Originally posted by: ProfJohn
More likely Bush?s ineptness makes Bill?s time look that much better.Originally posted by: teclis1023
It's too late for the Clinton legacy. Bill will now be written off as an inconsequential, scandal-ridden POTUS who governed between two War Presidents
Bill remains one of the most popular American Presidents of all time - he has only become more popular with Bush's inept leadership.
Bill was so popular in 2000 that his VP couldn?t win the election. (And if you are of the belief that Gore was cheated it still says a lot that the sitting VP during a time of peace and a good economy couldn?t win his own home state and could barely win the election 48.4% to 47.9%. Bush 41, also a sitting VP, creamed Dukakis in 1988 53% to 45%)
Clinton is going to go down in history as an unremarkable president who served during a 'boring' period of history. Nothing happened during Bill's term that will be talked about 20 years from now, except his personal problems and impeachment.
Clinton served during one of the most explosive periods of growth in the nation's history and even if all he accomplished was staying out of the way of it, the country prospered under him.
My memories of the Clinton administration are that Bill Clinton was viewed as the only bright spot in it. People didn't like the democratic party, they didn't like Al Gore, and they didn't like Hillary.
Al gore was a boring, stifling choice to run for President and I think Bush offered a lot more promise at the time. Bush senior didn't have such a bad legacy, after all, and Bush junior, even while being an inferior speaker, focused on issues Americans cared about a hell of a lot more than what Gore was hocking.
but I don't think Obama would offer it, either. Obama needs someone with strong foreign policy experience to balance out his ticket... a Biden or a Richardson... or maybe a Wesley Clark? that would be an interesting way of making nice with the Clinton faction.
Colin Powell
