Clinton more honest than W

strandinthewind · #1 05-14-2006, 12:50 PM

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/...oll/index.html

irishgrl · #2 05-14-2006, 01:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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/...oll/index.html

Well, I for one feel vindicated

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

strandinthewind · #3 05-14-2006, 01:38 PM

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

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

irishgrl · #4 05-14-2006, 04:40 PM

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 · #5 05-14-2006, 05:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

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

We have a winner folks..

strandinthewind · #6 05-14-2006, 06:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by irishgrl

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

But, just to refresh your memory!!!

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

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

irishgrl · #7 05-14-2006, 07:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

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

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

you cant. 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 · #8 05-14-2006, 07:51 PM

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

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 · #9 05-14-2006, 08:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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

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

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 · #10 05-14-2006, 09:05 PM

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."

strandinthewind · #11 05-14-2006, 09:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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."

I know

Maybe it was the cigar

strandinthewind · #12 05-14-2006, 09:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by irishgrl

. . . 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)

_________________________________________________

irishgrl · #13 05-14-2006, 09:27 PM

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.