2007-06-29 11:31:56 · 25 answers · asked by ANyone but you 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
No
2007-06-29 11:34:33 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 7⤋
Clinton was a do-nothing president who squandered away the best opportunity since the 1950s to make any meaningful changes.
He was a president that benefited from great peace and prosperity that he had little to do with.
The cold war had ended and there were no great threats from other countries. He could afford to reduce the military. He was lucky enough to be in office during the great IT revolution of the 90s. The dot.com boom, and then bubble created enormous new wealth and tax revenue, as well as new ways to enhance everyone's productivity and spread information and ideas.
Yet with all that going for him, he did not pass one major reform or bold new program. Did he take this opportunity to reform and save Social Security? Nope. Did he reform our medical system (his biggest campaign goal)? No. Did he do anything meaningful on stopping Global Warming, which was his VP's big pet issue? No. Did he reform public education? No. Did he take any decisive action to reduce islamic terrorism? No.
Oh, he had some small victories. He passed welfare reform and NAFTA. He put more cops on the street. Very nice things that almost any president could have done.
In the long run, history will judge Clinton as a placeholder in the history of American presidents. Neither botching the job, nor doing much with it.
2007-06-29 18:40:32 · answer #2 · answered by Uncle Pennybags 7 · 5⤊ 1⤋
He was a horrble president. The financial benefits the country had were already set in place by Pres. Reagan and the first Bush. They were just beginning to bear fruit when Clinton went into office. Clinton had the first terrorist attact on the Trade center under his watch, the Cole was bombed by terrorist on his watch our army barractks were bombed on his watch and he passed on Osama. He managed to bomb an aspirign factory in Iraq during his administration to distract Americans from his personal disgrace. And anyone who says that his sex scandal was personal and not the busines of the public is wrong! As President he represents our country 24/7 that is what you sign up for when you want the privilege of being president. He brought disgrace to the office of President. How can you trust a man who can't even keep a vow to the person who should mean the most to him, his wife. If his loyalty to her means nothing them why should we have ever believed he had loyalty to our country. And he is the only president to have protested and burned the American Flag in red square. I saw the video of him doing it. That is a complete disgrace!
2007-06-29 18:58:52 · answer #3 · answered by M j 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
He had his ups and downs. Health care reform was his big chance to make a lasting impact and he failed in that regard.
However, I think he followed the right economic path by opening up trade, getting the budgetary situation in order, and investing in the right things. Welfare reform and some other policies to help with poverty were important. Bush, unfortunately, screwed the budget up and we are going to pay for it one of these days.
He also conducted a responsible foreign policy based on diplomacy and not going to war with everyone we didn't like.
I could give a crap about what he did with Monica Lewinsky.
2007-06-29 21:32:07 · answer #4 · answered by Jeff P 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
No president is perfect, and considering US history since 1960, especially since 2000, I have to grade on a curve.
Nafta sucks. The telecommunications act blows. The economy was great. The surplus was amazing. The national debt was paid off. Monica only made me mad because he was on the job, pun intended, when it happened. If he did it at the Motel 6 after hours I could have cared.
2007-06-29 18:58:11 · answer #5 · answered by Harry Bastid 3 · 0⤊ 2⤋
I don't ask much of a President.
I like money, so I don't want a President to screw up the economy in such a way that it has a negative impact on me.
I like freedom, so I don't want a President who is attempting to erode my freedoms or rights.
I like peace, so I don't want a President who's a warmonger.
Clinton passed all 3 tests for me. Bush has failed all 3.
2007-06-29 19:00:41 · answer #6 · answered by CaesarLives 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
He was incapable of leading and used opinion polls to make decisions. That is not leadership. A president is elected based on his character and background because as the commander in chief it is necessary to make quick decisions. He is the only government official that needs this capability. A president must LEAD the country not manage it based on public opinion.
2007-06-29 18:44:54 · answer #7 · answered by Homeless in Phoenix 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
I think that he was a god president. I also think that he lost credibility for his good work by not keeping it in his pants. That seems to be all that people, especially the Republicans, can remember about him.
2007-06-29 18:46:59 · answer #8 · answered by Janet 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I think he was a great president. Everything that happend in his personal life is person. Yes, it was wrong to cheat on his wife, but that makes him a terrible husband, not a terrible president. He repaired the economy and didn't start Vietnam Part II, oops I mean the war in Iraq.
2007-06-29 18:35:56 · answer #9 · answered by Neuromancer 3 · 3⤊ 2⤋
I think Bill Clinton had a good team working under him. I think that's why he was a good president. He had good advice and leadership.... I voted for him 2 times...
2007-06-29 18:35:05 · answer #10 · answered by Chaoticfreedoms 3 · 2⤊ 4⤋
Okay, let's forget about the you know what, he did do
some good things.
There are always some likes and dislikes about a
President or even pure dislike like some people
feel about the Prez right now.
2007-06-29 18:37:20 · answer #11 · answered by animalsrmyhobby30 1 · 1⤊ 2⤋