Opinion of Bill Clinton

[TDAS04]

FF, but less of one than his wife.

[Marnetmar]

Better blowjobs than no jobs.

[SWE]

An embarrassment

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Killed a mentally disabled man for the sake of votes. Also his 'Grand strategy' was basically throwing the poor under a bus (thereby capitulating to the GOP) for the sake of some catchy slogans.

It was a very 90's government, Clinton's. That is not a compliment.

[traininthedistance]

Thing is, the first two years of the Clinton presidency actually got a lot of good legislation through.  Then he ended up in a rear-guard position against the (inevitable, frankly) cresting of the conservative wave.

And, for all that his personal life was less than exemplary, I find it hard to stomach Gingrich and the GOP's hyperbolic politicizing of such.

Eh.  There's a lot not to like about Bill, but the hatred is overblown.  Neutral/abstain.

[Oakvale]

I'd actually say HP, and probably slightly more of one than his wife, although it's difficult to separate the Clintons since they're effectively a single political unit. Both are irredeemable sociopaths who surround themselves with shameless criminals.

I think plenty of the policies that came out of the Clinton era were good things, but giving Clinton credit for any of that is a bit silly when you realise that his White House was a dysfunctional, scandal-plagued mess - he was one of the most incompetent Presidents in living memory - and that it's actually the Republican Congress, its own embarrassments aside, that pushed for the vast majority of the successful Clinton reforms, with a reeling Clinton bowing his head and garnering plaudits that were massively disproportional to his actual contribution. The same is true in foreign policy, where he again reluctantly gave in on Kosovo, similarly receiving praise for work that was almost entirely someone else's, in that case the real hero of the situation, Tony Blair (!).

Similarly, while the repositioning of the Democratic Party from the stagnant Humphrey/Mondale intellectual bankruptcy or the sadly unelectable New Left[1] was necessary and laudable, Clinton again receives credit that should rightfully go to Gary Hart and Michael Dukakis (really). Clinton's feeble attempts at repositioning involved hiring Dick Morris, executing a retarded guy, and signing Republican legislation because his government had no ideas of it own.

It is baffling to me how easily history is rewritten. A decade and a half ago Clinton was a diminished, disgraced figure with a shoddy record and an embarrassment to his party. His approval ratings were artificially boosted by more good fortune - the booming economy which he again had nothing to do with - but he was deeply toxic and would certainly have lost re-election in a sweeping landslide had he been eligible to run. His beleaguered Vice-President achieved the remarkable feat of winning a national popular vote and, rightfully, a stolen election, but people nowadays see Clinton as latter day Lincoln who bestrode the world like a colossus, and heap derision on Gore for refusing to campaign with him. His poll numbers today far outstrip the incumbent President despite the latter being so much more successful legislatively, politically and fundamentally better at the job that comparison is almost worthless.

[1] Yes I used a footnote because my English in this post is already parenthetical enough. I'd split the 'New Left' in the context of Democratic presidential politics through the 1980s and into the 90s into two groups - the reformists and those more commonly associated with the term New Left proper.

[Mr. Illini]

FF-ish.

Definitely not on his end of the party by any means.

[Oakvale]

Oakvale, the reason why he is so overrated today is quite simple: George W. Bush. Nothing else.

That's undoubtedly true to some extent but the deification of Clinton among Democrats is perilously close to Reagan's among Republicans (and Reagan was, whatever you think of his politics, obviously a far better President in the narrow sense than Clinton), and I imagine when he dies Democrats will be referring to him as one of the greatest of all time, which is odd for those of us who realise his Presidency was in isolation about as significant or successful as John Major's time in office.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

I think that once both the Obama and Clinton administrations are fading memories, Obama will take the rightful place in the public eye as the superior administration. It's just stupid 90's nostalgia.

Of course there is a chance that the various 'rumours' floating around his personal life come out and he falls from grace, a la Rolf Harris.

[Oakvale]

I think that once both the Obama and Clinton administrations are fading memories, Obama will take the rightful place in the public eye as the superior administration. It's just stupid 90's nostalgia.

Of course there is a chance that the various 'rumours' floating around his personal life come out and he falls from grace, a la Rolf Harris.

He is friends with Prince Andrew's delightful paedo buddy, although to be fair that may be just a case of rich people knowing each other.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Welfare Reform alone compels me to vote HP.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

^^

[Beet]

It'll never happen oakvale, because while Reagan was revered on the conservative Right, Clinton remains a practical dirty word on the progressive left.

I don't see how you can credit Hart or Dukakis for anything. The newfound Hart obsession these days is bizarre - Matt Bai writes a crappy article about him, he comes out of the woodwork to join the O'Malley campaign, and now he somehow helped the Democratic party?

It's especially strange why progressive Democrats who oppose Clinton for the DLC and moving the party to the economic center would like Hart, since Hart was basically the proto-Clinton. He was John the Baptist to Clinton's messiah. A young, unfaithful red state guy taking about new ideas and economic centrism and modernizing the party. The only thing he doesn't have that Clinton has is the Arkansas hick thing. Well, that and the unusual wife. But the main difference is that he lost.

Dukakis was like the Neil Kinnock of the Democrats. He tried to give himself a New Democrat makeover, but his coalition was still the old Democrat coalition. I mean, he won West Virginia while losing Maryland, for crying out loud. It's hard to believe that was only 26 years ago.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Actually, Clinton was struggling in the polls until Perot dropped out - then he suddenly surged to near landslide levels. Most of Perot's spring voters clearly preferred Clinton as a second choice.

[Mr. Smith]

FF for stopping Reagan Part IV

Anyway, Billy's just a Dwight Eisenhower in the middle of the Reaganomics Era...once the Tea Party and Libertarian wings feud meets the inevitable and allows an actual Liberal back into office.... it'll be the right-wing deifying Clinton.

And Democrats by that point will rightly quietly try to downplay him, the same way the GOP don't talk about Eisenhower much at all.

[Beet]

I mean, a fair way to measure how a president expanded a party's coalition is if he carried a state that went for the other party in the previous election, and stayed with his party until the present day. For example, George W. Bush definitely brought Arkansas into the Republican coalition. In 1996, it voted Democratic, but Bush flipped it, and it's remained GOP ever since.

By that standard, for the Democrats, we have-

Johnson 1964 - DC (3 present-day electoral votes) total: 3
Carter 1976 - MN (10) total: 10
Dukakis 1988 - MA (11), RI (4), NY (29), WI (10), WA (12), OR (7), HI (4) total: 77
Clinton 1992 - ME (4), VT (3), CT (7), NJ (14), PA (20), DE (3), MD (10), MI (16), IL (20), CA (55) total: 152
Obama 2008 - VA (13), FL (29), OH (20), IA (7), CO (9), NM (5), NV (6), NH (4) total: 92

The Clinton transformation clearly is what this country competitive for two parties again.

[Mr. Smith]

I mean, a fair way to measure how a president expanded a party's coalition is if he carried a state that went for the other party in the previous election, and stayed with his party until the present day. For example, George W. Bush definitely brought Arkansas into the Republican coalition. In 1996, it voted Democratic, but Bush flipped it, and it's remained GOP ever since.

By that standard, for the Democrats, we have-

Johnson 1964 - DC (3 present-day electoral votes) total: 3
Carter 1976 - MN (10) total: 10
Dukakis 1988 - MA (11), RI (4), NY (29), WI (10), WA (12), OR (7), HI (4) total: 77
Clinton 1992 - ME (4), VT (3), CT (7), NJ (14), PA (20), DE (3), MD (10), MI (16), IL (20), CA (55) total: 152
Obama 2008 - VA (13), FL (29), OH (20), IA (7), CO (9), NM (5), NV (6), NH (4) total: 92

The Clinton transformation clearly is what this country competitive for two parties again.

Minnesota was already solidly Democratic having only yielding to GOP for Eisenhower. A case for Truman or Kennedy? Maybe

But to claim Carter brought Minnesota in is just laughable,...Carter won an artificial victory with the last of old coalitions.

[Frozen Sky Ever Why]

I don't see how you can credit Hart or Dukakis for anything. The newfound Hart obsession these days is bizarre - Matt Bai writes a crappy article about him, he comes out of the woodwork to join the O'Malley campaign, and now he somehow helped the Democratic party?

It's especially strange why progressive Democrats who oppose Clinton for the DLC and moving the party to the economic center would like Hart, since Hart was basically the proto-Clinton. He was John the Baptist to Clinton's messiah. A young, unfaithful red state guy taking about new ideas and economic centrism and modernizing the party. The only thing he doesn't have that Clinton has is the Arkansas hick thing. Well, that and the unusual wife. But the main difference is that he lost.

Who talked about Hart?

Dukakis was like the Neil Kinnock of the Democrats. He tried to give himself a New Democrat makeover, but his coalition was still the old Democrat coalition. I mean, he won West Virginia while losing Maryland, for crying out loud. It's hard to believe that was only 26 years ago.

So what? Is the Old Democrat a bad Democrat? Clinton embodied the DLC, Mondale and Dukakis didn't. That's why they lost. I'll be honest with you: I would have voted for Carter and Mondale over Reagan because both of them were more honest than Reagan who acted his way into the White House just like Clinton did.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Actually, Clinton was struggling in the polls until Perot dropped out - then he suddenly surged to near landslide levels. Most of Perot's spring voters clearly preferred Clinton as a second choice.

Nah, it is hard for me to believe that Clinton could have won Georgia, Montana, Colorado and New Hampshire without Perot. And coming close in FL, WY, KS, AZ without Perot? I doubt it.

Dukakis received 45% in CO and 46% in MT. It's not unrealistic that Clinton would have won them in a two way race with Bush in 92 and then lost them to Dole in 96.

[Beet]

I mean, a fair way to measure how a president expanded a party's coalition is if he carried a state that went for the other party in the previous election, and stayed with his party until the present day. For example, George W. Bush definitely brought Arkansas into the Republican coalition. In 1996, it voted Democratic, but Bush flipped it, and it's remained GOP ever since.

By that standard, for the Democrats, we have-

Johnson 1964 - DC (3 present-day electoral votes) total: 3
Carter 1976 - MN (10) total: 10
Dukakis 1988 - MA (11), RI (4), NY (29), WI (10), WA (12), OR (7), HI (4) total: 77
Clinton 1992 - ME (4), VT (3), CT (7), NJ (14), PA (20), DE (3), MD (10), MI (16), IL (20), CA (55) total: 152
Obama 2008 - VA (13), FL (29), OH (20), IA (7), CO (9), NM (5), NV (6), NH (4) total: 92

The Clinton transformation clearly is what this country competitive for two parties again.

Minnesota was already solidly Democratic having only yielding to GOP for Eisenhower. A case for Truman or Kennedy? Maybe

But to claim Carter brought Minnesota in is just laughable,...Carter won an artificial victory with the last of old coalitions.

He brought in Minnesota by picking Mondale as is running mate.

[Sumner 1868]

HP (D). No need to go over the list of reasons.

Although, the idea that Obama is "better" is nonsense. They were roughly the same politically, with Obama being even worse on foreign policy.

In 1992, the media ignored all the allegations of Clinton's criminal past in Arkansas (rape, murder, drug trafficking, ...) because he was "teh good Southern moderate honey boy".

I think the fact George Sr. had similar accusations was the real reason for the silence.

[Mr. Smith]

HP (D). No need to go over the list of reasons.

Although, the idea that Obama is "better" is nonsense. They were roughly the same politically, with Obama being even worse on foreign policy.

In 1992, the media ignored all the allegations of Clinton's criminal past in Arkansas (rape, murder, drug trafficking, ...) because he was "teh good Southern moderate honey boy".

I think the fact George Sr. had similar accusations was the real reason for the silence.

Yeah, that's right, two sides of the same coin.

It works out that way quite often.

[TNF]

Democrats, you're aware he actually bought airtime on Christian radio networks in 1996 to talk about how proud he was of signing DOMA, right?

Anyways, obvious HP. Responsible in part for the liquidation of the industrial base of the country via NAFTA, mass militarization of the police, turning INS into a virtual secret police force, upping the ante in the war on drugs with absurd sentences, kicking millions of people off of welfare, signing the Brady Bill, and his role in dismembering Yugoslavia and ignoring al Qaeda.

I'd have voted to impeach and remove him from office.

[OSR stands with Israel]

FF

[RINO Tom]

An effective leader ... might not be a stretch to say he's a mild sociopath, in all honesty.

HP as a person, FF as a leader, mixed bag as far as his views are concerned.

[bedstuy]

He was a good President.  He didn't have a huge impact policy-wise, but that's mostly a biproduct of the moment.  The 1990s was sandwiched in a happy period between the Cold War and the War on Terror.  It's hard to enact change when the status quo seems to be working. 

As far as his womanizing goes, I don't care about his personal life.  The President isn't your friend, you don't need to love them personally.  I'd rather have a great leader with some personal demons than a nice guy like Jimmy Carter.  Clinton should have stonewalled the Whitewater investigation and never allowed an independent council to go on a fishing expedition.