how do you rate Bill Clinton's job performance as president?

[© tweed]

inspired by the other poll about GWB.  (in which I voted F, of course, much like every other sane)  making this one for comparitive purposes.

I'm personally stuck between D and F.  in relative terms, perhaps he should get an 'A' - but does being infinitely better by default than anything that preceded or succeeded him give him a free pass?  or should he be held accountable for being the greatest failure in the history of the progressive movement?

[WalterMitty]

domestic: b+
foreign affairs: d

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

B+

[Boris]

or should he be held accountable for being the greatest failure in the history of the progressive movement?

The progressive movement has had far worse failures, such as McGovern and Dukakis (the latter who actually stood a chance at winning) and their respective failures to inadequately respond to Republican attacks which branded the word "liberal" as a kiss of death. It allowed the DLC to take over the party, and since 1992, Democrats have nominated moderates for President and will undoubtedly nominate another one in 2008 (although, admittedly, they see her as the most liberal of the candidates, but whatever).

Also, I don't see how progressives could have thought of Clinton as a 'liberal' in 1992. He served as DLC chairman, was a proponent of the New Democratic Movement, and openly supported NAFTA and Welfare Reform. But, he had (and still has) the ability to connect with voters, which I suppose is more important than voting for a candidate that shares your views.

Overall,

Domestic: A (not really his doing though, he kinda got lucky)
Foreign: B- (failure to kill Bin Laden or weaken Al Qaeda was the big one, Camp David summit failure, but successful with Good Friday and Kosovo)

In relation to his respective predecessors and successors, A+ on both.

[© tweed]

I call Clinton a bigger failure than, say, Dukakis (who was viewed as a moderate for a good portion of the '88 campaign until being branded by Bush41 - but that's neither here nor there, so to speak) because Clinton had eight years to aid the progressive agenda, and after being bitchslapped in '94 he laid back and didn't pick fights.

of course, it can be argued that if he didn't sell out, he would have had just 8 years and not 4.  but that does justify his inaction?

Domestic: A (not really his doing though, he kinda got lucky)

[Boris]

I call Clinton a bigger failure than, say, Dukakis (who was viewed as a moderate for a good portion of the '88 campaign until being branded by Bush41 - but that's neither here nor there, so to speak) because Clinton had eight years to aid the progressive agenda, and after being bitchslapped in '94 he laid back and didn't pick fights.

But Clinton never campaigned as a liberal in 1992. He campaigned as a moderate, and as such, acted like one. Likewise, he also had a habit of moving to the political center to center-right after getting his ass kicked (see 1980 and 1994). Presumably, like all politicians, he cared more about his job rather than some, at the time, irrelevant progressives.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

"just 4 years and not 8." Anyway, what specifically would he have accomplished had he picked a dog-fight with the GOP congress over progressive issues? Nothing, and it would've been all overshadowed by the Monica Lewinsky Scandal anyway. Instead, he made the Republicans look like assholes and thus allowed the Dems to avoid the six year jinx.

[NDN]

I give him a 90, within the context of the times.

[Boris]

For DOMA? who the hell cares? It was a good idea politically at the time anyway, and it'll be overturned eventually.

[NDN]

For DOMA? who the hell cares? It was a good idea politically at the time anyway, and it'll be overturned eventually.

I care because it's blatantly unconstitutional due to the Full Faith and Credit Clause (as established by Loving v. Virginia). Sure it will probably be overturned in the future. But the President is bound by duty to uphold the highest law of the land, regardless of the political consequences.

With that said, Bill is still by far the best President of the past 40+ years.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

D-

And still the best president in the last 40 years.

[Joe Biden 2020]

I give him a C+ and give him the best Democratic president of the last 40 years (one of only two).  However, I give the best president of the last 40 years to Ronald Reagan, followed by Bill Clinton, then followed a little farther back by George W. Bush, mainly because there aren't any other viable options.  LBJ was more than 40 years ago for the bulk of his presidency.  Nixon was a crook.  Ford and Carter were just placeholders and a bridge between the Nixon era and the Reagan era, Bush 41 made the country yawn and was pretty much just a bridge between the Reagan era and the Clinton era and was just a place holder for Bill Clinton waiting in the wings.  I fear the 44th President will just be a placeholder for the next era which I believe will take office on January 20, 2013.

[© tweed]

For DOMA? who the hell cares? It was a good idea politically at the time anyway, and it'll be overturned eventually.

no, no, no.  look up the 1998 Amendments to Federal Student Financial Aid.  that isn't the exact title, but that will get you there on google.  other things that illustrate Clinton's hostility to blacks and the lower classes in general are welfare reform and three strikes sentencing.

which in turn, explains what he should have done - stand up to the neo-Fascist agenda pushed by the Republican congress(es).  "avoiding a six-year jinx" (and of course, Dems didn't hold a house of congress again under Clinton after 94) is only valuable if your party actually stands for something.  the Clinton era marked the final convergence of the two major political parties in the United States and the final nail in the coffin to American "democracy" - assuming it ever existed to begin with.

[© tweed]

and granted, he did whip out the veto pen alot, or at least, a good deal, but he still let things like the through I mentioned slip through.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

Compared to Reagan and Dubya Clinton was like FDR, Lincoln and Jesus rolled into one.

[Boris]

no, no, no.  look up the 1998 Amendments to Federal Student Financial Aid.  that isn't the exact title, but that will get you there on google.  other things that illustrate Clinton's hostility to blacks and the lower classes in general are welfare reform and three strikes sentencing.

yeah, I'll concur with you on this one. Those amendments were asinine. Clinton should've vetoed it, taken the hit, and responded in kind.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I think Clinton wanted to the Democratic Party to be associated with terms such as competence, sustained economic growth, lower crime, etc. rather than specific policies or a left-wing ideology. Of course, such an association is only possible if the Democrats happened to be the party in power.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This is nonsense; it was completely disproved by the 2000 Presidential election and the subsequent events until now (i.e. President Al Gore would have made different decisions than President George W. Bush). And political party platforms are largely based upon public opinion, not upon a consistent ideology; hence Democratic support for the Iraq War in 2003/2004 and opposition/pro-withdrawal since then (same thing occurred with Vietnam). Hence GOP opposition to Kosovo and support of a Somalian withdrawal but staunch support for Iraq. The Democrats didn't really have a reason to shift to the left from 1995-1999 because the public was quite content with their policies.

[Sensei]

A-. He's a big time FF, and the greatest president since FDR.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

A-. He's a big time FF, and the greatest president since FDR.

FDR wasn't THAT great but other than that your statement is correct.

[Ebowed]

Horrible president.  I voted D.  I could have given him an F if it weren't for all of the crappy alternatives.

Look, I know that he did a lot of horrible things in the face of political opposition (i.e. DOMA, welfare reform) that he probably personally did not support.  But then there's all this unprovoked shit that he did: he didn't even present the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child to the Senate for ratification, banned needle exchange in D.C., signed a global gag rule on family planning clinics that mention abortion (which Bush extended and expanded), signed an executive order making it more difficult for "illegals" to obtain medical care, expanded the federal death penalty to be eligible for up to sixty crimes (VP Gore was a strong lobbyist for this).  It's just insane.

[© tweed]

I think Clinton wanted to the Democratic Party to be associated with terms such as competence, sustained economic growth, lower crime, etc. rather than specific policies or a left-wing ideology. Of course, such an association is only possible if the Democrats happened to be the party in power.

I doubt that Clinton cares all too much about what the Democrats are associated with - rather, he liked and wanted power, and running to the right was probably his best if not lone chance of avoiding the fate the bedeviled the Democratic congress in 1994.

he signed the welfare reform bill after Dick Morris told him (paraphrase) "sign it, you win.  veto it, you lose."  I am 100% sure that Clinton did not believe in what he was doing - which is far worse in my book then being an actual fascist rather then just exploiting it as a powerplay.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I agree that President Gore would have been inarguably superior to Bush, at least on the foreign policy front.  (but flash forward to 2002 - a MAJORITY of Senate Dems vote to authorize force in Iraq!) domestically, however, I doubt you could slide a piece of paper between the two.  he would have followed a Clintonesque path had he won in 2000.  (though if Gore were to win in 2008 or 2012, I'm sure the case would be different.   Gore's liberation came after he lost, and as a candidate in 2000, he was hardly either leftist or inspiring.

it's also important to remember that the 2000 election occured during Clinton, not post-Clinton, as I was discussing.  and it's also extremely comical that you used the 2000 Election as a means of defending American Democracy.

[CPT MikeyMike]

Domestic: B+:  Balanced the budget, had a surplus.
Foreign Affairs: F: 9/11 enough said

[Lief 🗽]

Foreign Affairs: F: 9/11 enough said

We're grading Clinton, not Dubya.

[CPT MikeyMike]

Foreign Affairs: F: 9/11 enough said

We're grading Clinton, not Dubya.

No sh**t dumbass. He has 8 freaking years to prevent 9/11. He did jack squat.

[frihetsivrare]

I voted F.  He signed the North American Free Trade Agreement.  The adventures that the military got into abroad were all huge screw-ups.  The national debt went up a lot during his presidency, but not nearly as much as under the current president.  At least Congress did not have to raise the debt ceiling four or more times.  Like I wrote in another post on another thread, he is one of the five worst presidents of all time.  Really he does not even make it to an F.  He gets an even lower grade from me, if that's possible.  He was still slightly better than George W. Bush.

If Ross Perot had stayed in the race for the time he was out in 1992, Bill Clinton would have never been the President.  Perot would have been.  NAFTA likely would not have been signed by the U.S., the national debt probably would have gone down, among other things.

Domestic: B+:  Balanced the budget, had a surplus.

The federal budget went into surplus, but everything else went deeper into debt.  The federal budget surplus/deficit is meaningless when every other financial item is far in debt.  That being said, it is so bad now that the country is nearing bankruptcy.

[WalterMitty]

Foreign Affairs: F: 9/11 enough said

We're grading Clinton, not Dubya.

No sh**t dumbass. He has 8 freaking years to prevent 9/11. He did jack squat.

i think history will judge clinton very harshly on foreign affairs.

i think the bombing of the uss cole is the most pathetic example of clinton's foreign policy failures. i thought that was an act of war but clinton did do a damn thing.

putting a butcher back in power in haiti was pretty bad too.  his appeasement of north korea had pretty severe consequences also.

[Ebowed]

he signed the welfare reform bill after Dick Morris told him (paraphrase) "sign it, you win.  veto it, you lose."  I am 100% sure that Clinton did not believe in what he was doing - which is far worse in my book then being an actual fascist rather then just exploiting it as a powerplay.

Oh yeah.  In My Life he said he disagreed with several key provisions of the reform (specifically that it was too harsh on immigrants), but went on to defend other portions anyway!

Clinton just has so many disgusting legacies.  He did nothing to protect the environment in eight years in office until his last few days when he signed a bunch of orders which Bush overturned on his first day.  The amount of people in prison had actually doubled by the time Clinton left office, largely due to the fact that his War on Drugs was being used to lock up petty drug users and prosecute minorities for lighting up on crack.