Opinion of Bill Clinton

[IceSpear]

As traininthedistance pointed out, part of what's going on is, he's being judged for his actions 20 years ago as if the political environment was the same as it is today. Of course, when Bill Clinton announced his run for the presidency in 1991, not only the Democratic party but the collective left was in the worst shape since 1789. Taking the first steps in the long road back will look unpopular now, when all of the rewards are simply assumed.

This. FF

[IceSpear]

Sure, moving from Michael Dukakis' 46% of the vote in 1988 to Bill Clinton's 43% of the vote in 1992 is a sign of a once-in-a-lifetime political genius. Simply not losing ground when the other party's candidate collapses due to a party schism is a political feat worthy of a mastermind.

EDIT: Seriously, though, all sarcasm aside, it is healthy to remember that a larger share of Americans voted for Michael Dukakis to be their president in 1988 than voted for Bill Clinton to be their president in 1992 when considering the degree to which the Democratic Party was in peril in the late 1980s, and I think there's a very strong case indeed to be made that the cure (the Clintons) was far worse than the disease (especially since the Democratic Party was clearly already on a rebound from 1986 onwards).

Are you seriously peddling the myth that Bush would've been re-elected if Perot wasn't in the race?