Clinton more honest than W

[strandinthewind]

I think this poll is hysterical - I mean Clinton flat out lied and fessed up to it when caught - and the public thinks he is more honest than W - which is a huge slam on W, who deserves it.

Poll: Clinton outperformed Bush

(CNN) -- In a new poll comparing President Bush's job performance with that of his predecessor, a strong majority of respondents said President Clinton outperformed Bush on a host of issues.

The poll of 1,021 adult Americans was conducted May 5-7 by Opinion Research Corp. for CNN. It had a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.

Respondents favored Clinton by greater than 2-to-1 margins when asked who did a better job at handling the economy (63 percent Clinton, 26 percent Bush) and solving the problems of ordinary Americans (62 percent Clinton, 25 percent Bush). (Watch whether Americans are getting nostalgic for the Clinton era -- 1:57)

On foreign affairs, the margin was 56 percent to 32 percent in Clinton's favor; on taxes, it was 51 percent to 35 percent for Clinton; and on handling natural disasters, it was 51 percent to 30 percent, also favoring Clinton.

Moreover, 59 percent said Bush has done more to divide the country, while only 27 percent said Clinton had.

When asked which man was more honest as president, poll respondents were more evenly divided, with the numbers -- 46 percent Clinton to 41 percent Bush -- falling within the poll's margin of error. The same was true for a question on handling national security: 46 percent said Clinton performed better; 42 percent picked Bush.

Clinton was impeached in 1998 over testimony he gave in a deposition about an extramarital sexual relationship with White House intern Monica Lewinksy. He was later aquitted by the Senate.

Find this article at:
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/05/12/bush.clinton.poll/index.html

[irishgrl]

I think this poll is hysterical - I mean Clinton flat out lied and fessed up to it when caught - and the public thinks he is more honest than W - which is a huge slam on W, who deserves it.

Poll: Clinton outperformed Bush

(CNN) -- In a new poll comparing President Bush's job performance with that of his predecessor, a strong majority of respondents said President Clinton outperformed Bush on a host of issues.

The poll of 1,021 adult Americans was conducted May 5-7 by Opinion Research Corp. for CNN. It had a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.

Respondents favored Clinton by greater than 2-to-1 margins when asked who did a better job at handling the economy (63 percent Clinton, 26 percent Bush) and solving the problems of ordinary Americans (62 percent Clinton, 25 percent Bush). (Watch whether Americans are getting nostalgic for the Clinton era -- 1:57)

On foreign affairs, the margin was 56 percent to 32 percent in Clinton's favor; on taxes, it was 51 percent to 35 percent for Clinton; and on handling natural disasters, it was 51 percent to 30 percent, also favoring Clinton.

Moreover, 59 percent said Bush has done more to divide the country, while only 27 percent said Clinton had.

When asked which man was more honest as president, poll respondents were more evenly divided, with the numbers -- 46 percent Clinton to 41 percent Bush -- falling within the poll's margin of error. The same was true for a question on handling national security: 46 percent said Clinton performed better; 42 percent picked Bush.

Clinton was impeached in 1998 over testimony he gave in a deposition about an extramarital sexual relationship with White House intern Monica Lewinksy. He was later aquitted by the Senate.

Find this article at:
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/05/12/bush.clinton.poll/index.html



Well, I for one feel vindicated :wavey:

a lie about a blow job in NO WAY competes with the whoppers Monkey Boy has spouted :rolleyes:

[strandinthewind]

LOL - you never get it through your thick head that Clinton obstructed justice and thought he was above the law :rolleyes: :p :p

But, I agree, in terms of severity, Clinton's illegal activities are far less severe than W's autrocities.

[irishgrl]

Its not apparent to me that he DID obstruct justice. I mean, look at what Scooter Libby, Monkey Boy, Rove, Cheney et al are doing.....now THAT's my idea of obstructing justice. Creating a false war and drumming up false intelligence data, thats obstructing justice. Lying about a blow job? nah.

[Brwn_eyes0511]

LOL - you never get it through your thick head that Clinton obstructed justice and thought he was above the law :rolleyes: :p :p


We have a winner folks..

;) :D :xoxo:

[strandinthewind]

Its not apparent to me that he DID obstruct justice . . . .

That is because you, like an ostrich, keep your head the sand and cannot admit Clinton did just that because to you to do so would be somehow to vindicate W :laugh:

But, just to refresh your memory!!!

http://www.nytimes.com/specials/starr/7grounds_10.html

http://www.answers.com/topic/obstruction-of-justice

[irishgrl]

That is because you, like an ostrich, keep your head the sand and cannot admit Clinton did just that because to you to do so would be somehow to vindicate W :laugh:

But, just to refresh your memory!!!

http://www.nytimes.com/specials/starr/7grounds_10.html

http://www.answers.com/topic/obstruction-of-justice

the first link is to Starr's charges against Clinton, show me where he was convicted of that :shrug:

you cant. (http://home.netcom.com/~speaker6/lists/impeach.html) In the end, he was acquitted.

the second link is just a definition (for the most part) I do see however that Nixon/Watergate is cited as a "classic example"

And, in any event, History has started to glorify Clinton's years in office, in spite of all the GOP tried to do to smear and ruin him. HE will end up being vindicated and HIS terms of office will look like this country's Golden Years. And, the longer Monkey boy mismanages this country and its economy and its goodwill abroad, the better Clinton is going to look.
I think that is so sweet. Poetic Justice. All the GOP did by capturing all branches of government was to make itself a reviled party. It got drunk with power and tried to get away with (literally) murder.

[strandinthewind]

I will never understand how you think lying under oath in an attempt to impede a legal matter to save your own ass is not obstruction of justice :laugh:

Yet, when confronted with that, all you can say is W is worse. Well hello, who is arguing that W is not worse - I certainly am not.

But, last word os yours, which will be Clinton never lied under oath, which is a load of crap.

As for the links, the first was for his testimony, which I think was in there.

[irishgrl]

I will never understand how you think lying under oath in an attempt to impede a legal matter to save your own ass is not obstruction of justice :laugh:

Yet, when confronted with that, all you can say is W is worse. Well hello, who is arguing that W is not worse - I certainly am not.

But, last word os yours, which will be Clinton never lied under oath, which is a load of crap.

As for the links, the first was for his testimony, which I think was in there.

I didnt say he didnt lie under oath~ why do you insist on putting words into my mouth? He admitted he lied. I accept that he lied. Im saying he wasnt proven to have obstructed justice!

And, in case you forgot, the whole point of your first post is that Americans believe Clinton is more honest than Bush and that he did a better job. Both of which I have been saying all along, which is why I said I felt vindicated.

Why you thought you had to bash Clinton while posting something positive about him is beyond me :shrug:
I dont think you can help yourself. you will always ALWAYS point out the blow job lie as somehow characterizing his whole time in office. When in reality, it was a tempest in a teapot but it was the ONLY thing the GOP could get on him, his womanizing ways (as if none of the other side werent guilty of the same thing!)

and your link is the Starr report. All I saw were the things he was charged with, not his testimony.

[seeker007nmss]

My favorite quote from the Clinton years was from The German Ambassador at the time. Clinton said "I never had sexual relations with her..." and the Ambassador said "If that was the case, then she wasn't doing it right." :D

[strandinthewind]

My favorite quote from the Clinton years was from The German Ambassador at the time. Clinton said "I never had sexual relations with her..." and the Ambassador said "If that was the case, then she wasn't doing it right." :D

I know :laugh: Maybe it was the cigar :eek: :rolleyes:

[strandinthewind]

. . . and your link is the Starr report. All I saw were the things he was charged with, not his testimony.

Ummmmmm:

The President admitted to the grand jury that, after the allegations were publicly reported, he made "misleading" statements to particular aides whom he knew would likely be called to testify before the grand jury. The President testified as follows:

Q: Do you recall denying any sexual relationship with Monica Lewinsky to the following people: Harry Thomasson, Erskine Bowles, Harold Ickes, Mr. Podesta, Mr. Blumenthal, Mr. Jordan, Ms. Betty Currie? Do you recall denying any sexual relationship with Monica Lewinsky to those individuals?

WJC: I recall telling a number of those people that I didn't have, either I didn't have an affair with Monica Lewinsky or didn't have sex with her. And I believe, sir, that -- you'll have to ask them what they thought. But I was using those terms in the normal way people use them. You'll have to ask them what they thought I was saying.

Q: If they testified that you denied sexual relationship with Monica Lewinsky, or if they told us that you denied that, do you have any reason to doubt them, in the days after the story broke; do you have any reason to doubt them?

WJC: No.

The President then was specifically asked whether he knew that his aides were likely to be called before the grand jury.

Q: It may have been misleading, sir, and you knew though, 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.

Q: If all of these people -- let's leave out Mrs. Currie for a minute. Vernon Jordan, Sid Blumenthal, John Podesta, Harold Ickes, Erskine Bowles, Harry Thomasson, after the story broke, after Judge Starr's involvement was known on January 21st, 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.

Q: You've told us now that you were being careful, but that it might have been misleading. Is that correct?

WJC: It might have been. . . . So, what I was trying to do was to give them something they could -- that would be true, even if misleading in the context of this deposition, and keep them out of trouble, and let's deal -- and deal with what I thought was the almost ludicrous suggestion that I had urged someone to lie or tried to suborn perjury, in other words.(463)

_________________________________________________

:shrug:

[irishgrl]

a careful reading of his testimony looks as tho he admits he said one thing but he realized his aides may have thought he meant something else.

to me it looks like he is sticking with his story of how HE defined sex/sexual relations (as in, it wasnt intercourse, so it wasnt "having sex")


at any rate, to get back to your original topic, Americans are now seeing Clinton in a new light, to which I say "its about time."

edit: I didnt scroll down far enough. there is testimony from Clinton in there. my mistake.

[seeker007nmss]

at any rate, to get back to your original topic, Americans are now seeing Clinton in a new light, to which I say "its about time."

.


We are? :shrug: By one comparison? eh. Compare Clinton to other pres's and see what happens.

[irishgrl]

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

[seeker007nmss]

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/survey/historians/performance.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-bin/hsrun.exe/Roperweb/PresJob/PresJob.htx;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?knlgAreaID=107&subsecID=295&contentID=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/~franklin/Content/perspective.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]

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]

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 :D

[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 :laugh:

[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.