Clinton more honest than W

[seeker007nmss]

Originally Posted by irishgrl

you wait. people are going to look back on his presidency as the golden years.
I'd bet money on it.

I will take that bet.... He is considered average at best, when all the presidents are compared together. Here is how the current lists run:


http://www.americanpresidents.org/su...erformance.asp

Clinton is barely above the 50% - Ranked 21. Average to below average

http://www.opinionjournal.com/hail/rankings.html

Again ranked 24 - Below average

http://www.ropercenter.uconn.edu/cgi...start=HS_index

At his height he was third LOWEST in Approval ratings of last 12 presidents

• Siena Research Institute Presidential Tracking Study
The Siena Research Institute of Siena College, Loudonville, NY, conducts regional, statewide, and national surveys on a variety of issues. The surveys include expert and public opinion polls:

President Clinton, was ranked in the bottom five in Avoidance of crucial mistakes (38th) and Integrity (41st), just above President Nixon’s rock bottom 42nd.

And from an international viewpoint:


New Zogby International poll shows Reagan in third place; Ford, Johnson ‘most mediocre’; Nixon a ‘failure’


Clinton suffered much the same negative effect when he was in office, and those negative opinions of the Clinton years have only recently started to soften. As late as 2003, 55% said they considered him a average or failed president.


Clinton just wasn't that great. Why do you like this guy so much? Just curios.

[irishgrl]

your data listings are SCHOLARS' rankings!!!. Not much use in gauging how the people feel!!! not to mention OLD! (2003?) Im saying as time goes by I believe people will raise their opinion of him. As time goes by, he will begin to look better and better. Those rankings of yours will be obsolete. (edit: made a goof--mixed up the two Andrews.)

The reason I like him is that this country prospered under his watch. You might offer counter explanations, but the bottom line is, (and I posted the hard data from Public Policy Institute awhile back) all the economic/social indicators that matter to most Americans, Clinton did quite well.

here is the link to the chart/article:
http://www.ppionline.org/ppi_ci.cfm?...ntentID=252964

here is an article that examines the faults with the type of rankings you posted, and a solution. it is a PDF file, you will need to download.
http://www.polisci.wisc.edu/~frankli...erspective.pdf

btw: on page 8 of this article, you see various graphs presented of Presidential Approval ratings, and of the 12 Presidents shown, only 2 have graph results going in the positive direction: FDR and Clinton. and Clintons numbers look to be fairly equivalent to Ronald Reagans.

[Jyqm]

Originally Posted by irishgrl

your data listings are SCHOLARS' rankings!!!. Not much use in gauging how the people feel!!! Im saying as time goes by I believe people will raise their opinion of him. As time goes by, he will begin to look better and better. Those rankings of yours will be obsolete. As proof, look at Andrew Jackson's ratings! And he was the only other President to be impeached!!!

Andrew Johnson is the other president who was impeached, not Jackson.

But I agree with your point, I think Clinton is gradually going to rise quite high in many people's esteem over the next few decades. He'll be remembered as the charming, intelligent guy who presided over a decade of peace and prosperity, after the Cold War ended and before the War on Terror began. How much credit he actually deserves for that is of course up for debate, but he's likely going to start looking very good by association in the coming years, especially being sandwiched between the two Bushes.

[irishgrl]

Originally Posted by Jyqm

Andrew Johnson is the other president who was impeached, not Jackson.

But I agree with your point, I think Clinton is gradually going to rise quite high in many people's esteem over the next few decades. He'll be remembered as the charming, intelligent guy who presided over a decade of peace and prosperity, after the Cold War ended and before the War on Terror began. How much credit he actually deserves for that is of course up for debate, but he's likely going to start looking very good by association in the coming years, especially being sandwiched between the two Bushes.

D'OH! my boo boo, must go back and fix ASAP! but my original point still stands

[strandinthewind]

Interestingly, I think Clinton was always admired for his ability to relate to people. In fact, the R's took ten years to beat it down and they still could not do it.

My issue with Clinton was not his agenda, though that certainly was not as for the people as many would like to believe. I also have no issue with him having an affair with a fat chick.

My issue with him was and is that he attempted a cover up in a judicial proceeding by lying himself (under and not under oath) and getting others to perpetuate that lie (see testimony above) , and attempting to bribe La Lewinsky to lie by getting her that cushy job - all while directly and indirectly using/wasting public funds to do so. I mean he knew he was guilty and just lied and lied and lied and it cost us tens of millions of dollars.

Having said that, the whole incidence used to lure La Lewinsky into telling her story was abhorrent and the amount of "zeal" expressed by the powers to be (read Republicans) showed just how desparate they were. I mean it took a full FBI (I think) team to hold Lewinsky captive at the Ritz in the Pentagon - give me a break

[Rickypt]

I agree with Strand about the Clinton lying/obstructing justice issue. Lying under oath harms the judicial process regardless of how stupid the issue is, and we should expect more from the president. It's a big blemish on his presidency, but I think overall he will be looked up as a very good president and someone who did great things after leaving office.

Bush's lies are far worse because they are related to U.S. policy. And he will be judged much more harshly because one of his biggest lies of all was his campaign promise to restory honor and dignity to the White House. Instead, he created an Administration filled with dirtbags.

[irishgrl]

My issue with him was and is that he attempted a cover up in a judicial proceeding by lying himself (under and not under oath) and getting others to perpetuate that lie (see testimony above) , and attempting to bribe La Lewinsky to lie by getting her that cushy job - all while directly and indirectly using/wasting public funds to do so. I mean he knew he was guilty and just lied and lied and lied and it cost us tens of millions of dollars.

I think you're exaggerating. He specifically said in his testimony that he didnt talk about the issue because he knew various people would be called as witnesses and he deliberately avoided saying anything:

...after January 21st when the Post article broke and said that Judge Starr was looking into this, you knew that they might be witnesses. You knew that they might be called into a grand jury, didn't you?

WJC: That's right. I think I was quite careful what I said after that. I may have said something to all these people to that effect, but I'll also -- whenever anybody asked me any details, I said, look, I don't want you to be a witness or I turn you into a witness or give you information that would get you in trouble. I just wouldn't talk. I, by and large, didn't talk to people about this.

and he didnt keep lying, he admitted his initial denial:

Q:all of these people....have said that you denied a sexual relationship with them. Are you denying that?
WJC: No.

Q: And you've told us that you --

WJC: I'm just telling you what I meant by it. I told you what I meant by it when they started this deposition.

Again, I think he was still sticking to his "explanation" that since he didnt have intercourse, he wasnt having sex.

and you have YET to prove there was anything shady about Monica getting that job (with Revlon I believe). Monica herself in her book said that the job search was on prior to this whole mess being public.


I realize that for many of you, Clinton's explanations do not hold water. All I am saying is that I accept that he lied when he denied the affair. He admitted he lied when he denied it initially. And yes, it is a sorry chapter in our history, but I still maintain that this should never rising to the level of impeachment. NEVER. He didnt commit a high crime or misdemeanor, nor did he commit an act of treason. I think it should have gone no further than Censure, if that. But to misuse the process the way the GOP did--and then blame Clinton for the COST!!!--is just plain wrongheaded!

In any event, I for one appreciate that you posted the article Jason. Thank you.