial first two years. They didn’t; they paid the price in '94.

All of which was only the enabling backdrop for the one, big, central reason-of-reasons, namely–

  1. The Sixties; more correctly, how America feels about it. Cinton was the guy many parents feared their daughters would date and their sons emulate. Or at least it was all too easy to use him as a symbol of the endless twilight struggle between–well, define it as you like. Liberation vs. Repression? Impulsive change vs. stagnant tradition? Urbanity vs. “thank God I’m a country boy”? One book calls it the clash of nurturing parent with stern father. Bill was the sensitive, bookish, non-macho guy who drove the jocks into a frenzy because HE GOT ALL THE GIRLS. He winked at superpatriotism and flag-waving, at ideological posturing, even at the centrality our culture gives to sex-sex-sex. It was that little wink, that shadow of a mocking half-smile, that charmed half the country and drove the other half mad. And still does.
74

A list to refute your list that was refuting my list:

Originally posted by light strand :

Clinton did not take effective action in Iraq and Afghanistan. Action alone does not count; It is not a binary decision. He choose to take the easy path. Launching a few Tomahawks does not a concerted effort make, nor did some airstrikes effectively enforce the cease-fire agreements in Iraq.

**

And we know he has no inclination to rearm because…?

It will be a moot point in a few weeks, but still, it would have been nice to see Clinton take care of the problem back when.

**

**

I care not how ‘popular’ they were; They restrict my ability to purchase firearms. Furthermore, these measure have lead to quite an increase in firearm (and accessories) prices, which disproportionately affect the poor who wish to have firearms.

Most of all, they were assinine measures. Truely political creations, thought up by those who nothing about firearms. It’s not like they banned handguns or ‘sport-ultiliy’ rifles; They just made certain ones illegal to import. They limited magazine capacity on new mags to 10-rds. Other such pointless measures.

I could see (though violently oppose) the point of banning handguns or assault rifles out-right. But what the hell was the point of making AK-variant A illegal to import, but AK-variant B legal? Same rifles, different nations of origin. Equally lethal. Utterly stupid legislation.

To be fair, I also send a virtual bitch-slap to Reagan and Bush Sr., who also signed gun-control measures.

Amoral? Hardly. That poor, abused word… Immoral is more like it.

**

‘Any’ action is not better then no action. Does health care, as a whole, need some work? Sure. Do we need the same gov’t that buys $10,000 toilet seats to dictate the nuances of it? Nope. The gov’t sucks at the vast majority of things it tries to do. Free-market beats gov’t sponsored monoploy every time.

**

The total amount of money doesn’t matter; It is how the money is distributed that matters. Training and maintenance budgets were raided to pay for Kosovo/Bosnia/etc, and never fully replenished. That is why the Bush administration asked for an emergency budget increase to the DoD, specifically to pay for maintenance which was not done in the 90’s.
’
I am all for as small a military as we need. But the money needs to be spent wisely. This was not done under the Clinton regime.
It seems that a popular tactic for the Friends of Bill is to defend his actions/inactions by comparing them with those of previous presidents. So, if Reagan did something wrong or stupid, it justifies Clinton’s wrongness and stupidity? Hardly. Two wrongs not making a right and all that.

If you want to defend Clinton, do so on his merits, not because Taft did the same thing, and OMG I can’t believe the Republicans aren’t tearing into him too!!!

75

Are the reading comprehension skills of Clinton supporters really that poor, or do y’all just like to deliberately misinterpret what I say because it’s easier than actually trying to argue my real points? At any rate…

I never said that polarizing every single thing in the world is good. I said that, when the need calls for it, calling something evil when it is blatantly and inarguably evil is a good thing.

For example, can we all agree that rape is a bad thing? That forcing a woman to have sex with you against her will is just plain wrong? If a woman says, “A man held me down, put a knife to my throat, and forcibly had sex with me”, can’t we just say, “Hey, that man is evil and vile and disgusting”? Or do we honestly need to explore his childhood and consider all mitigating factors before we conclude that he might not be the nicest of persons?

This is where it seems we differ. I can say, unequivocally, this man is slime. He is bad. He is evil. And I would question the morality of anyone who can’t say that. Similarly, the USSR was ruled by an evil government, that did evil things to innocent people. Calling it evil is not a bad thing, it is an honest thing. And standing up for all the world to see, and loudly proclaiming “the Communist regime in the USSR is evil” is not simplistic, or short-sighted, or naive, it is simply honest. And further, I will not respond to anyone arguing against this point unless they can proclaim that the evil of communist Russia was debateable. Because if you can’t do that, then you can in no way decry Reagan’s alleged naivete for stating what needed to be said.

So, to spell it out YET AGAIN, using small words:

Most things in the world: Shades of gray.
Some small subset of things in the world: Black and white.
People who are willing to admit that: Good.

Capice?
Jeff

76

Brutus, think you might be misinterpreting his point here. Wasn’t a big part of the arguments for Clinton “wagging the dog” at the time the necessity of his actions, as opposed to the effectiveness of them? I seem to remember, besides the criticisms of timing, that what he didn’t wasn’t at all needed, not that what he did didn’t get the job done.

I’ve done some Googling, but I can’t seem to find anything that really answers my question either way. Does anyone have a different memory or perception?

77

Then shouldn’t you be willing and able to recognize that some people can dislike Clinton for reasons other than his success/good looks/libido? Shouldn’t you respect other people’s opinions on the morality of Clinton’s legacy, or on the worth of his politics? Or do you dislike “moral clarity” only in people that disagree with your clear view of the world.

People dislike Clinton for a number of reasons, including his political views, his successes, his failures, and his penchant for attracting scandal. But I think most Clinton-haters say they hate Clinton because of the scandals. And please stop saying that the scandals were all about sex/blow jobs. They weren’t. Any reasonable person should be able to distinguish between sex and lying under oath, lying to the American people, Travelgate, Whitewater, the 11th Hour pardons and executive orders, the campaign contributions fiascos, etc. If you can’t, I suggest you go watch some late night Cinemax or something.

The big deal was that it wasn’t just one of the perks of the job. Federal law says that some jobs are not political spoils to be awarded to the winner of an election. The positions in the travel office were not commonly considered political spoils. The employees had been there for numerous Presidencies, both Republican and Democratic. Some people think Clinton coming in and appointing buddies to serve in the travel office was less like Clinton appointing his own cabinet, and more like Clinton firing everyone to give his buddies jobs in the D.C. post office.

Thank goodness the Democrats don’t do that, huh? Thank goodness we can count on the good ol’ Dems to stick to the facts, and not make personal or irrational or hyperbolic attacks on guys like Dubya (“he’s stupid and/or a puppet for Big Oil ™”), Clarence Thomas (“he’s stupid, too”), John Ashcroft (“he’s racist and/or trying to foist his religious beliefs on America”), Dick Cheney (“evil and/or puppet for Big Oil ™”), Karl Rove (“ditto”), etc.

For every Republican Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh, there’s a Democratic Al Sharpton and Cynthia McKinney and Molly Ivens and James Carville. For every Democrat accused of being “soft on crime” or “a tax and spend liberal,” there’s a Republican accused of “hating the poor” and “wanting to get rid of welfare and social security.” It’s certainly nothing new. Both sides do it, and both sides should stop.

78

Leaper:

That’s my recollection, as well. I think the “wagging the dog” claims were unfounded, personally. I think Clinton’s a tool, but even I have my doubts that he would kill people just to get people off his back about a hummer.

Jeff

79

A list to refute your list that was refuting my list etc…

*Originally posted by Brutus *

What would have pleased you? Since congress didn’t support the the missile attacks, do you honestly believe they would have been supportive of a ground force without further provocation?

One can’t prove a negative. You show me where he has, and I’ll drink a big-ol’ cup of shutthehellup.

I’m reassured by your concern for the poor, but we’re just going to have to agree to disagree on this one. Personally, I think it’s a good idea to keep guns out of the hands of felons and the violently mentally ill YMMV.

Amoral=no morals, Immoral = not up moral standards. You said in you previous post “He has the morals of a…OK. He has no morals.” That means you believe he is amoral. Feel free to look it up.

Yup I honestly believe this in the case of health care. I want it addressed dammit! I’m tired of the ignore-it-and-maybe-it-will-go-away. I’m pissed at Clinton for not pursuing this issue.

Do you bother reading the cites I so generously provide for you? From the previous cite:

Humor me. Give me a cite, instead of rhetoric.

I’m not defending Clinton, I’m pointing out your hypocrisy.

Leaper try here: http://www.naplesnews.com/special/attack/111attae.htm

80

Brutus wrote,

I don’t know what legislation you’re talking about here. The assault weapons provisions of the 1994 Crime Bill? Country of origin simply doesn’t come into play. Weapons made in the U.S. were affected by that law in exactly the same way that imports are. The import ban isn’t a law, and it isn’t Clinton’s doing. It was an executive decision of George Bush senior (1989, I think) which you might be alluding to below (but if you are, then what are you alluding to above? … I’m confused).

I guess this is fair, in a sense (although again the idea of distinguishing between imports and domestic manufacture - the idea you seem to hate the most - is excusively a Bush senior thing), but it kind of misses the point. The OP’s question, if I may paraphrase, was, Given that all Presidents are fallible and do stuff people don’t like, why is the rage/hatred/contempt of Bill Clinton so peculiarly intense? You could argue, I suppose, that it isn’t particularly intense; I would disagree and I have argued as such.

My three least favorite gun control measures are the 1994 Crime Bill (Clinton administration), the 1989 assault weapons ban (Bush senior administration), and the 1986 Gun Owners’Protection Act (Reagan administration). Thus it’s hard for me to see why so many gun-owners have a peculiarly intense hatred of Clinton. Maybe they dig the latter two measures or maybe the “violently oppose” them (I’d prefer it if they would vehemently oppose them).

I don’t know. I don’t think this can properly called “indignation”, “criticism”, or “partisan competition”. I can’t quantify it but I sense vastly greater anger over Clinton - rage mixed with disorientation and occasionally approaching hysteria - than any other U.S. politician I’ve seen. He’s not Idi Amin for crying out loud. Some people’s emotional reactions to Clinton are so severe that they seem to have suffered memory loss.