President Bill Clinton and his legacy

[SHTSPRAYER]

As some of you probably already guessed, I wasn't a big fan of Clinton. But I know he was a hero to the Democrat party and also the Global Left.

To make an analogy, Bill Clinton is to the Democrat party what Ronald Reagan is to the Republican party.

Yet, never could I imagine the day that conservatives would turn on Reagan and trash him the way that Democrats and liberals have turned on Clinton.

It's just something I noticed that I think speaks volumes about the character of the Left.

Thoughts?

[Ultra Peanut]

Democrats fall in love. Republicans fall in line.

[SHTSPRAYER]

Democrats fall in love. Republicans fall in line.

Republicans are faithful, Democrats are not.

[Ultra Peanut]

Make of it what you will, Shrill.

[penguinz]

Republicans are faithful, Democrats are not.Being faithful is not always a good trait.

[mlyonsd]

Clinton cemented his legacy with his perfomance leading up to this election.

[bishop_74]

Clinton cemented his legacy with his performance leading up to this election.

Agreed. I hate to say it but they are some SOOOORE losers. Deal with it.

[Direckshun]

The thing you overlook is that most seriously dedicated Democrats have mixed feelings about the Clinton presidency. Only the hardcore base feels that the Clinton presidency was a godsend, but the hardcore base (on both sides) always believes that.

The more moderate or serious Democrats believe that Clinton was a disappointment of immense political talent. I certainly feel that he was a lousy President, despite his many gifts. Part of it was his own personal indiscretions, part of it was an aggressive Republican majority that stymied him, part of it was the general trend of modern Presidents who want to continue to screw the middle class while ridiculously expanding their own power. But a lot of it, in the simplest possible terms, was Clinton's constant striving for the inoffensive middle road.

Now, he's played hardball during the primary process, and while that may do him well personally, it can make you some enemies, even within your own party. And not enough people think he's a saint to forgive him for that.

[jAZ]

The comparison between the legacy of Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan is next to impossible at this stage. Reagan effectively ceased to exist the day he left office. His legacy is basically untouched by his actions post-Presidency.

Bill Clinton just finished running the most contested Presidential primary election in history (maybe by raw numbers but certainly by media coverage and national attention). One that remained competitive because he decided that driving a wedge down the center of the party was more important today than his legacy today. And now he's screwed up rhetorically (or is acting like a child and it's intentional, which is worse) and he refused to directly say Obama is ready to be President.

Reagan never went through such circumstances.

[little jacob]

His administration will always be remembered as one marred from wire to wire by scandal, for his managing to get impeached, and his general dishonesty (for political purposes perhaps not maliciously) but maybe more accurate would be a view that includes some accomplishments juxtaposed with a number of mistakes.

I'm reminded of comments made by Mikhail Gorbachev in an interview upon Boris Yeltsin's death, that Yeltsin's legacy was complex, involving some worthy accomplishments and many serious errors.

[Programmer]

The comparison between the legacy of Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan is next to impossible at this stage. Reagan effectively ceased to exist the day he left office. His legacy is basically untouched by his actions post-Presidency.

Bill Clinton just finished running the most contested Presidential primary election in history (maybe by raw numbers but certainly by media coverage and national attention). One that remained competitive because he decided that driving a wedge down the center of the party was more important today than his legacy today. And now he's screwed up rhetorically (or is acting like a child and it's intentional, which is worse) and he refused to directly say Obama is ready to be President.

Reagan never went through such circumstances.

Reagan did the right thing by separating himself from politics. No former president needs to be involved as Clinton, Bush I and Carter have been. They can only damage their legacy, if that's the word you want to use.

Bill Clinton didn't run in the presidential primary, Hillary did. He was involved but mostly as a "he's been the president" image. His comments did more to hurt Hillary than help her. Her political future would have been more positive if she had of divorced him as soon as he left office.

[ROYC75]

Scandals before, during and after , plus his famous, I did not have sexual relations with that woman.

Pretty tough to top that one , but I'm sure the dems can find somebody to do it.

[Programmer]

Scandals before, during and after , plus his famous, I did not have sexual relations with that woman.

Pretty tough to top that one , but I'm sure the dems can find somebody to do it.

They have, it's Mr. All Sizzle and No Steak.

Bad news is that if he is elected they will still not admit that he was not the person for the position. Republicans are loyal, democrats lockstep.

[Baby Lee]

Bill Clinton was not about an ideology. He was about power and agreeing with him.
When the Dems stopped agreeing with him and didn't put Hillary in power, they experienced the same outsider scorn that Reps bristled at for years.

['Hamas' Jenkins]

The thing you overlook is that most seriously dedicated Democrats have mixed feelings about the Clinton presidency. Only the hardcore base feels that the Clinton presidency was a godsend, but the hardcore base (on both sides) always believes that.

The more moderate or serious Democrats believe that Clinton was a disappointment of immense political talent. I certainly feel that he was a lousy President, despite his many gifts. Part of it was his own personal indiscretions, part of it was an aggressive Republican majority that stymied him, part of it was the general trend of modern Presidents who want to continue to screw the middle class while ridiculously expanding their own power. But a lot of it, in the simplest possible terms, was Clinton's constant striving for the inoffensive middle road.

Now, he's played hardball during the primary process, and while that may do him well personally, it can make you some enemies, even within your own party. And not enough people think he's a saint to forgive him for that.

I can't really agree with this sentiment. Clinton is much more revered among the moderate to centrist Democrats than he ever was among the left of the party. He alienated the left of the party with his waffling on gay rights immediately after he assumed office. I agree that he was too obsequious to the Republicans from 94-6, but he was trying to get re-elected, so I'm not all that surprised.

To say that he cut the rug out from under the middle class--well I don't really know where that came from other than a right wing talking point that would say Clinton was just a beneficiary of the tech boom.

[little jacob]

Bill Clinton was not about an ideology. He was about power and agreeing with him.
When the Dems stopped agreeing with him and didn't put Hillary in power, they experienced the same outsider scorn that Reps bristled at for years.

definitely. democrats found out what it's like for someone who does not slavishly follow bill clinton in the primaries.

Clinton, Inc seems like a powerful friend but a more powerful enemy.

['Hamas' Jenkins]

Reagan did the right thing by separating himself from politics. No former president needs to be involved as Clinton, Bush I and Carter have been. They can only damage their legacy, if that's the word you want to use.

Bill Clinton didn't run in the presidential primary, Hillary did. He was involved but mostly as a "he's been the president" image. His comments did more to hurt Hillary than help her. Her political future would have been more positive if she had of divorced him as soon as he left office.

Because god forbid you use your name recognition for things like helping out in New Orleans or the global fight against AIDS. How selfish of them to not consider their own legacy.

[jAZ]

Reagan did the right thing by separating himself from politics. No former president needs to be involved as Clinton, Bush I and Carter have been. They can only damage their legacy, if that's the word you want to use.

Bill Clinton didn't run in the presidential primary, Hillary did. He was involved but mostly as a "he's been the president" image. His comments did more to hurt Hillary than help her. Her political future would have been more positive if she had of divorced him as soon as he left office.

With all sincereity and respect, Reagan had alzheimers. He didn't choose much of anything.

I respect your desire to have former Presidents stay "former". I disagree. I'm of the opinion that, much like in sports, the legacy isn't the property of the "fans", but of the "player". It's theirs to do with what they wish.

Brett Farve should play as long as he wants, Jordan should come back and play as long as he wants. Montana should play in KC, etc, etc, etc.

Same goes for Clinton, IMO. Risk "tarnishing" it if you wish.

[Friendo]

I can't really agree with this sentiment. Clinton is much more revered among the moderate to centrist Democrats than he ever was among the left of the party. He alienated the left of the party with his waffling on gay rights immediately after he assumed office. I agree that he was too obsequious to the Republicans from 94-6, but he was trying to get re-elected, so I'm not all that surprised.

To say that he cut the rug out from under the middle class--well I don't really know where that came from other than a right wing talking point that would say Clinton was just a beneficiary of the tech boom.

this!:clap: he was first a pragmatist-he got the fact that America had tired of traditional Dem politics--somehow, he forgot after he left office.

[Programmer]

With all sincereity and respect, Reagan had alzheimers. He didn't choose much of anything.

I respect your desire to have former Presidents stay "former". I disagree. I'm of the opinion that, much like in sports, the legacy isn't the property of the "fans", but of the "player". It's theirs to do with what they wish.

Brett Farve should play as long as he wants, Jordan should come back and play as long as he wants. Montana should play in KC, etc, etc, etc.

Same goes for Clinton, IMO. Risk "tarnishing" it if you wish.

Reagan did not show his problem for some time after he left office, yet he did not make the grandstand plays the others have. When he became incapacitated it was obvious that he would not be in the public eye.

Former presidents can be as public as they wish, but I don't desire to see them flaunting their previous jobs. Sports figures are a totally different arena, so to speak.

As President you are at the top of the world, why continue trying to be on top when it's obvious that you no longer have the power and status you once did. They all need to quietly fade away.

Bush II will be publically ridiculed for as long as some liberals live. Clinton will is that same position now. No self respecting conservative will say that he was a good president, nor will they ever forget his liasons with Monica and the rest. Clinton, above all, should quietly fade away.

[Ultra Peanut]

Especially since, as Hamas pointed out, Carter, GHWB, and Clinton have all made some pretty noble attempts to help people after their presidency that wouldn't go in line with sitting down and shutting up.

And for all of the talk from the right about how the President is just another CEO, they sure do seem to want to exalt the people who hold said position.

[ROYC75]

Clinton, above all, should quietly fade away.


Agreed, but to Bill, this is not possible.

['Hamas' Jenkins]

Reagan did not show his problem for some time after he left office, yet he did not make the grandstand plays the others have. When he became incapacitated it was obvious that he would not be in the public eye.


That's patently false. A CNN special on aging a few years ago went over his debate performance against Mondale and several of the docs pointed out to several points where you could see the beginnings of Alzheimer's. Then there was his "forgetfulness" of Iran Contra despite writing it in his own diary which either means that he was beginning to slip, or he was just a pathological liar.

[Donger]

He is what he's always been: a highly-intelligent used car salesman.

[Programmer]

Because god forbid you use your name recognition for things like helping out in New Orleans or the global fight against AIDS. How selfish of them to not consider their own legacy.

What good did Clinton do with NO? Nothing really. Just another has been showing his face. He had no power to do anything there. How much money or aid was sent to New Orleans in the name of Bill Clinton? People were going to give to relief funds as they had available. Clinton was just another face for the TV cameras.

AIDS will be with us for a very long time, there is no effort to cure the disease only to treat it. It's one of the big money makers for the pharmaceutical companies. Clinton has very little impact, if any regarding the epidemic. (He probably needs to keep his HIV tests going on a regular basis, he's prone to being infected with his lifestyle.)

In all reality Bill is just another has been.

['Hamas' Jenkins]

He is what he's always been: a highly-intelligent used car salesman.

Which is an interesting contrast to a dim middle manager thrust into the role of CEO.

[markk]

He is what he's always been: a highly-intelligent used car salesman.

That's a good comparison.

['Hamas' Jenkins]

What good did Clinton do with NO? Nothing really. Just another has been showing his face. He had no power to do anything there. How much money or aid was sent to New Orleans in the name of Bill Clinton? People were going to give to relief funds as they had available. Clinton was just another face for the TV cameras.

AIDS will be with us for a very long time, there is no effort to cure the disease only to treat it. It's one of the big money makers for the pharmaceutical companies. Clinton has very little impact, if any regarding the epidemic. (He probably needs to keep his HIV tests going on a regular basis, he's prone to being infected with his lifestyle.)

In all reality Bill is just another has been.


For all the idiocy in this post, I do agree with the first two sentences of the second paragraph, FWIW--however, you are taking a very ethnocentric view of the disease. It's not just a chronic disease for people in the developing world, and that is something that Clinton's foundation, among others, have devoted a lot of time and money to help fight.

Bush, for the record, has at least funded the global fight against AIDS well, even if the abstinence-only crowd has had deleterious effects.

[Programmer]

That's patently false. A CNN special on aging a few years ago went over his debate performance against Mondale and several of the docs pointed out to several points where you could see the beginnings of Alzheimer's. Then there was his "forgetfulness" of Iran Contra despite writing it in his own diary which either means that he was beginning to slip, or he was just a pathological liar.

If you say so. Hindsight is always 20/20. His recollection of events can be attributed to more than Alzheimer's, but if you want to believe that is was known before he left office I'd like to see the reports from before he left office indicating that fact.

Your comments just go to prove that no former president can stand up to those that feel he was less than they wanted.

Just to clear up one point. ALL POLITICIANS ARE PATHOLOGICAL LIARS. I'm really surprised that you even went there.

[mlyonsd]

The biggest character difference between Reagan and Clinton was their ego's. Clinton's head has always been so big I wonder how his neck supports it.

[Programmer]

For all the idiocy in this post, I do agree with the first two sentences of the second paragraph, FWIW--however, you are taking a very ethnocentric view of the disease. It's not just a chronic disease for people in the developing world, and that is something that Clinton's foundation, among others, have devoted a lot of time and money to help fight.

Bush, for the record, has at least funded the global fight against AIDS well, even if the abstinence-only crowd has had deleterious effects.

Do you honestly think that AIDS will be cured in our lifetime? You fail to point out that your argument is pretty much negating any way to attempt stop the spread of the disease. I've heard one guy brag that by the time he was 30 he had over 1000 sexual partners, and that was in my generation.

I'm not saying people will or should stop completely, but each time you share yourself with a different partner you 1) add to your risk of picking up AIDS (or any other STD) and you also share that risk with anyone you have sex with.

I'm sure I'm not making any impact her, so I'll end with the fact that we have to agree to disagree on the situation as well with the presidents remaining out of the public eye.

[Programmer]

He is what he's always been: a highly-intelligent used car salesman.

That means that Obama is in the same business? I've heard them described as much the same.

[Ultra Peanut]

The biggest character difference between Reagan and Clinton was their ego's. Clinton's head has always been so big I wonder how his neck supports it.It's stuff like this that makes the "Obamessiah" yammering hilarious.

[jAZ]

Reagan did not show his problem for some time after he left office,
He showed it (symptoms) while in office, it wasn't formally made public as the explanation of why he had disappeared until later. But it's believed that he had symptoms (some severe) before he left office.

[ROYC75]

Just to clear up one point. ALL POLITICIANS ARE PATHOLOGICAL LIARS. I'm really surprised that you even went there.



Word ..........

[Frankie]

Agreed. I hate to say it but they are some SOOOORE losers. Deal with it.

Yeah yeah, "Clintons are sore losers!" blah, blah, blah. What you miserably fail to pick up is the fact that Bill Clinton is not sore as much about his wife's loss as for the fact that HE was called a racist. This after having a sincere and strong resumeof a lifetime of helping AfAm causes. He feels, and rightly so, betrayed by the black community and how easily they turned their back to him for apparently no more than supporting one who sported their complexion, MLK's teaching about substance over color of skin be damned! I'd be sore too.

[Programmer]

He showed it (symptoms) while in office, it wasn't formally made public as the explanation of why he had disappeared until later. But it's believed that he had symptoms (some severe) before he left office.

Links?

[Programmer]

Yeah yeah, "Clintons are sore losers!" blah, blah, blah. What you miserably fail to pick up is the fact that Bill Clinton is not sore as much about his wife's loss as for the fact that HE was called a racist. This after having a sincere and strong resumeof a lifetime of helping AfAm causes. He feels, and rightly so, betrayed by the black community and how easily they turned their back to him for apparently no more than supporting one who sported their complexion, MLK's teaching about substance over color of skin be damned! I'd be sore too.

Do you honestly believe what you just wrote?

Someone called him a racist? So what? He's been called worse and has done worse things.

You need to subscribe to the Human Race, the only race on the face of this planet.

[markk]

Do you honestly think that AIDS will be cured in our lifetime? You fail to point out that your argument is pretty much negating any way to attempt stop the spread of the disease.

Unless you engage in a few very high risk behaviors, your chances of getting AIDS in the first world are virtually zero, contrary to the fear mongering that was done in the 80s and 90s.

Education has made a difference in sub-Saharan Africa, and hopefully that trend will continue.

[Programmer]

Unless you engage in a few very high risk behaviors, your chances of getting AIDS in the first world are virtually zero, contrary to the fear mongering that was done in the 80s and 90s.

Education has made a difference in sub-Saharan Africa, and hopefully that trend will continue.

High risk behaviors = picking up a girl you don't know and jumping in bed with her. How often does that happen?

Not to pry into your life but how many different women have you had sex with? That's really a generic question, but I hope you understand the basis of the question regarding your high risk behavior. You never know where your partner has been or who they have been with. I seriously doubt that people have a Q & A session before they have sex.

[StcChief]

He is what he's always been: a highly-intelligent used car salesman.yes. The prefect "slick Willie"

[Cankerskull]

Yeah yeah, "Clintons are sore losers!" blah, blah, blah. What you miserably fail to pick up is the fact that Bill Clinton is not sore as much about his wife's loss as for the fact that HE was called a racist. This after having a sincere and strong resumeof a lifetime of helping AfAm causes. He feels, and rightly so, betrayed by the black community and how easily they turned their back to him for apparently no more than supporting one who sported their complexion, MLK's teaching about substance over color of skin be damned! I'd be sore too.
So when Clinton supports AfAm causes, he is expecting political loyalty from them? And has a right to feel betrayed when he doesn't get it?

I'm not saying it isn't true, but if it is, it's a pretty big stain on his chracter.

[HolmeZz]

Republicans are faithful, Democrats are not.

So Republicans are like battered wives?

[KC Fish]

You never know where your partner has been or who they have been with. I seriously doubt that people have a Q & A session before they have sex.

You're exposing just how completely out of touch you are here...

Believe it or not, these types of discussions are pretty common these days. To the point that quite a few couples will get tested together before getting into a sexual relationship.

[Baby Lee]

Yeah yeah, "Clintons are sore losers!" blah, blah, blah. What you miserably fail to pick up is the fact that Bill Clinton is not sore as much about his wife's loss as for the fact that HE was called a racist. This after having a sincere and strong resumeof a lifetime of helping AfAm causes. He feels, and rightly so, betrayed by the black community and how easily they turned their back to him for apparently no more than supporting one who sported their complexion, MLK's teaching about substance over color of skin be damned! I'd be sore too.

'Racist' isn't a bank account.

Geez, if he'd done just a little more, maybe he could've traded all that goodwill in for a slave.

[Programmer]

You're exposing just how completely out of touch you are here...

Believe it or not, these types of discussions are pretty common these days. To the point that quite a few couples will get tested together before getting into a sexual relationship.

I'm out of touch? But then I don't have to be "in touch" I've been married for quite a long time and have been faithful from day one.

I doubt it that very few are concerned, but if that were so there would be no new or very few cases of AIDS or any other STD's.

I think if you actually believe your own story you are the one out of touch with what is happening.

[DaneMcCloud]

I'm out of touch? But then I don't have to be "in touch" I've been married for quite a long time and have been faithful from day one.

I doubt it that very few are concerned, but if that were so there would be no new or very few cases of AIDS or any other STD's.

I think if you actually believe your own story you are the one out of touch with what is happening.

If this is so prevalent, please tell me how many straight, non-needle users there are in your circle with AIDS. I'm betting ZERO.

I've already stated I've had sex with more than a few hundred women and in nearly every situation, I've used a condom. I never contracted ANY form of venereal disease, let alone AIDS. I have friends (touring professional musicians) whose numbers are three times or more of mine and NONE of them have VD's.

Oh and before oral sex, I'd always ask if a girl was "clean". So there goes that theory.

As usual, you are way off base.

[Programmer]

If this is so prevalent, please tell me how many straight, non-needle users there are in your circle with AIDS. I'm betting ZERO.

I've already stated I've had sex with more than a few hundred women and in nearly every situation, I've used a condom. I never contracted ANY form of venereal disease, let alone AIDS. I have friends (touring professional musicians) whose numbers are three times or more of mine and NONE of them have VD's.

Oh and before oral sex, I'd always ask if a girl was "clean". So there goes that theory.

As usual, you are way off base.

I'm way off base? How is it then that HIV and other STD's are still on the incline?

Keep playing the "I'm always safe" routine. It fits with your generation. You are invincible and those that point out your dangerous lifestyle are out of touch.

You ask a girl if she is clean? Now that's really proving that there isn't any exposure to HIV or any other of the social diseases.

How is it that straight people have HIV? I guess that if you want to believe that the disease is not passed from partner to partner then live your life as such.

The girls that you get BJ's from, that claim they are clean, tell me about the oral sex they have had with other men. Were those men clean? Were they all straight? Was they actually girls.

Dude, if you want to play with the fire that comes from the diseases by all means continue on your current path. Most don't feel a quickie is worth dying over.

[Dave Lane]

Well I voted for Reagan both times but admit now that he was an ineffective failure as president. It was just an experiment that didn't work.

Dave