What was so bad about Clinton?

Age Quod Agis wrote,

Suits me fine. If the OP had been “What are some criticism of the policies and actions taken by the Clinton administration” I probably wouldn’t have weighed in on either side. I recognize that there are plenty of good reasons to criticize Clinton and his administration; I would have made those criticisms myself in the (extremely) unlikely event that no one else did.

But the OP was about the extent of the emotion. Why was it so extreme? And this is where criticism of Clinton starts to get really telling. First he was accused of doing nothing when Iraq “expelled” the weapons inspectors in 1998; after the facts were brought to light he was accused of doing nothing effective when Iraq was insufficiently cooperative with said weapons inspectors. He has been held responsible for Ruby Ridge and the assault weapons import ban (before his administration) and WTC '2001 (after his administration). It adds up to irrational hatred - that’s why I have particpated in the thread.

Oh well, I am starting to repeat myself. I don’t think I’m doing much good here and I’m starting to get sleepy.

Uh, if you guys would bother to look at an economic growth chart, you’d notice that the eras under democratic presidency in the past 40 years have been strong, while the republican presidents have driven the economy into a brutal recession every time. Reagan- stopped inflation, yes, but started a long recession in the process. George Bush - continuation of Reagan. George W Bush - I think that’s pretty self explanatory. Clinton made the system work better than it ever worked before, and that’s what matters to me. Caring about morals so much is the number one sign of a pussy.

You can say that all you want, byt it won’t change the fact that the big scandal, the mother of all the scandals, the one that lead the Repugs to IMPEACH Clinton was … a BLOWJOB!
BLOWJOB! BLOWJOB! BLOWJOB!

The Repugs actually tried to de-elect a president over a … wait for it …

BLOWJOB!!!

I gotta say, I lost all respect for the Repugs and their supporters because of this. 'Cause you know what?

BLOWJOBS

just aren’t that important in comparison with running the country.

But as has been noted before, Repugs will now use any piece of sleaze they can dredge up to accomplish their political aims. Look for the next Dem to be demonized just as Clinton was.

I think a big part of the reason so many of us hate the Clintons is that we saw them for what they were a long time ago, and their numerous apologists refuse to admit to their shortcomings. Another thing is that we get the feeling that for them, the Presidency was all about THEM. Most all who seek that office do so out of at least a semblance of love of country and sense of duty, and truly believe that they can help to make the country a better place. All we have learned about the Clintons is that it was all about them.

We are frustrated that, despite all the proof that he is one of the worst human beings ever to hold office, your side continues to hold him up as a god. We see him on tv spouting obvious lies secure in the knowledge that a fawning media will never call him on it. We know now that had 60 minutes been objective in that ‘92 interview after the Super Bowl, rather than cut the inteviews to make Gennifer Flowers look like flake ( I admit it, they fooled me too) he would never have been President. How about that accidental footage on ABC during the campaign that showed Bill with his hand wedged between the stewardess’ thighs? If that was a Republican, do you think they would have canned it never to be seen again (a still pic is out there on the internet, easily findable).

Another example of his behavior is his fake tears at Ron Brown’s funeral. I mean, come on, his Commerce Sec. dies in a plane crash, and he walks out laughing and joking?

I could go on and on, but there really isn’t any reason to. Those that pull the blinders tight will continue to support him and her, no matter what they do. Just like your side does with Ted Kennedy and others who commit outrageous acts but still are never held accountable by their constituents.

He and Hillary get away with everything. Does anyone REALLY believe she made that cattle futures money legally? How about those 70 odd “I don’t recall” answers to 70 questions about her Whitewater billing records that ended up being in her possession all along? How about pardoning the FALN terrorists so Hillary could get the Puerto Rican vote? I admit that all politicians are free and easy with the rules, and use power for their gain. But the Clintons were so OVER THE TOP, IN YOUR FACE about it.

Please, show these economic growth charts. Please explain how Clinton made the system work better. Please explain how Clinton gets the credit for an economy that was already turning around when he came into office and began it’s downturn before he left office.

Sorry, but there’s no evidence that presidents have more of an effect on the economy than Congress, outside economic factors (internet bubble, foreign downturns, etc), and the Federal Reserve.

People hate Clinton for a number of reasons. Some of these reasons may be legitimate; some seem irrational to me; others may be simply differences in the natures of people who hold values opposite of Clinton:
’Black and White’ vs. 'Shades of gray’

As discussed above, Clinton epitomizes the tendency to see the world in shades of gray, vice black and white. As such, is it really surprising that people who don’t like him are of the opposite tendency, and thus refuse to acknowledge anything good about him? (E.g., when Rush Limbaugh was on Letterman, he asserted that there was nothing at all that impressed him about Clinton. A few minutes later, he lambasted Hilary as a poor example for feminists, since, rather than achieve success on her own, she had simple “latched on to a guy who was going places”. At which point, Letterman inquired, “How did she know he was going places if there was nothing impressive about him?”) :smiley:
Military Culture and Mindset

Many of Clinton’s most rabid haters either served in the military, or come from a culture that highly values it. Is it really surprising that military-oriented individuals would be more aggressive and less conciliatory in their opposition? Soldiers don’t win wars by compromising. And while the right-wing media certainly made hay with this, Clinton is not without blame – remember his letter to his ROTC commander, in which he said he “loath(ed) the military”? Phil Gramm and Dick Cheney took deferments during Vietnam, but they never said they loathed the military.
Adult rebellion (bear with me – this one is very half-baked)

Much was made of the fact that Clinton was our first baby-boomer President. Equally important is the fact that he was a baby boomer who went through a baby-boomer adolescence – he rejected ‘establishment’ values, protesting segregation and the war in Vietnam.

Like many Clinton supporters, I went through a similar phase – although segregation and Vietnam were moot issues by the time I was old enough to hold much of an original opinion (I was born in 1959), I went through a knee-jerk criticism of every authority figure in the world, followed by moderation after growing up and learning a little about the world. I might even assert that this is a normal phase of adolescence. Contrast this with someone like Dan Quayle, who was born around the same time as Clinton, but never really rebelled against the system.

Fast forward to 1993. Many life-long Republicans – people who had never really ‘questioned authority’ – now found someone they disagreed with in authority. But these people weren’t teenagers – they were grownups with families and mortgages. Is it really surprising that their views were much more entrenched than mine had been when I was in their shoes?

I speculate that this is one more reason why Clinton doesn’t have many moderate detractors – he has moderate supporters, who rate him slightly above average – I am one. But damn near everyone who doesn’t like him really doesn’t like him.

If you disagree with any of this, please do so in the most blistering, hyperbolic language you can – it will underscore my point.:smiley:

I would like to thank Texican for so perfectly demonstrating the phenomenon the OP was intending to address.

Is december away for the weekend or something?

Texican, are you really applying the same standards to people you like? Let’s look, shall we?

Just repeating that you hate them, not * why*.
.

Just curious: How old are you? Do you really remember a Presidency before 1992? Do you give Dubya or his dad credit for being in that “most”, and if so, on what basis?

More of the same

“Our side”? I take it you’re a uniter, not a divider?

See the numerous Iraq threads for another example of same.

And more adultery stuff. Read the many previous posts for other examples that, curiously, do not seem to draw your indignation.

In fact, given the current “The king can do no wrong” environment, I think so. See also the numerous other posts pointing out other adulterers who have not had the same treatment.

Puh-leeze. You have no clue.

You got that right, anyway.

No, we simply insist on facts and consistency. It’s called honesty and fairness.

As much as I believe GW Bush’s wealth came from brilliant management of oil companies, since you ask. Does that upset you too? If not, why not?

Well, Texican, George H. W. Bush’s pardoning of both a Cuban terrorist and a convicted heroin dealer meets my standard of ‘in your face’. YMMV.

http://www.nyobserver.com/pages/story.asp?ID=3886

I’m 37. And yes, I do hold everyone to those standards. I may be wrong, but when I see GWB, I truly believe that he is honestly doing what he thinks is best for the country. I didn’t think much of Carter, for example, (post term, of course, I was but in middle school at the time) but I believe his heart was in the right place. I did not vote for Bush I. I believed that we had had a Republican President for too long, and the Pat Buchanan wing of the party scared me. I am a believer in individual liberties regardless of the issue.

And it isn’t just the sex stuff about Bubba. It is doing things like launching missle strikes to divert attention from his own foibles. It is taking a poll to see what will paint him in the best light rather than take decisive action ( I LOVED that quote by GWB back after 9/11 where he said “when I respond, I won’t send a million dollar missle at a ten dollar tent and hit a camel in the butt…”) For Clinton, it seemed what he did was make it LOOK like he was doing something, but never take any stand on something that mattered. His presidency seemed to be solely for the purpose of a love fest for himself.

It is also the blatant contempt that those two have shown for ordinary people, all the while getting away with playing a role that portrays them as the greatest hope for our salvation.

Jeff, I’d like you to meet Texican. Tex, meet Jeff.

You’re going to have to expound upon that with some actual facts if you want to be taken seriously, pal. Your insistence that you hold everyone to the same standards is also not consistent with facts, despite those having been shown to you throughout this thread.

I do like the apparently-honest assertions, from more than one poster, that Clinton’s attempts to kill Osama and take out Al-Qaeda were self-serving politics, while Bush’s failure to date in that area is a sign of great leadership. You’re really serious, aren’t you guys?

This is just . . . well, stupid. I don’t know anyone who views the president as the ultimate role model. Kids and teenagers don’t get cues from the president on what is acceptable, they get those cues from their parents, their teachers, their friends, TV, pop singers, sports figures . . . the president is way, way down that list. And who over the age of twenty one views the president as the paragon of human achievement, or someone to be emulated?

And what, exactly, is a “moral compass”, anyway?

Attempts!??? Don’t even pretend to be serious. Clinton did the very least necessary to APPEAR to be doing something, but never enough to actuall do anything. That way he could appeal to both sides, and thereby increase his love quotient. That is what his presidency was all about, how much love he felt from the people. consider that when the mainstream went against him, he would fall back on ole reliable, the black population. He would go and revel in their idolotry whenever mainstream America went against him. It is true, and you all know its true.

Did you like the welfare reform bill? Clinton was one of the centrist Presidents we’ve had in years.

I think that it’s clear that the reason Republicans didn’t like Clinton is the same reason so many Dems don’t like Bush: They think he’s and idiot, and can’t understand why people just don’t see it.

IT’S IRRATIONAL! It’s nothing but a gut feeling. There’s nothing wrong with disliking a public figure for no apparent reason. There’s an entire thread in IMHO of stars people don’t like. It’s the same thing.

What Texican said in all his woderous posts!!!

I was not a conservative republican until Clinton got elected.
Was does that say?
I think it says I simply did not admire the Man. Even with 90% of the media on his side I could see through him. He disgusted me on many levels. Very two faced and sneaky was Clinton. I think he was a great politician but a poor leader. He did what many liberals do,- say and do whatever it takes to get elected and to get their agenda through. Because in the end he thought that his beliefs and his policies were the end. And in his mind the means justified the end.
Even his supporters could not explain the twisted logic and bent truths. I really believe that he thought that what he was doing was so righteous that he could rationalize any means to get to the end.

I think you got an extra “w” in there somehow. :wink:

Texican, I’m confused as to why you brought up Clinton’s historically high popularity among blacks. Are you saying that any politician who plays to their base is ‘trying to increase his love quotient’? Do you whine like that when Bush goes to an NRA rally in Texas? Like all politicians, Clinton’s job depended on winning sufficient public approval to stay in office and effect his policies. While I’m sure you would have preferred for him to have fought these battles with one hand behind his back, you don’t make the rules.

Also, see many posts above, which point out that due to ‘wag the dog’ accusations, Clinton was facing strong (albeit not unanimous) Republican opposition to taking ANY action in Kosovo, etc. Imagine if he’d proposed establishing a new department of Homeland Security in 1998.

Your blind hatred of Clinton appears to be causing you to remember only the things that support your views: ever heard of David Keene? He’s the head of the American Conservative Union, America’s oldest conservative lobbying organization. Keene wrote a column in (if memory serves) June of 2001 in which he predictably slammed Clinton’s feckless foreign policy. Among Clinton’s purported bumblings: he had spent way too much effort in the silly pursuit of a relatively harmless nut named … Osama bin Ladin.

That’s right. Three months before 9/11 (and six months out of office), Clinton was being criticized by the right for having tried TOO HARD to capture bin Ladin.

And no, I can’t give you a cite. Why not? This column is no longer archived on the ACU website. (Gee, I wonder why that is?)

There’s nothing wrong with criticizing our leaders. I do it all the time – I even did when Clinton was our leader. (FTR, I advocated his resigning when the credible info on the Lewinsky scandal came out). But there is nothing Clinton could have done, from the day he took office, that would have pleased a certain sector of the public.

They would gain credibility if they would just admit this. In fact, it’s possible that if there hadn’t been so much crying ‘wolf’ the minute he took office, the public might have eventually decided that Clinton deserved to leave office.

Think about that: right-wing hyperventilating over Clinton may have actually helped him hang on. :smiley: