Bill Clinton Options

[kimmytree]

What are your views on the former President?

What about his effect on the economy?

And what about the attacks on our country? Is he to blame?

Discuss.

(Wikipedia has some good info on him).

[smoke]

^ But can we really attribute that to Clinton himself or should we focus on what was going on in the world? Nothing was really going on that could have made the economy suffer. The economy suffered after Bush got in office because of the stock market's dot-com scare. Everyone was afraid of the whole thing coming down. I believe that it was beginning to worry people even at the tail end of Clinton's presidency. But who's to blame either one? That wasn't really Clinton or Bush's fault. Also, let's not forget about 9/11. It's amazing out economy stayed in tact after that at all. I think we did pretty good considering the impact it had. I'm not going to say that Clinton didn't help the economy at all but he didn't do a whole lot that we can speak of. He was just in the right place at the right time.

Clinton didn't turn it around. It was already on it's way back up at the end of the former Bush's presidency. Everything was starting to go smoothly again. It's not really anything Clinton did in particular. At least not that I can see.

I know we didn't have a whole lot of reasons to go to war. I never said anything about war but we had plenty of reasons to at least investigate. And I agree with you. I think it's pretty stupid to say "Clinton let him go" when we never had him in the first place. But, Clinton could have stepped in at any time and said "Hand him over" or at least deal with him in some way. Don't forget that America has an awful lot of power. I'm sure they would've listened to us or at least helped us out had we said anything. Clinton had a lot more warnings than Bush did and Bush by no means ignored them all. There were many more terrorist plots that were said to happen that didn't happen. Remember how shocked everyone was during 9/11? We never even conceived that it could have happened. I'm sure that's the same way both Clinton and Bush felt when they received the early warnings. I really don't think there's much Bush could have done. The terrorists had been planning it for years and years. It was already well into the process by the time Bush got into office.

You point out some excellent things that Clinton was able to get passed but was that really the reason the economy was rising? I think it merely added to it. I think it's absurd to say that Clinton was the whole reason the economy was doing better. Also, congress has the most power in that department. They're really the ones who decide what gets passed and what doesn't. The majority of Clinton's bills were rejected. Whether that was good or bad, we'll never know. It had a lot to do with the finance at the time. Either way, aren't a lot of those bills still in effect today? I don't remember Bush ever putting an end to them. I could be wrong though. It's early in the morning, haha. Anyways, they aren't working now. Why do you think they worked then? I believe it was because the economy in Clinton's presidency was just all around better off because of the state the world was in. I think it would have been just as good had some other person taken office.

If only I had the energy to respond to that...
I'll do it tomorrow.

To prevent this from being spam, I will point out, though, that if anything, you should dislike Clinton as a person more than a politician. If you're going to judge him from his personage at all, which I don't especially recommend, everything would indicate that he was a worse person than president whether you agreed with his politics or not. People generally tend to frown upon having and then lying about affairs...hence the impeachment.

And while I'm at it, as I said on the last page, he wasn't a very liberal Democrat, so as you insist you're so moderate, I'm not entirely sure i understand why you're insisting Clinton wasn't a better president than Bush, when Clinton was much more moderate than Bush. From what you're saying, you should agree much more with Clinton's politics.

And now I really need to finish my essay. But I will get back to this sometime.

Yeah I understand. Sometimes I'm too tired or just don't feel like replying.

I don't see how you think I should dislike him more as a person as opposed to a president. If someone commits adultery it doesn't mean they are a terrible person. It means they made a mistake. I'm not too quick to judge when things like that happen but when the president of the United States does it, it's a completely different issue. Wouldn't you agree? The president is considered the leader of this country and should be held way more responsible. I always try to separate the people themselves from their politics to a certain degree. Politics can be a nasty environment. I can forgive him personally for his mistakes but I can't forgive him politically. If that makes any sense. I think you know what I'm trying to say. Clinton is a very good "people person." I think he'd be pretty fun to hang around with.

And I know that he wasn't a very liberal democrat. I don't believe I ever said he was. Just because someone is leaning more towards my party certainly doesn't mean I should just agree with them on everything. That is why I'm a moderate after all because I tend to agree with people from both sides as well as disagree with people from both sides. I go by my view not by what my party views. Honestly there are both Democrats and Republicans that disgust me. I mentioned the democratic party because it pertained to the topic. Clinton was indeed a democrat after all, right?

[douchebag]

I don't see how you think I should dislike him more as a person as opposed to a president. If someone commits adultery it doesn't mean they are a terrible person. It means they made a mistake. I'm not too quick to judge when things like that happen but when the president of the United States does it, it's a completely different issue. Wouldn't you agree? The president is considered the leader of this country and should be held way more responsible. I always try to separate the people themselves from their politics to a certain degree. Politics can be a nasty environment. I can forgive him personally for his mistakes but I can't forgive him politically. If that makes any sense. I think you know what I'm trying to say. Clinton is a very good "people person." I think he'd be pretty fun to hang around with.

And I know that he wasn't a very liberal democrat. I don't believe I ever said he was. Just because someone is leaning more towards my party certainly doesn't mean I should just agree with them on everything. That is why I'm a moderate after all because I tend to agree with people from both sides as well as disagree with people from both sides. I go by my view not by what my party views. Honestly there are both Democrats and Republicans that disgust me. I mentioned the democratic party because it pertained to the topic. Clinton was indeed a democrat after all, right?

By what standards, though, are you gauging his political success? Even the most astute political scientists today can't come to a consensus on his effectiveness overall, mainly because the positive aspects are in equilibrium with the negative aspects of his tenure in the Oval Office. It's difficult to pin responsibility on a person or group of people in American politics because of the separation of powers (especially in this case, since the Congress was largely Republican juxtaposed to a Democratic president), and thus, difficult to assess political success in such a neutral, quiet period of time. And don't kid yourself, Clinton's presidency was vastly free of turmoil in light of what most presidents have faced.

So, if the political experts teeter so dangerously on opposite ends of the poles, what makes you so confident that you "can't forgive his political mistakes"?