"Yeah, but Clinton got a..."

[RickJay]

@jayjay

Also, the armed forces, as a body, are officially politically neutral (well, were politically neutral). But because the military is a self-selecting cohort since the ending of the draft, and rural areas (which are generally more conservative) have contributed by far the largest percentage of volunteers, the individual members have skewed right-wing. This has recently begun to change, but it’s still nowhere near parity.

How did the Army react to racial integration? D’ya think those Southern infantry boys were really all that partial to “niggers” in 1950? I’m guessing not.

Clinton caved, while granting that the actions of Colin Powell, America’s most respected poltroon, were utterly deplortable and torpedoed any chance of a quiet success. Nevertheless, the principled stance would have been to impose the policy with the message that if you don’t like it, hand in your uniform and get the fuck out.

I was in the Canadian Forces in the early 90s when the same policy was changed. When I joined in 1989, the Forces did not allow homosexuals to serve and hatred of homosexuals was quite open and officially accepted. The Canadian armed forces was every bit as stridently, nastily homophobic as the U.S. armed services is today, or was in 1993. When the order came down in (I believe) 1992 to complete abandon this position, it was unequivocal; This is the new rule, and if you don’t like it we invite to you find work in the civilian sector. Here’s the new rule and there’s the door. End of story. There was muttering and grumbling for a few months and that was it. No mutiny. It’s really quite amazing how fast people’s attitudes will change - or at least be suppressed - when you apply the “this is the new reality and we’re not fucking around here” approach.

[ManiacMan]

@Clothahump

There was no balanced budget, only accounting tricks. And the economy was inherited from Reagan/Bush. More Clintonistas need to remember that.

Amen to that…

Besides…all presidents always take way much more credit and/or heat when it comes to how the economy is doing. Clinton is a lucky guy for being in the White House during the dot-com explosion.

[Boozahol_Squid_P.I]

@Sevastopol

You know, I just don’t think that’s true. Amongst the punditry it all seemed a big deal, but the way I remember it is as a time of peace and prosperity with some background noise coming out of DC.

And I think most people do too. Wasn’t it the case that popular support for Clinton remained fairly even and not much touched by the whole BJ story? From the little interest I took in it at the time, it looked like he was cornered into weaseling about his sex life. Over time that still seems true. I don’t care about a president’s consensual sex life and consider him entitled to lie and evade if asked about it. No trickery turns his sex life into a legitimate public concern.

While I’m amazed to say it now (at the time, I was rabidly anti-Clinton), I look back at that time in much the same way you do. Howevermuch Clinton’s popularity wasn’t affected by him getting a hummer, it does seem to be the single thing that I would associate the man with. His peace-plan in the Middle East didn’t really work out, a lot of the reforms that took place during his Administration seem to get credited (rightly or wrongly) to the Republican congress that took overshortly after he came into power.
What would you say would be a greater aspect of his actual (not deserved) legacy is?