This is from a discussion started here:

https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/politi...tml#post114395

Since it goes off topic, I decided to move it into its own thread.

Disclaimer, I'm taking one quote from Fred's answer. The rest of the answer I agree with.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fredg

Hi,
Referring to ScottGem's answers.
Clinton was a joke, ...

---

My question is why do you, or anyone think Clinton was a joke? Granted he is the butt of jokes because of the Lewinsky affair. But lets try to look past that and judge his presidency not on a human fraility, but on real accomplishments.

Clinton handed a surplus to Bush. The economy was, at worst, stabilized, under Clinton and Bush screwed that up. There was much less unrest in the world then there is today.

In my opinion, Clinton was and is, a person who truly cares about his constituency. Something I do not believe is true of Bush. That he might care more about sex is debatable but does not alter his need to help the people he was elected to serve. For those reason, I think history will smile on Clinton's preseidency.

Scott<>

Both are a joke but for different reasons. I am confident that the fact is that GWB DOES care about his constituency, but that he's just made horrible errors.

Did I say horrible? I meant horrible.

Clinton will always be remembered as a joke. It is a huge joke on the Presidency to do what he did... then the big soundbyte "I did not have sex with that woman"... and what is the meaning of "if"...

They'll both be remembered as "a joke".

I actually saw Clinton in Birmingham,UK.He was at a city center pub,called The Malt Shoval,just off Broad Street.After he'd finished his drink,the CIA,or local agents,had the glass destroyed due to "fingerprints of the President is not allowed".Clinton did a walkabout,and talked to the hundreds of people who'd come to see him.No stain on his blotting paper that day. :D

You may say Clinton was a joke, but you cannot deny his handling of the economy or the cutting of the deficit and even with his moral slip withstood the onslaught of the republicans to impeach him. He still wields considerable power in the democratic party and is well received every where he goes. Does anyone doubt that he could still be elected president again if it were not for term limits? For a joke he sure instills a lot of americans and people abroad with confidence.:cool:

I didn't deny anything about his political abilities. My "yes, he will be" answer to the question is just my opinion; thinking that what he did was so extreme that it overshadows his political successes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rickj

I didn't deny anything about his political abilities. My "yes, he will be" answer to the question is just my opinion; thinking that what he did was so extreme that it overshadows his political successes.

---

See but that's my point. I think the view point of history WILL look more at his political abilities and the great many positives of his administration. I think they will, eventually, overshadow negatives of his sexual exploits. I think, even now, to dismiss him as a joke is to deny the very real political successes he had.

I didn't go so far as to say "dismiss him" as a joke. I don't believe that. I do, though, believe that 10 years from now if you ask 100 people, "What do you remember most about Bill Clinton?" More than half will chuckle and say
"He loved cigars" or
"He loved working in the Oral Office"
etc...

Clinton is not a joke. He did something that people joke about, but he didn't work at destroying the foundations of our constitutional republic. As mentioned before, his political successes left this country in good shape when he left office.

Bush is not a joke. Bush is a dangerous, delusional mad man who lies to our faces about his alleged virtue and his duplicitous policies while he's working behind our backs to undermine our constitutional values. He'll pretend to joke in public when he says, "everything would be easier if this was a dictatorship--and I was the dictator," but he is NOT joking. He does not govern this nation in accordance with the rule of law--he rules as if there were no constraints on his power. To Bush, the Constitution is just a goddamned piece of paper--something to thwart rather than to revere.

On the campaign trail on April 20, 2004, Bush said the following:

Quote:

---

Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution.

---

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0040420-2.html

In one respect, Bush was telling the truth: A wiretap requires a court order. But he was lying when he said we [his administration] value the Constitution. When he was telling us to our faces that a wiretap requires a court order, he was working behind our backs to wiretap our electronic communications without a court order. Bush is deceitful and untrustworthy. He can't be trusted to fulfill his constitutional mandate to faithfully execute the laws of the United States.

In comparison to Bush, Clinton is a paragon of virtue.

ScottGem:
Since you referred to one of my answers, I will answer your post.
In my opinion, Bill Clinton will not be remembered for most anything he actually accomplished while President of the United States. He will be remembered, while President for:
1. Tarnishing the White House with his sexual activities.
2. Having a First Lady who was, and still is, known as "Mrs. President", trying to establish Health Care policies, which also turned out as a big nothing.
He was a joke; all considerations acknowledged. Reading the History books in a few more years will be interesting.

I don't think a first lady needs to be delegated to photo ops.

no... hillary was not an elected official. That does not mean she cannot instigate political activism or try to facilitate goals that correlate to the presidency.

You don't think nancy reagan hand picked and ousted aides to her husband? She acknowledged this, saying he was often too tolerant of people.

So there's no confusion, in an independent. Have voted equal number of times for (D) vs (R)... so I have no agenda here. I voted for clinton twice.

My prediscussion opinion is that clinton took on some hard tasks that he didn't get done. Fail is a harsh word. Id rather have a president to tried to take on some hard tasks than one who simply worked the easy wins. I liked him well enough, but I think his accomplishments were fewer in retrospect, and his persona was bigger than his success.

Clinton himself sees his presidency as a failure, and lets just set the whole intern scandal aside... it was an embarrassment and distraction, but lets focus on the agenda and success/failures.

The family med leave and brady bill are two good pieces of legislation, as well as the balanced budget. I think presidents get way too much credit or flack over the economy... lots of players in this area, and unless the president does something to put the economy into a tailspin (which obviously happens), a lot of times things are in motion when they take office... just unfair, in my mind, to harp or praise a president too much early in the first term. If things are still running smoothly second term, give them praise. Certainly he enjoyed successful economic growth, and probably the one area where the general public feels pretty good about his terms.

He pushed nafta ratification, but it was mediated by gw bush... so if you think it's a failure is it on clinton's hands or gw?

He puttered in thinking about social security reform but dropped it and focused elsewhere.

The big push of the first and second terms were health care reform and middle east peace.

Health care was doomed by the ama, G.O.P. insurance, and he suffered at midterm elections for not being able to deliver in this. Even if others are in part to fault, you'll pay a price for promising reform you cannot deliver on.

Middle east peace was a failure, in his mind largely due to arafat. His frustrations here are well known.

Personally, I can't fault the guy for trying to take on some very hard areas.

Internationally I think he was well liked and put the US in good standing in terms of foreign relations. Some will say he missed the boat on bin laden, the rwanda massacres, he thought about pressuring and korea on nuclear tech but didn't, helped china with favorable nation status...

So internationally he probably did similar to at home, was generally well liked but didn't affect big policies. Some might say he was a great politician but not great at getting the ideas into place. He certainly seems to feel that his presidency fell far short of what he wished to accomplish.

So there are some thoughts. Please feel free to point out oversights I missed in thinking about success and failure. I'm sure I missed some things.

I'm with you for the most part, but can't help but add:

Too bad he didn't take out BinLaden when he had the chance.

Hi,
Very good summary of Bill Clinton's successes and defeats as President, if you are interested:
American President
Best wishes.

I do believe that with Clinton as President. Americans were a lot safer and people around the world were a lot safer. The finances were in very good shape and it was a very good time in history. Yes, near the end the affair of Clinton overshadowed what he did for the country. As far as Bush goes he is ruining the country and everyone in the states and around the world are unsafe because of his power. Bush is the worst president in history.

Joe