Neither i probably could do a better job myself then either of them.
2007-03-02 01:48:22
·
answer #1
·
answered by Mary O 6
·
1⤊
0⤋
George Bush.
2007-03-02 01:59:20
·
answer #2
·
answered by Matt 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
That depends on who is controlling Congress. Clinton was a weak President and was held in check by the Republican-controlled Congress. Bush, on the other hand, had a Republican-controlled Congress and for some reason these Republicans started acting like Democrats. I would choose neither, but if I had to choose it would probably be Bill Clinton since he was weak and held in check.
2007-03-02 01:57:18
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
George Bush
2007-03-02 01:48:53
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
2⤋
Bill Clinton
2007-03-02 02:19:17
·
answer #5
·
answered by J 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
George W. Bush.
2007-03-02 01:50:50
·
answer #6
·
answered by lundstroms2004 6
·
1⤊
2⤋
you're basically getting your self right into a pissing contest. Time to permit bypass of the gangster mentality. the two events are working as a team to destroy the rustic. Whom ever comes after BHO, will proceed the ball rolling, basically like Bush persevered Clinton's stride. stop being a lemming, and attempt to have an unique thought. there is the place the undertaking is, no one thinks for themselves to any extent further.
2016-09-30 02:39:28
·
answer #7
·
answered by arieux 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
Based on the popularity polls, if Clinton could be president today, he would have over 50% approval ratings.
2007-03-02 01:55:12
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
Bill Clinton, hands down.
2007-03-02 01:56:08
·
answer #9
·
answered by Bush Invented the Google 6
·
1⤊
0⤋
George Bush. Bill was too busy with his personal affairs to lead the nation against evil.
2007-03-02 01:50:07
·
answer #10
·
answered by az 4
·
1⤊
2⤋
Bill Clinton... I didn't care for him then but I appreciate Clinton a lot more compared to what we have now.
2007-03-02 02:14:42
·
answer #11
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋