Opinion of Bill Clinton

[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.

[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.

[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.