History and Perspective: Bill Clinton's Presidency

Okay, this topic is designed to be the catch-all for the subject of Clinton, as his name, presidency and record are constantly brought up in most of the political threads in this forum.

How will History view the Presidency of William Jefferson Clinton? Your opinion of that probably depends strongly on your political priorities, worldview, and interpretation of history. I'm not sure that I've seen a more divisive subject that can be argued objectively from both sides (yet, at the same time, I'm not sure if there is a subject that is argued as 100% subjectively in this forum!).

Image: Bill Clinton certainly appealed to and inspired sections of the populace who traditionally would not be interested in politics, or passionate about a politician. Minorities, youths, and professionals used to voting for Republicans for executive office all rallied to vote for him, enough to win in '92 and to win convincingly in '96. His image as hip, modern, smart and charismatic is mostly well earned; extensive record of travel and being personally informed on the details, giving 2 hour speeches by memory and the personal charisma of a politician are undeniable.

But that charisma seems to also be responsible for his personal failings. Dalliances with women, outside of his marriage, have dogged him since his days as Governor. His most enduring lie will be the one about his relationship with a young intern, when being deposed about yet another sexual harrassment lawsuit. That lie, upon hundreds of other mistakes and lies, ended up having him be impeached. And reducing his domestic political clout to nil, in the second term of his presidency...traditionally, the holy grail of politics (since you will likely never stand for another election). In many eyes, the image of the presidency was tarnished forever. But wasn't it Nixon who did that? But does that excuse Clinton? And does that matter in the long term? Which vision of him will be remembered?

Clinton is lauded for the economic successes of the nation under his leadership. Entering office just after the recession of the early 90's, and leaving office just as the Tech bubble burst, his 8 years were a period of tremendous economic growth in the US. Who remembers fears of Japanese dominance in the early 90's? Of the doom and gloom that NAFTA would bring? Of course, how much influence does a President have on the economy? How much credit belongs to Clinton for the remarkable fiscal makeover America received, such that the Government ran surpluses his last two years? What will History say?

In terms of domestic policy, his detractors remember the fiasco of Health Care, that likely cost the democrats the legislature in 1994. But who remembers the tremendous welfare reform that Clinton and Congress passed? Welfare was one of *the* dominant topics of the early 90's, and it has been a non-issue since that reform. But, at the same time, how many truly important domestic reforms did Clinton manage in his 8 years? And what of the way that the FBI (WACO) comported itself under his watch? What will history say?

Clinton was also the President who lead us into America's unipolar moment, the first President to not have a Soviet Union or a Berlin Wall since Kennedy. America saw an increase in humanitarian interventions during Clinton's watch, increased engagement in the Middle East, the start of important military reform/downsizing from Cold War levels, and was the first President to have to deal with the multilateralist and the Montreal approach to international treaties (as seen in the land mine treaty and Kyoto since then). But Clinton is also remembered for Mogadishu, for the aspirin factory in Sudan, for fueling Bin Ladin's view of America as a 'paper tiger' with our propensity to use cruise missile attacks alone. And Iraq's expulsion of the UN in '98. But Clinton was, and still is, widely acknowledged abroad. What will History say?


Please keep this civil, and try to make concrete references to acts, accomplishments and shortcomings that you think will b

 

"Clinton lied. A man might forget where he parks or where he lives, but he never forgets oral sex, no matter how bad it is."

Barbara Bush

 

I would not give Bill Clinton credit for the economic boom, or blame for the bursting of the internet/tech bubble. Except for his early failure with health care reform, Bill had the good sense to stay out of the economy's way during the 90s, and I think even Republicans should give him credit for that.

As for Somalia, and in many other instances, I would blame Clinton for letting his policies be constantly blown around by the winds of public opinion. In general, he had such a death-like grip on public opinion that it constantly threatened to undermine his credibility.

I particularly agree with Red-Seven that despite a number of foreign policy mistakes, Clinton was well-respected abroad, except perhaps by the governments and groups that hated the United States most. But that respect in itself was a tremendous asset for the United States. Bush has gone the "either you're with me or against me" route, and I think it's a huge mistake.

So, although I don't necessarily believe that Clinton left a legacy of enduring value for the U.S., he was more or less the physician who "above all, did no harm."

Finally, Clinton and the conservatives have an equal share of the blame for dragging the presidency through the mud on the Lewinsky issue. The impeachment hearing was a terrific, wonderfully entertaining farce, a parody of U.S. government at work, but it did nothing to enhance the credibility of politicians.

 

He was a great man... great at getting in trouble!!

No, seriously... I think the Clinton years will always be remembered as a period of unparalleled economic prosperity -- and a time before terrorists struck America on its own soil.

Some of it might have to do with luck -- but no matter what anybody says, I still think a president has a *huge* impact on economic policy, and a president's decision can make the difference between a healthy surplus or a staggering deficit.

As for all the scandals that rocked the Clinton administration, I see that as nothing more than a desperate attempt by the GOP to regain power after the Clinton administration. In that, they succeeded -- certainly Gore would have run a much different campaign if he hadn't been trying to distance himself from Clinton as a result of the Lewinsky debacle.

 

I agree with that last post.

The Clinton Presidency will always be among the most fascinating Presidency's of all time.

I can't think of another President who succeeded as wildly and amazingly as he failed, or who was so dearly loved and so dearly hated, a man who possessed such astounding brilliance in his public life yet such poor decision-making in his private life, and his inability to separate the two.

I think the fact that Clinton's America was the brightest and best America had ever been in terms of prosperity and peace coupled with his personal failings and his detractors intense hatred will cement his place in history. And I think it will be a never-ending debate. I of course got interested politics chiefly because of Bill Clinton. He was a leader I could rally behind, and most of the youth of my generation agree, among the young he was universally loved. Even among the republican youth, Clinton was popular. (Ok, now I know the young republican hated him, but the majority of the younger generation, even those who came from conservative/GOP families, supported Clinton.) He was loved and seen as a moderate President by most.

He had a love/hate relationship with the press, and a 'we hate you' relationship with the military. However, he had a good relationship with the American people, with high approval ratings throughout most of his Presidency, even when the scandal that crippled his second term was at its' ugliest.
While his detractors are quick to take credit or to downplay the significance of his accomplishments, the fact is America really couldn't have been much better than it was in the 90's.

Clinton the man would be a fascinating study for any psychiatrist or sociologist. He was absolutely brilliant, among the smartest men in his generation. He was a walking encyclopedia of public policy, he probably knows more about every facet and office of government than anyone alive. While his detractors claim this as a weakness, his need to meddle in everything, it is at least a testemant to his dedication and interest in public service. Yet how could a man of such brilliance be so reckless in his personal life? Even to the liberals, the anger is one of dissappointment, how could Clinton risk all the good he'd done and was trying to do for something so fleeting and adolescent?

There was a certain child-like quality to his Presidency. He was idealistic, hopeful, and he generally wished to help people. Yet, he constantly needed to feel loved by the public, and he had his temper tantrums, and he was immature in many ways. But the man could fight. He tried so hard to avoid the almost schoolyard like bullies of Newt Gingrich and his cronies, but would always allow himself to get dragged in. And even though Clinton usually won the scrap, he got dirty and he took a few blows. (heh heh.)

Nobody really knows what does what or how the cycle is affected or what actions actually affected the results, but the scale history has judged President by usually is read by the bottom line. The bottom line is, for all the political scandals (all but one of which were proven untrue), for all the name-calling and mudslinging, The Clinton Presidency was an interesting anomolie in our history, rife with contradiction, with so much hope and so much dissapointment.

The thing is, people have just enough information about Bill Clinton to have a strong opinion about him. He will continue to be one of the most debated and most talked about Presidents in history.

 

Obi-Wan McCartney, beautifully stated, and exactly right. Kennedy, Reagan and Clinton are the presidents people will remember most from the second half of the 20th century. They were the presidents who were bigger than life.

 

He had a love/hate relationship with the press, and a 'we hate you' relationship with the military.

I can't speak to the first part of this statement, having never been a talking head for the mass media, but I can say with great certainty that the Clinton administration was bitterly and vehemently anti-military.

At one point, an Army General was called into a briefing with then-President Clinton. He showed up in uniform (I don't know what you in the Army call it--looks like 'dress greens'?) and was asked to change into civilian attire. This by a man that ran behind the Iron Curtain when his country was at war.

Then there were the funding cuts, the arbitrary denials to requests for new equipment, and the increased number of meaningless assignments. Do more with far less. You have to get used to that in the Marines (we usually get last-pick of equipment), but it was getting to be excessive. And people wondered why things were breaking and their loved ones were dying as a result...

Behold, Bush is president, and we have new equipment in the Fleet and on the way. Helicopters that aren't older than their pilots?! *gasp* Brand-new rifles?! New uniforms?! Madness!

 

Tell me, why do you think we had peace in the 1990s?

Answer that for me, and I can be sure that the answer won't be of any credit to Bill Clinton.

The economic successes also didn't simply occur because Clinton took office. The economy was starting to rise at the end of Bush 41's term. This is due to the fact that we won the Cold War and the exponential rise (and overvaluing) of the technical sector. Coupled with the corporate excesses of the 1990s and the scandals that just past few years have come to light, we are reaping the overinflated economy that was really just a balloon waiting to burst. The recession that we are currently climing out of started at the end of his term.

Clinton will be remembered for very little in the future other than political scandal, dishonesty, and inept foreign policy which led to the increasing threats we face today. He is a man who is and was always concerned only by his own legacy.

 

I dont care about his affairs. It was wrong of him to lie to his wife(assuming she didn't already know about the affairs), but that's really none of our business. If he really raped Juanita Broderick, it's a damn shame she didn't come forward before the statute of limitations was up.

I don't know anything about economics, so I'm not gonna say anything about that.

He wasn't nearly so progressive as he's made out to be. He went with the cop-out 'don't ask, don't tell' policy, due largely to his lack of testicles, I think.

Then there was the ridiculous gun control laws which regulate firearms based on appearance rather than lethality.

The low point of his administration was the Waco debacle. Both him and Reno should be brought up on charges.

 

I dont care about his affairs. It was wrong of him to lie to his wife(assuming she didn't already know about the affairs), but that's really none of our business.

I care about his affairs to the point where I wouldn't have voted for him in '92 or '96.

It was wrong for him to lie to his wife. It was wrong for him to break his vows. It was CRIMINAL for him to commit perjury. He should have been convicted and thrown out of office. Lying @#$%.

 

Show me a politician that's never lied and I'll show you a politician that's never won an election.

 

Sadly that's pretty much true. To an extent we do have to resign ourselves to the fact that whatever politician we cast our vote for, he or she has likely exhibited a fair share of questionable morality.

But when they're caught, they should be held accountable, not excused.

 

"It was wrong of him to lie to his wife(assuming she didn't already know about the affairs), but that's really none of our business."


I'll say it for the millionth time, he lied to the Grand Jury, he committed purjury, a federal offense...THAT certainly is our buisness.

Besides, it happened in OUR house, not his.


Enough said, I think.

 

Certainly he lied to a grand jury, but the grand jury was asking questions it had no questions asking. What did Monica sitting on the presidential staff have to do with whitewater or whatever the hell they were harping about? Like I said, it's a shame that the statute of limitations was up on the Broderick case, because rape is something worth impeaching over. Consensual oral sex is not.

But hey I'm not fond of the guy anyway. He should have been impeached for Waco, not the head intern.

 

"What did Monica sitting on the presidential staff have to do with whitewater or whatever the hell they were harping about?"

What they were harping about was not Whitewater, it was sexual harassment and possible rape. The question was very much justified. That's the fact Clintonites always manage to overlook.

Bill Clinton's was the only such trail where the "none of your business" clause applies. Ask a feminist about any rape trial if it was fair to investigate the sexual affairs of the accused. It is common practice to determine a historical pattern exhibited by a defendant.

 

Who had he been accused of raping? Unfortunately, the statute of limitations was up on the Broderick case, so it couldn't have been that.


All I'm saying is that there's plenty of worse things that he could have, should have, been impeached for, without having to appeal to the family values crowd.

 

It wasn't a rape trial, it was the Paula Jones suit, accompanied by a number of testimonies including Broderick's.

I don't think sexual harassment should be defended via the fight against "family values"... but you can find my remarks about that in the other thread, Saint.

 

Sexual harrassment is wrong, certainly, but I would argue that incinerating children is just a little bit worse. That's what he should have been put on trial for.

 

Then there was the ridiculous gun control laws which regulate firearms based on appearance rather than lethality.

The low point of his administration was the Waco debacle. Both him and Reno should be brought up on charges.

I agree on both points. Hear, hear!

 

Putting aside Bill Clintons personal and PRIVATE misdemeandors, I believe that he is one of the GREATEST Presidents that the USA has ever had.

Time and history will prove this.

 

What objective measures do you support that opinion with, Gath?

I don't think that the body of legislation and reform that we saw from the Clinton years is that large. Certainly, he deserves credit for working with the legislature for needed and benefiscial Welfare reform, and for balencing the Federal Budget (thus not wasting the economic growth)...but what else did he do, domestically or abroad? What underpins that arguement, other than perception?

 

I'll say it for the millionth time, he lied to the Grand Jury, he committed purjury, a federal offense...THAT certainly is our buisness.


He lied about oral sex, not about say...embezzling money.




Besides, it happened in OUR house, not his.



You really believe that crap? The white house has become nothing more than a motel 6 with a four year stay, 8 years if you pay a lot for it. Oh, and look at how much time our current President spends at OUR house, he spends more time in Texas than he does in OUR house. I guess he doesn't really like OUR house, 'eh?

 

Can anyone summarize WHAT exactly happened in the whole "Monica Lewinsky scandal", from beginning to end?

I think it's important that we get the facts out before we start flinging around accusations.

 

lewinsky and clinton had an affair. apparantly while orally servicing the commander in chief, he spilled some genetic material on her dress. had he not left semen on her dress that could be used scientifically to prove he had done this, he might well have gotten away with wagging his finger and pounding on a podium saying "i did not haver sexual relations with that woman.....Ms. Lewinsky." DNA sort of takes the heresay and makes it fact. surely you're not questioning this as merely accusation, K_T?

 

rape is something worth impeaching over. Consensual oral sex is not.

How about sexual harassment?

How about perjury?


Does anyone remember how big a deal was made about the accusations of sexual harassment against Clarence Thomas?

Why was it that when our President was accused of sexual harassment by several different woman it was suddenly no one's business?

If sexual harassment is going to be considered a crime, you have to treat it like one. You can't just overlook it because you like the person who did it, or you admire him for getting some extramarital action while in the Oval Office.

Clinton thought he was above the law - he claimed he shouldn't be faced with a lawsuit while he was a sitting President. When that didn't work, he tried to lie to make it go away. When that didn't work, he tried convincing the public that he was being persecuted for having an affair and he hadn't really done anything wrong. Apparently, that worked.