Why are Bill Clinton and his actions as President still relevant today?

Question

Many people fault others for criticizing Bill Clinton. They use any means to make these people seem petty or unworthy of serious consideration. The fact that he had oral sex in the oval office is not what detractors care about. Rather they don't like the fact that he lied about it both under oath and when addressing the American people. This creates a credibilty issue, because it begs the question what else did you lie about?

Mr. Clinton is still a relevant issue for 2 reasons.

There are legitimate questions about some of the actions he took while President. We are not getting answers, but rather an attempted whitewash of his administration for everything questionable.

The man is still publically making efforts to influence and effect policy in this country. To this end the press gives anything he does or says large amounts of play. This very action opens him up to legitimate consideration and additional criticism.

What say you?
Please be civil in your answers.

captain2man: I am happy to concede your point about all administrations leaving unanswered questions, but I have expressed no hatred towards Mr. Clinton here. Thank you for proving my point. Ask a question about the man and people will try to invalidate your position through personal attack.

In answer to your question. No I do not hate Mr. Clinton. In fact, I voted for him the second time he ran because i felt at the time he was the best choice for America. I do not particularly like some of his policies, but this has been true for me regarding all presidents in my lifetime. The question is not intended to be loaded. It is an honest attempt at exposing why it is legitmate to reference the man in relation to current affairs as some of his policies have a direct influence on some matters of issue today. However, attempting to reference him puts people in immediate defense mode and rather than attempt to critically examine the man, many just defend him against the indefensible and attack the reference, or credibility of the asker in general. On an additional note, I know that many ex-presidents remain visible, but few have the effect on the public debate because of their actions that Mr. Clinton seems to possess.

Richard: While it is true that the Clinton administration did balance the budget they did not eliminate the deficit. The National Debt still existed. Further, lying is a credibility issue period. It does not matter if it was a personal matter or not. We are supposed to hold our leaders to a higher standard, but many people are unwilling to do this with Mr. Clinton. They create degrees of lying instead. My opinion is a lie is a lie is a lie etc. It should never be tolerated from a man\woman who has taken the oath to lead faithfully and honorably.

Muse: I respectfully disagree. I think Mr. Clinton has a huge effect on the minds of many Democrat and Republican voters alike. Look at the uproar caused by the Fox News/ Chris Wallace incident, the ridiculous ABC docudrama about 911 and current debates over the situation with North Korea.

Answer 1

When you take an oath (as Mr. Clinton did) to tell the truth and yet you lie--it begs the question "What about the oath to uphold the Constitution and defend the US"? Of course we know he lied about that too, by selling out to the Chinese. (And we know how sacred he holds marriage vows.) But to a sociopath like Clinton--his (treasonous) means justify the end (his popularity and ability to influence policy). It makes me ill to think people 'worship' him after all he has done to us--Bill Clinton never gave a second thought to America or it's citizens--only about his 'power'. He broke a lot of laws, including illegally obtaining FBI files of Republicans--the information in which I am certain he is STILL using to blackmail those who oppose him. He may no longer be president (the disbarred, perjuring rapist that he is) but don't doubt for a moment the illegal activities conducted under his orders are still shaping US Policy today.

Answer 2

Personally, I don't see much point in delving into the past. Clinton isn't President anymore. We survived his time in office. What he says in public today has little credence in my mind and most other people.
It was generally accepted that Clinton lied his butt off when caught with his hand in the cookie jar. That caused the loss of all his credibility. Very few people would be sway by what he says today. As a matter of fact, he'll likely do more harm for the Democrats than good.
Edit:
I couldn't say if Clinton is having an effect on other people. I can say that as far as I'm concerned, I don't pay any attention to him. I can't see how any reasonable person would. I'm not a Republican nor a conservative. I think I pretty much reflect the minds of what used to be called the swing vote. Clinton in my opinion is a non-entity.

Answer 3

So what else is new? Ex-presidents very often remain in the political game even after their term is over. Both Nixon & Carter became prominent statesmen & diplomats after their presidential terms. Your question begs the response: "So what?".

There simply is nothing new here. Bush the Elder has not completely left the spotlight, and I don't expect the Bush the Younger will leave it, either.

There are legimate questions about the actions of EVERY president. The Reagan Administration has a TON of unanswered questions, and how amazing that one of the first things Bush did when he took office was extend how long the Reagan files would be kept sealed.....whatever might be in Clinton's file doesn't even compare to what will eventually come out in those files (especially concerning illegal arms deals, CIA drug deals, etc., etc.).

Re-examine the Clinton Administration - and try to separate yourself from your hatred of him because of severe personal flaws -- no Administration is perfect.....but the Clinton Administration will go down historically as a FAR superior administration to that of the current one.

(Addendum to poster: I didn't personally attack you - but your question does come off as being very loaded....perhaps the word "hatred" was too strong....but was it incorrect?)

Answer 4

Clinton had his faults as has many Presidents. His lies were of a personal issue most likely trying mostly to save face from Hillary and his daughter. Thats a personal issue. His governing issues speak for themselves. He was handed a huge deficit, national debt and eliminated it much like the next President will have to deal with. Thats relevant. His policies taking care of things here at home like Medicare and Social Security were very good which seems relevant since thats not happening any more. For all his personal faults he is still very much liked I think. Jeez, he's a blues man with a sax, what more could you want? Check out this video link.

Answer 5

Yes, I agree with your points, and I would add that it proves diplomacy and allowing someone to save face works better than "taking them dead or alive" and "bring it on." I figure if Bush had been president when this happened, Kim Jong Il would have ADDED time to their hard labor every time Bush opened his mouth. Foreign relations always involve a carrot and a stick. Bush only knew how to use the stick. Clinton, Obama and all intelligent presidents know how and when to use both.

Answer 6

It's still revelant today because Clinton was the last great President to be in Washington. A LOT beter than Georgie Boy who is in power now. At least Clinton tried to change America for the better.

Answer 7

Clinton is the lap dog of George Soros.

Answer 8

Me and my fellow Republicans agree that it was his fault Katrina hit New Orleans, further more, we believe it was his fault for the Spanish Inquisition.

Answer 9

He is still relevant because the Bush administration needs someone it can blame its failings on.

Answer 10

I believe it is because alot happened during his presidency and it is affected no with war and much more