Or were you just mesmerized by the way he smiled and pointed at you like he was on Romper Room?
2007-06-30 17:09:21 · 13 answers · asked by Anonymous in Entertainment & Music ➔ Polls & Surveys
Given the source of this question I am not sure if it is a serious question or not, but I will try to give a serious answer.
Clinton was a pretty good politician, but not an outstanding president. He maintained his popularity largely by basing his political decisions on polling data. Often he took the easy choices and left the more difficult ones unresolved. Lots of presidents do that--Clinton did it more than most.
Several of the people who've answered this have brought up George W. Bush. Bush was actually a far more effective president than Clinton in his first term. His leadership in his second term has been disappointing.
Clinton had a number of things going for him that Mr. Bush has not had. The media loved him. Attempts by a Republican Congress to hold him accountable on a few of his misdeeds backfired and actually increased his popularity.
Although I am not a Bill Clinton fan, I don't feel the impeachment was right or justified. But I also think anyone who calls him a great president has not seen a great president to compare him to. Great presidents are few and far between, but George W. Bush is more likely to be one than Bill Clinton.
In my memory, Harry Truman was a great president who--like Bush--was not popular while in office. Eisenhower was a better president than he is usually given credit for (thank him the next time you drive on an Interstate Highway.)
Nixon just missed greatness, thanks to the Watergate bungles. Ford was a better president than most of us realize. Reagan might be a great president, given a few more years of evaluation.
It is possible both Clinton and Bush the second might be remembered as great presidents, but it is far too soon to make that judgment and there is too much history ahead of all of us to make a proper decision.
In 1953 NOBODY would have ever thought it likely Truman would be thought of as a great president. The jury was even still out on Roosevelt. In the nation's history we have had only a handful of great presidents.
That judgment has to be reserved for the future where presidents from Reagan forward are concerned.
2007-06-30 17:36:04 · answer #1 · answered by Warren D 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
bill Clinton, with the aid of no ability, desrves to have his face on Mt Rushmore. notwithstanding, i became greater inspired than i presumed i may well be together with his reactions to foriegn affairs and issues. He did not somewhat have the prospect to be a President for the time of conflict time.
2016-10-03 08:02:32 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Sad to say no one will ever know, He was to busy trying to fight off the republicans assault on him, that he never had time to do all the great things he could have.
2007-06-30 17:17:14 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
yes, he was a GREAT president - some things he did morally were in question but he did a good job
2007-06-30 17:14:01 · answer #4 · answered by mommyrayne 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
No, he was not that good, but compared to BUSH all of the presidents seem wonderful!
2007-06-30 17:12:17 · answer #5 · answered by helicopterjen 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Yes, he was. During his Presidency...times where good.
2007-06-30 17:12:40 · answer #6 · answered by Nerds Rule! 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
He was funny, especially the "I smoked mary jane but I didn't inhale" bit. That was hilarious.
2007-06-30 17:16:51 · answer #7 · answered by Miley 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I don't know. How Americans did terrorists kill when he was president?
2007-06-30 17:12:26 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
compared to Bush he was the best.
2007-06-30 17:13:17 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
i found him moderately entertaining.
2007-06-30 17:13:24 · answer #10 · answered by nodumgys 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋