What was so bad about Bill Clinton again?

Holman · Post by **Holman** » Sat Oct 30, 2004 4:09 pm

I recall the Clinton-hating of the 1990s now with bemusement. It seems likely that history will judge him as one of the better US presidents based on his policies, diplomacy, and the charm with which he represented the US to the world. And yet I can't forget Limbaugh et al. speaking of him as the Devil incarnate. It makes me want to ask the Right, "What were you all so mad about, anyway?"

Was it his (defeated) health-care plan? Was it his attempt to make homosexuals welcome in the military? Was it his "triangulation" style of (centrist) politics? Was it all the affairs? Or was it just that he was a liberal by ideology?

The sheer rage of the Bush-haters today (and I am one of them) probably matches the hatred of the Clinton-haters in their heyday, but I don't think it exceeds it. But it seems to me that people hate Bush for what he is actually doing and says he plans to do, while Clinton never actually did any of the things the Right feared he would.

Thoughts?

CSL · Post by **CSL** » Sat Oct 30, 2004 5:00 pm

I think his worst failing was his lack of force. I mean using cruise missiles on AQ training camps after they blew up two African embassies? That and pulling out of Somalia

Asharak · Post by **Asharak** » Sat Oct 30, 2004 5:19 pm

I never had much of a problem with him, to be honest. But then again, I was young, and am liberal, so maybe that explains it more than my appreciation of his policies.

But I will conceed it would have been nice if he could have kept it in his pants for a couple more years.

- Ash

triggercut · Post by **triggercut** » Sat Oct 30, 2004 5:22 pm

Interesting topic.

While in St. Louis for the WS this past week, I was with my good friends Tim & Beth. They're old school ECONOMIST-style conservatives (actually, Tim *is* a professional economist, putting his finance degree to use for a large, successful law firm). Culture wars? They flip the bird at Laura Ingraham and her ilk. They're fiscal conservatives from way back, true believers from what appears to be the dying Jack Kemp wing of the party. Tim's ability to argue conservative economic theory has done more to pull me to the center than I can even realize. Perhaps no one on the planet has had a bigger effect on my political views over the past 8 years.

During the 2000 Primary Season, Tim was staunchly a McCain guy, and viewed the future President with disdain. Still, he and his wife held their noses and voted Bush and hoped for the best.

Now? Both are voting Kerry. Not without trepidation, mind. Talking with them last week, Tim mentioned going to a Kerry rally in St. Louis a few weeks ago, and within 90 seconds of his speech, Kerry was talking about health care and Tim said he nearly walked out right then. He mentioned that 75% of what the President says, he agrees with completely and utterly....and then W starts in on Iraq and on social issues, and that's it for them.

Anyway, both voted for Bush 41 and Dole in their contests against Clinton. They mentioned the same sentiment as Paul: "Geez. Never in a million years would I have thought I'd ever be nostalgic for Bill Clinton....but right now I just want to hug the guy and kiss his feet for what he did."

WAW · Post by **WAW** » Sat Oct 30, 2004 5:37 pm

He wasted half his presidency for a BJ. Still they were very happy times.

warning · Post by **warning** » Sat Oct 30, 2004 7:44 pm

He along with Ted Kennedy are both Big-Headed Democrats. I mean have you seen the size of his noggin? Crikey!

Dirt · Post by **Dirt** » Sat Oct 30, 2004 7:50 pm

WAW wrote:He wasted half his presidency for a BJ. Still they were very happy times.

Entire Dynasties have fallen over a woman.

RunningMn9 · Post by **RunningMn9** » Sat Oct 30, 2004 8:18 pm

Paul Roberts wrote:It seems likely that history will judge him as one of the better US presidents based on his policies, diplomacy, and the charm with which he represented the US to the world.

What?

History will remember Clinton as a do-nothing President that got impeached for perjury and obstruction of justice.

The kinds of things that Clinton did accomplish are the kinds of things that some people like at the time. But in the long run, they are forgettable.

Think of the contrast with Reagan. At the time, the minutae of his Presidency seemed so important. In the end, history will remember "Morning in America" and "Mr. Gorbachev, tear. down. that. wall."

Over time, even Iran-Contra will fade out of the picture.

Mr. Clinton has the distinction of being impeached. That tends to stick with you.

WAW · Post by **WAW** » Sat Oct 30, 2004 8:19 pm

Dirt wrote:
WAW wrote:He wasted half his presidency for a BJ. Still they were very happy times.
Entire Dynasties have fallen over a woman.

Not portly jewish girls.

YellowKing · Post by **YellowKing** » Sat Oct 30, 2004 11:13 pm

Let's see:

- Limp-wristed foreign policy. Some of Clinton's policies, I believe, led directly to the problems we're having today. From his dealings with North Korea to his inability to deal with Iraq to his failure to get Bin Laden when he had the chance to his mismanagement of our intelligence services. Some may laugh and say Bush has done the same thing, but Clinton laid the groundwork.

- Lying son of a bitch. Clinton looked me straight in the eye, pointed his finger at the camera, and said "I did not have sexual relations with that woman." I don't care WHAT he was lying about. He bald-faced lied to the American people. Then he lies under OATH, and the whole time he's playing word games like a used car salesman - "It depends on what your definition of what the word "is" is." Are you freaking KIDDING me?

I know some people will say "Bush is a liar, why aren't you mad at him?" I'm not even going to get into that here. Suffice it to say, I don't believe Bush is a liar and I've explained why umpteen-million times.

- Cheating son of a bitch. I have some personal problems with adulterers. I'm sorry, I just do. Adultery has been at the root of every major family upheaval in my life.

I don't argue that Clinton wasn't a charismatic, intelligent guy. He was a terrific speaker, he had terrific charm. And I never had any major issues with his domestic policy other than typical Republican vs. Democrat disagreements. But ultimately I couldn't stand the guy's character. At the end of the day, he is BEST known for being a womanizer and being almost impeached. Umm....way to go, what a national hero.

Tareeq · Post by **Tareeq** » Sat Oct 30, 2004 11:23 pm

triggercut wrote:"Geez. Never in a million years would I have thought I'd ever be nostalgic for Bill Clinton....but right now I just want to hug the guy and kiss his feet for what he did."

"Apres moi, le deluge."

Jaymann · Post by **Jaymann** » Sun Oct 31, 2004 2:32 am

Dirt wrote:
WAW wrote:He wasted half his presidency for a BJ. Still they were very happy times.
Entire Dynasties have fallen over a woman.

Speaking of Dynasties, I think part of the Clinton hatred stems from him coming out of nowhere to disrupt the Bush/Gingrich/Limbaugh right-wing axis, and they were pissed that he pulled their snouts out of the feeding trough for eight years.

St. Mark · Post by **St. Mark** » Sun Oct 31, 2004 2:36 am

The sanctions against Iraq during his presidency killed an estimated 5000 Iraqis per month.

Spock's Brain · Post by **Spock's Brain** » Sun Oct 31, 2004 4:12 am

Let's say that Clinton had gone to war and eliminated (before they became apparent ot most of us) the Club Med for Islamic terrorists in Afghanistan -- and maybe even Saddam's growing, emerging, throbbing or whatever threat in Iraq. Would he be judged, at this time, as:

(a) An American hero?
(b) An adulterous, lying tool who was trying to divert attention from his misdeeds at home by wagging the dog overseas?

Answers on a postcard to:

It's B of course, and history is a bitch
21 Captain Obvious Blvd
Hacksville
USA

To be honest, I think we have a long ways to go before history seriously judges Clinton. Let's see how this whole "War on a Concept" idea turns out.

Oh, and yeah, in the short term he probably will be remembered
either for his moral failings, or for the Good Times™ (or both) during his presidency.

Crux · Post by **Crux** » Sun Oct 31, 2004 7:31 am

YellowKing wrote:Let's see:

- Limp-wristed foreign policy. Some of Clinton's policies, I believe, led directly to the problems we're having today. From his dealings with North Korea to his inability to deal with Iraq to his failure to get Bin Laden when he had the chance to his mismanagement of our intelligence services. Some may laugh and say Bush has done the same thing, but Clinton laid the groundwork.

1. North Korea never developed nuclear weapons on Clinton's watch. So what exactly did he do wrong there again? Yet you praise Bush, on whose watch N. Korea did develop nuclear weapons.

2. Last I checked Bin Laden still wasn't in U.S custody, so your boy Bush hasn't exactly done a lot better despite having had the support of the world and the approval of congress to invade other countries in order to nab him.

But hey don't let minor facts like these interrupt your partisan ranting

Because for all his successes, so long as we can call him 'limp-wristed' and point to our rugged and manly president of today then everything is alright.

RunningMn9 · Post by **RunningMn9** » Sun Oct 31, 2004 9:00 am

1. North Korea never developed nuclear weapons on Clinton's watch. So what exactly did he do wrong there again? Yet you praise Bush, on whose watch N. Korea did develop nuclear weapons.

First - we have no idea when NK developed it's first nuclear weapon - we simply know that they have some now.

Second - you don't develop nuclear weapons starting from scratch, in less than a year.

Therefore, clearly NK *did* develop nuclear weapons on Clinton's watch (we just don't know whether or not they COMPLETED development of a nuclear weapon before Jan 2001).

And, out of curiosity - where did NK get the fissile material for their weapons?

2. Last I checked Bin Laden still wasn't in U.S custody, so your boy Bush hasn't exactly done a lot better despite having had the support of the world and the approval of congress to invade other countries in order to nab him.

You immediately lose the argument.

Bush not capturing bin Laden is not a valid defense for Clinton not catching bin Laden.

RunningMn9 · Post by **RunningMn9** » Sun Oct 31, 2004 9:03 am

Oh, to answer the original question. I was ambivalent about Clinton until August of 1993, when he signed his tax hike into law. That's when I realized that he had no problem looking me in the eye and lying about policy issues (you'll recall that he specifically denied the charge that he was going to raise taxes in the second debate). He knew he was going to raise them (he had to to cover his campaign promises), and he looked me in the eye and lied (because he never would have gotten elected if he admitted he was going to raise taxes).

But, he was honest about one thing in that debate. He promised to change the character of the Office of the President. And he certainly accomplished that.

the Nightbreeze · Post by **the Nightbreeze** » Sun Oct 31, 2004 9:56 am

If you gentlemen expect to never be lied to by a polititian, past or present, you have long, rough lives ahead of you.

That's all.

JayG · Post by **JayG** » Sun Oct 31, 2004 11:18 am

For me personally the biggest failing of the Clinton Presidency was in handing over so many of it's military secrets to China. Especially now that China seems to be such good friends with a lot of America's enemies. And the Iraq sanctions was a good call as well.

RunningMn9 · Post by **RunningMn9** » Sun Oct 31, 2004 11:20 am

the Nightbreeze wrote:If you gentlemen expect to never be lied to by a polititian, past or present, you have long, rough lives ahead of you.

That's all.

I expect half-truths. I expect errors by omission. I expect statistical gymnastics. I don't take kindly to looking me in the eye and lying to me.

If you're cool with that, that's your business.

Crux · Post by **Crux** » Sun Oct 31, 2004 11:42 am

RunningMn9 wrote:

2. Last I checked Bin Laden still wasn't in U.S custody, so your boy Bush hasn't exactly done a lot better despite having had the support of the world and the approval of congress to invade other countries in order to nab him.
You immediately lose the argument.

Bush not capturing bin Laden is not a valid defense for Clinton not catching bin Laden.

You immediately miss the point. YK is being critical of Clinton for not doing something Bush has also not done. Except I never hear YK being critical of Bush for the very same thing.

is_dead · Post by **is_dead** » Sun Oct 31, 2004 11:54 am

Clinton was a great President. Period. If you think he didn't accomplish anything then you probably think that Saddam was involved in 9/11 and there's no hope for you.

Get a book. I suggest "the Misunderstood Presidency of Bill Clinton." It points out all the weaknesses and strengths and would provide any Clinton hater with a ton of actual ammunition against him instead of the usual Republican garbage.

It also shows how one of the smartest people accomplished more with less. How if he was asked this question he could, and he would, argue against himself better than Kenn Starr or Karl Rove or anyone.

Clinton used clever tactics. He also had strong policy. In his second term he had a Republican majority in Congress and the Senate, he was being attacked on all sides, yet he actually passed budgets and implemented programs that they hated. There was deficit reduction. Helath Care. Bosnia. Welfare reform. There was global warming, AIDS, terrorism. He knew all about all of them, balanced them into a coherent foreign and domestic policy.

And if you think the book is liberal garbage, I'll write out the last sentence for you, where you might expect some support: "He had hoped to do so much more [than he actually accomplished]- and now, in a final twist of fate, his public service may be defined by the smug, shallow, serenity of his time: He may be remembered as the President who served before history resumed, before life got serious again."

Poleaxe · Post by **Poleaxe** » Sun Oct 31, 2004 12:04 pm

aussie77 wrote:
RunningMn9 wrote:

2. Last I checked Bin Laden still wasn't in U.S custody, so your boy Bush hasn't exactly done a lot better despite having had the support of the world and the approval of congress to invade other countries in order to nab him.
You immediately lose the argument.

Bush not capturing bin Laden is not a valid defense for Clinton not catching bin Laden.
You immediately miss the point. YK is being critical of Clinton for not doing something Bush has also not done. Except I never hear YK being critical of Bush for the very same thing.

Clinton had a chance to take him out early on.

I find it interesting that the same people who deride Bush for being an unthinking clod with a cowboy foreign policy, do so in the context of pointing out what he has not done- i.e. NK and capturing OBL. Should we start a major conflict on the border of a superpower? Should we destabalize Pakistan and wait for the next border skirmish with India to become a local nuclear war? He is castigated for the lack of nuance in his foreign policy, but called incompetant when he exibits it.

Kraken · Post by **Kraken** » Sun Oct 31, 2004 12:54 pm

Paul Roberts wrote:It seems likely that history will judge him as one of the better US presidents based on his policies, diplomacy, and the charm with which he represented the US to the world.

Maybe it seems that way to you. I'd say it seems likely that history will judge him as one of the least effective US presidents, at least post-WW2. After healthcare reform went down in flames, he was unable to achieve any of his stated agenda. Name one major Clinton policy initiative that became law. You have do dig pretty hard, and it'll be fairly obscure.

I hated him for being poll-driven and doing whatever was politically expedient. I hated him for being oily, always skirting the very edge of the law, always just a wee bit too smart to get caught with his hand in the cookie jar. I hated him for raising my taxes. I hated the way he treated women, and the way women forgave him for it -- the man was a sexual predator at best, possibly even a rapist, yet the feminists loved him. After Zippergate, I hated him for looking me in the eye and lying to me with that fake sincerity. I hated his attempts to make himself out as a victim. I still hate that otherwise intelligent people credit him for an economic boom.

I could continue, but the list gets more visceral and personal as it goes on.

YellowKing wrote: Clinton looked me straight in the eye, pointed his finger at the camera, and said "I did not have sexual relations with that woman."

LOL. Yup, that's what pushed me over the edge from disgust to outright anger. I agree with the rest of your post, too.

Clinton's presidency was wasted. He had a historic opportunity to reform healthcare, and he botched it. If he hadn't turned it over to his imperious wife, he could have ridden that success to greatness. Instead he threw it all away and pooched the Democratic Party's electoral prospects for a generation. I really think he was much worse than Carter, the previous holder of the title Least Effective Postwar President. At least Carter could point to the Camp David accords and the Carter Doctrine in the Middle East (which, although nobody sees it, is the reason we are in Iraq today).

RunningMn9 · Post by **RunningMn9** » Sun Oct 31, 2004 1:02 pm

aussie77 wrote:You immediately miss the point. YK is being critical of Clinton for not doing something Bush has also not done. Except I never hear YK being critical of Bush for the very same thing.

No. YK claimed that Clinton had OBL in his hands (at least according to the tapes I've heard where Clinton says that OBL was offered to him), and turned it down.

When someone offers OBL to Bush, and he turns it down, I suspect that YK will be cross with GWB as well.

And since you didn't answer the question I asked you, I'll reiterate. NK becoming a nuclear power is a direct result of the failure of Bill Clinton's policies to deal with NK.

naednek · Post by **naednek** » Sun Oct 31, 2004 2:37 pm

Tareeq wrote:
triggercut wrote:"Geez. Never in a million years would I have thought I'd ever be nostalgic for Bill Clinton....but right now I just want to hug the guy and kiss his feet for what he did."
"Apres moi, le deluge."

I think it will be more meaningful if you just unzip his pants and give him a tug...

Edmond · Post by **Edmond** » Sun Oct 31, 2004 6:08 pm

So sad. Discussion of Bill Clinton invariably falls down to a BJ dissertion. Are we a bunch of good boy scouts here? Have you ever watch porn? Isn't BJ an integral part of every "action" in a porn? Oh my, he got a BJ! Hide away the children. Did he ever think of the children? He is a bad man, wow!

Eel Snave · Post by **Eel Snave** » Sun Oct 31, 2004 7:22 pm

The BJ is not the point. The point is he lied about it.

Fireball · Post by **Fireball** » Sun Oct 31, 2004 7:24 pm

It's none of the American people's business if he's having an affair. Many, many presidents have had mistresses, including FDR, Ike and probably George H. W. Bush.

Eel Snave · Post by **Eel Snave** » Sun Oct 31, 2004 7:29 pm

I would highly recommend a book entitled "Presidential Ambition" by Richard Shenkman. It details how every single president after Washington lied, cheated, and stole in order to get and keep power. So, basically, yes, Clinton lied under oath. On the one hand, you can say, "Yes, so has every other president." But on the other hand, do you really want to condone that behavior? That's where people take issue.

As far as policy goes, Clinton was the beneficiary of a booming economy, and when people have money under their paws, they tend to overlook a lot. It was almost as if the US would have bad things happen, and instead of caring, they would say, "Big deal! I'm rich!" I call it Coolidge syndrome. The economy was booming under Coolidge, and so people loved him, even though he did nothing and is now regarded as one of the worst presidents.

Fireball · Post by **Fireball** » Sun Oct 31, 2004 7:34 pm

Eel Snave wrote:So, basically, yes, Clinton lied under oath. On the one hand, you can say, "Yes, so has every other president."

No one here is saying "so has every other president" about lying under oath.

Eel Snave · Post by **Eel Snave** » Sun Oct 31, 2004 7:37 pm

Oops, that's not what I meant. I didn't mean every president lied under oath. I meant every president LIED. Sorry. My point still stands, though.

Fireball · Post by **Fireball** » Sun Oct 31, 2004 7:44 pm

There is a clear difference between, say, lying about the projected cost of a Medicare drug benefit bill or about a war, which impacts everyone in America and lying about getting a blow job, which is none of the public's business.

Poleaxe · Post by **Poleaxe** » Sun Oct 31, 2004 7:55 pm

Edmond wrote:So sad. Discussion of Bill Clinton invariably falls down to a BJ dissertion. Are we a bunch of good boy scouts here? Have you ever watch porn? Isn't BJ an integral part of every "action" in a porn? Oh my, he got a BJ! Hide away the children. Did he ever think of the children? He is a bad man, wow!

Marital infidelity says a lot about a person. It says they are inconstant, deceptive, untrustworthy, lacking in discipline, self-centered...

Make no mistake, I'm not a boyscout or a prude. But marriage is hard and requires commitment. Cheating on your wife with a fat ass intern doesn't say much for the respect he shows his wife, and doing it in the oval office doesn't show a hell of a lot of respect for us either.

Then he lied about it stupidly. What was so great about his presidency that I should overlook this?

Crux · Post by **Crux** » Sun Oct 31, 2004 8:01 pm

I hated the way he treated women, and the way women forgave him for it -- the man was a sexual predator at best, possibly even a rapist, yet the feminists loved him.

Them's ah... bold words. Possibly even a rapist?

Eel Snave · Post by **Eel Snave** » Sun Oct 31, 2004 8:04 pm

I believe he's referring to incidents that occured during his tenure as governor. Never really verified incidents, mind you, but suspicions.

Fireball · Post by **Fireball** » Sun Oct 31, 2004 8:18 pm

Eel Snave · Post by **Eel Snave** » Sun Oct 31, 2004 8:25 pm

And Warren G. Harding was a bad president, too. Teapot Dome scandal. Look it up.

Poleaxe · Post by **Poleaxe** » Sun Oct 31, 2004 8:46 pm

Fireball1244 wrote: Or perhaps he has an open relationship. Regardless, it's not our business where anyone puts their various body parts, so long as both (all) parties are consenting.

Since he and Hillary have both admitted that she was pissed, I guess we know they don't have an open relationship.

It's very much our business. He worked for us. He got a Lewinsky on the job in the oval office. How many of us can get a blow job at our desk and keep our jobs?

Regardless of what your Puritanical moral qualms and hot button on the issue of adultery may be, screwing a fat intern isn't a crime, and a president is more than free to do so.

If you knew me, you would know that I'm far from puritanical. I find it interesting that you are so vociferous about gay marriage and yet understand so little about marriage that you think what I wrote about adultery is "puritanical."

And I would say it's very obvious that screwing an intern is not ok for the president judging by the outcome. Everything that's wrong is not illegal.[/quote]

Kraken · Post by **Kraken** » Sun Oct 31, 2004 11:13 pm

Eel Snave wrote:I believe he's referring to incidents that occured during his tenure as governor. Never really verified incidents, mind you, but suspicions.

Precisely so. I remember one story in particular about using state troopers to procure young women. Don't make me dredge up links -- google it yourself, if you never heard about this.

Octopus Overlords

What was so bad about Bill Clinton again?

What was so bad about Bill Clinton again?

Re: What was so bad about Bill Clinton again?