Comparing Clinton

[Citizen James]

Same question answer set as the Bush poll (except for reversing FDR and Reagan), what say you?

[Frodo]

option 4. 

[Colin]

An average president like Ford.

[Jake]

Average

[bullmoose88]

Average (poor until 95....good until he left office)

[phk]

 An average president like Ford

[A18]

Average (which is pretty terrible)

[opebo]

An average president like Ford - in fact he was very similar to Ford ideologically.  Essentially a moderate Republican.  Did nothing for the bottom 90%.

[Emsworth]

He was an okay President, but that's better than most.

[dazzleman]

Average, though not like Ford.  Ford was far more principled.

[Schmitz in 1972]

He was mixed. He didn't do the country too much harm (excepting of course, the two abominations he put on the Supreme Court). He also showed that a sex offender can get elected president to two terms, revealing how far America has sunk.

Don't even get me started on Janet "Waco" Reno (although Ashcroft was almost as bad)

[opebo]

He also showed that a sex offender can get elected president to two terms, revealing how far America has sunk.

Hah!  Revealing that in modern America any significant amounts of testosterone in the bloodstream are sufficient to label one a 'sex offender'.  Only religious castrati like Bush are considered acceptable males.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Option 4. I might have given him option 5 if he'd been followed by a reasonable President, but since I see how sh**tty a President can be, I give him option 4.

[Cashcow]

#4

[dazzleman]

He also showed that a sex offender can get elected president to two terms, revealing how far America has sunk.

Hah!  Revealing that in modern America any significant amounts of testosterone in the bloodstream are sufficient to label one a 'sex offender'.  Only religious castrati like Bush are considered acceptable males.

I'm afraid you may be partly right, given the influence of the feminazis, and their desire to make it socially unacceptable to be a normal male.

Still, I don't agree with your characterization of the president, and I think Clinton probably is a real sex offender, not just a regular guy.

[Rob]

I'm going to go with the consensus here and rate him as "average". His first two years were awful, but he performed admirably after that, under pressure from the GOP Congress. (See? Divided government does have its advantages!)

[Palefire]

The US had a fairly good run under Clinton, better than most. But I credit that largely to the split in government between the Dems and the Reps. Because of the split neither side was able to do very much that could be called "stupid". As such, they spent more time beating on each other and less time beating on we the people. Plus, both sides were scared of getting caught slipping up - a state that all politician should be placed in at all times.

[Democratic Hawk]

Why the leap from average to great? I'd like to vote good - but I'll have to settle for average

Dave

[angus]

average.  see also my comments about bush.

[Cashcow]

He was definately poor in the sense of maintaining an honorable depiction of America...average in the sense of accomplishments.

Bush isn't exactly warming the hearts of the outside world. By that logic, you'd have to say the same about him, because Clinton was certainly viewed as more favorable.

[Akno21]

I wouldn't say he's great, but he was definitly better than average. Option 3.5

[A18]

He was definately poor in the sense of maintaining an honorable depiction of America...average in the sense of accomplishments.

Bush isn't exactly warming the hearts of the outside world. By that logic, you'd have to say the same about him, because Clinton was certainly viewed as more favorable.

It's better to be respected than liked.

[Cubby]

I chose "Great President Like FDR or Reagan".

But I certainly don't think he's as good as FDR (The Greatest Ever!). He's like a B level President; good, better than average but worse than FDR or Jefferson types.

[ATFFL]

Better than average, but not great.

He has no lasting achievements to call his own.  The economy was good, and he was smart enough to stay out of its way, but did nothing when the bubble started bursting.  He never tried to tackle anything important and spent too much time dealing with minor, niggling issues.

[Cubby]

Better than average, but not great.

He has no lasting achievements to call his own.  The economy was good, and he was smart enough to stay out of its way, but did nothing when the bubble started bursting.  He never tried to tackle anything important and spent too much time dealing with minor, niggling issues.

I agree with you that he never tackled any big issues. I never remember him addressing the nation from the Oval Office like both Bushes did (NO MONICA JOKES please)

But I had an arguement with someone here recently about Clinton and the 2001 Recession, I'd hate to get into it again. He was out of office by the time it started (March 2001), it was not his responsibility. If he had taken any action in late 2000, he would have been accused by the GOP of trying to influence the election. That actually happened when he tapped the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.