Bill Clinton's third term

[Shogun]

*yawn*

 

[Ravi]

He wouldn't have won several key states without Republican votes and endorsements. But with the GOP lurching further to the right and the Administration's bait and switch on the Change mantra it appears Republicans for Obama are facing the possibility of being a constitutency without representation.

Anyone who believes Hillary Clinton's approach to foreign policy will not be affected by her husband's long history of stuffing his pockets with millions of dollars from foreign governments and connected business concerns isn't grounded in reality.

Placing the feminine face of the two-headed Clinton political monster doesn't say Change, it says Politics as Usual.

That's a pretty sexist attitude.

 

[TR_GOP]

Might be but I sort of doubt it.

Conditions have so changed that there's not a chance in hell we're repeat those halcyon days soon.

I'm going to wait until we see some policy before I start seriously complaining about the Obama Administration.

After all, I'm an historian, not a fortune teller.

Sometimes I don't really know what I think about current events for decades.

I've been reevaluating Reagan for the last twenty years and the jury is still out on him.

That's interesting, I've developed the conclusion Reagan's Alzheimers condition began showing during his second term and it's during that time George HW Bush began laying down the groundwork for his Trilateral Commission derived global economic and political agenda.

Side note; Paul Volker, Alan Greenspan, Bush Sr, and Dick Cheney were all Trilateral Commission members at one time or another.

 

[TR_GOP]

That's a pretty sexist attitude.

Sexist? Fact-ist.

 

[Ravi]

Sexist? Fact-ist.

We shall see. But since you are prejudging without actually knowing the eventual outcome, I'd say it is sexist.

 

[Lycurgus]

Kudos to you for having an open mind.

I too have a wait and see attitude, and I have been behind Obama since day one. If he doesn't/can't come through with the promises and change he said he would, THEN I will bitch and moan. He's not even in office yet, but I feel most of his picks are well thought out and planned, a little ying to his yang.


My biggest concern beside the war and the economy is a change to NCLB, let's hope that gets on the desk within the next year!

I have no party politics abilities. To me that is too narrow minded to be successful.

However, as with everyone I do have my preferences.

I am a Fiscal Republican, a Social Libertarian, a Ecological Democrat & a in regard to defense I am most certainly a Hawk.

So clearly I disagree with many of Obama's opinions and projected policies, but, there are also a fair number which I could support. I can respect a person who stands true to their word, even if I disagree with the word.

Finally, I am willing to learn, I have to in order to survive. I ask questions. I want to understand why a person has the opinion they do, if they are sharing a reasonable thought and not just political junk. Don't take me wrong, I enjoy political junk, it's fun, but, I can't learn much from it.

So that's my deal.

 

[TR_GOP]

We shall see. But since you are prejudging without actually knowing the eventual outcome, I'd say it is sexist.

It is the sometime cynical view of the realist. Sexism has nothing to do with it. My daughter runs a reactor in a nuclear carrier, she didn't develop an mechanical aptitude by growing up in the household of a sexist. Your attachment of the sexist label in order to discredit my opinion is unfounded.

 

[Lycurgus]

Might be but I sort of doubt it.

Conditions have so changed that there's not a chance in hell we're repeat those halcyon days soon.

I'm going to wait until we see some policy before I start seriously complaining about the Obama Administration.

After all, I'm an historian, not a fortune teller.

Sometimes I don't really know what I think about current events for decades.

I've been reevaluating Reagan for the last twenty years and the jury is still out on him.

I still and always will believe in that old word ............ History is one of our best teachers!

Reagan, like so many, had some really strong points and did some good things and then was weak in other areas. Overall, on a personal level, I liked Reagan. As for history judging him, I feel that those who will judge him best may have just been born or are soon to be born. In regard to honestly judging Bush, they haven't been born yet. I don't think me, you or current historians are fit to honestly judge Bush, Clinton, 41, Reagan and so on.

 

[Ravi]

It is the sometime cynical view of the realist. Sexism has nothing to do with it. My daughter runs a reactor in a nuclear carrier, she didn't develop an mechanical aptitude by growing up in the household of a sexist. Your attachment of the sexist label in order to discredit my opinion is unfounded.

If you say so. But even your little story about your daughter doing well because you aren't a sexist is, well, sexist.

 

[TR_GOP]

If you say so. But even your little story about your daughter doing well because you aren't a sexist is, well, sexist.

There is indeed a sexist attitude within the discussion, it blinds one from examining the very real conflict of interest issues and historical record of Clinton politics - friends who donate invariably receive favors.

 

[editec]

I still and always will believe in that old word ............ History is one of our best teachers!

Reagan, like so many, had some really strong points and did some good things and then was weak in other areas. Overall, on a personal level, I liked Reagan. As for history judging him, I feel that those who will judge him best may have just been born or are soon to be born. In regard to honestly judging Bush, they haven't been born yet. I don't think me, you or current historians are fit to honestly judge Bush, Clinton, 41, Reagan and so on.

History gives us the benfit of seeing the fallout of policies.

Sometimes the effects of policies take decades to play out.

Some of the stuff Reagan did looks to me like it is playing out now, and badly.

But the more I read about the guy, the more I think his head was in the right place, even if he was unduly influence by the Randian school of economics.

I don't think he defeated the Soviets, but I think he delivered the coup d' grace, for example.

He tried and failed to stand up to the religion of free trade.

He saved social security but increased taxes to do so.

He cut taxes and spent too much money at the same time.

No POTUS I've ever studied got it all right.

Not even Washington.

It's tough job and there's no crystal ball to consult.

 

[Caligirl]

We shall see. But since you are prejudging without actually knowing the eventual outcome, I'd say it is sexist.

I actually agree with him, but I may be sexist as well.

Hillary seemed authentic to me when she said "I could stay home and bake cookies" and much since then has seemed calculated to me, including staying with her husband. I like that she stayed with her husband, but it is hard to not see it as calculated. I don't know why. Maybe the failing is mine. Too much SNL.

I am amazed by some of the stuff she has done, and don't dislike her. Her speech at the convention was amazing.

 

[TR_GOP]

After backing off from the discussion in order to let the dust settle (found that doing this when topics get heated prevents hoof in mouth disease, well, usually) perhaps I need to clarify.

I'm not suggesting that Hillary and Bill Clinton are scheming, plotting, or have entered into a tacit agreement to further any interest on part of Bill's many contributors. However there exist an established pattern of pathological behavior that must be considered. The incoming administration has apparently realized this and has taken steps to render the issue managable. I don't share their optimism or share the belief that the benefits of having an internationally recognized Hillary Clinton as SOS together with Bill Clinton's body of experience and contacts outweighs the risk. Somewhere along the way a previously vested associate's interest are going to cross with the SOS's duties. While the effect on judgement may or may not be immediately apparent, you can be sure Hillary will at some point bring an evening of pointed dinner talk into the decision-making process. The Loral-China missile technology transfer issue of 1994-1996 was never fully investigated. It is also noteworthy that Bill Clinton tirelessly advocated throwing open the door to Corporate investment in Red China despite objections based on unrepentant human rights violations.

I wasn't a supporter of Ken Starr's inquiry into the Monica Lewinski affair or the impeachment proceedings, it was a purely political witchhunt, one that wasted investigational resources while simutaneously compromising the nation's stature by turning our democratic political process into an R-rated soap opera joke. Truth be told Republicans didn't have the guts or integrity needed to fully investivate REAL issues within the administration.

What I've come to detest more than anything else within politics its the sheel levels of unapoligetic corruption. It's bipartisan, infectious, and growing year by year. Through his eloquence, inspirational message, and untarnished by DC politics image, I became a believer in Barack Obama. His decision to invite Clinton politics back into the White House has caused me to pause. This thread isn't a exercise of Clinton bashing for the sake of it (despite what some may say). To be perfectly honest it's an expression of fear. A warning. It sure as hell isn't sexism because I respect Hillary to a far greater degree than her husband. If they had seperated (not that I'm advocating it) Hillary's appointment would be a non-issue far as I'm concerned.

Finally, if there's one common thread running through the Clinton Fan Club membership shares it's a willingness to overlook issues of character. The same willingness to place partisanship over honest government exist among counterparts in the Bush Fan Club. I'll place the blame for that right at the feet of the Chris Matthews and Sean Hannitys of televised commentery. . More than anything else this politically expedient acceptance of such flaws in character explains how US politics arrived at the sorry level of corruption it exist in today. A return to honest government was the Change I looked forward to. Hopefully my cynicism is misplaced...

 

[editec]

I'm not suggesting that Hillary and Bill Clinton are scheming, plotting, or have entered into a tacit agreement to further any interest on part of Bill's many contributors. However there exist an established pattern of pathological behavior that must be considered. The incoming administration has apparently realized this and has taken steps to render the issue managable.

Yes, I think that is spot on. I think Obama decided that he'd rather have the Clinton team inside the tent pissing out than outside pissing in.

Happily, the Clintons are not only politically powerful, but they are also very competent administrators who can (and I hope will) do right by Obama while he's doing right by the American people.

I don't share their optimism or share the belief that the benefits of having an internationally recognized Hillary Clinton as SOS together with Bill Clinton's body of experience and contacts outweighs the risk. Somewhere along the way a previously vested associate's interest are going to cross with the SOS's duties. While the effect on judgement may or may not be immediately apparent, you can be sure Hillary will at some point bring an evening of pointed dinner talk into the decision-making process. The Loral-China missile technology transfer issue of 1994-1996 was never fully investigated. It is also noteworthy that Bill Clinton tirelessly advocated throwing open the door to Corporate investment in Red China despite objections based on unrepentant human rights violations.

Clinton is clearly an internationalist. So yea, if Obama is serious about putting american back to work, this might be a problem.

Truth be told Republicans didn't have the guts or integrity needed to fully investivate REAL issues within the administration.

That's because they are accomplices in those issues. BOTH parties are on the internationalist free traders, that' is obvious to me.

What I've come to detest more than anything else within politics its the sheel levels of unapoligetic corruption. It's bipartisan, infectious, and growing year by year.

Iran Contra opened the floodgates to blatent corruption in my opinion. Once the pols realized they could get away from a series of conspiratorial crimes that serious, and nothing would be done, well...the Presidency got a whole lot more imperial

Through his eloquence, inspirational message, and untarnished by DC politics image, I became a believer in Barack Obama. His decision to invite Clinton politics back into the White House has caused me to pause. This thread isn't a exercise of Clinton bashing for the sake of it (despite what some may say). To be perfectly honest it's an expression of fear. A warning.

Obama did not get the nod because he was going to change the whole sweet system that is destroying this nation, methinks.

Truly tenaciously honest patriots are vetted from power LONG BEFORE they ever reach the national level of poltics.

Finally, if there's one common thread running through the Clinton Fan Club membership shares it's a willingness to overlook issues of character. The same willingness to place partisanship over honest government exist among counterparts in the Bush Fan Club. I'll place the blame for that right at the feet of the Chris Matthews and Sean Hannitys of televised commentery. . More than anything else this politically expedient acceptance of such flaws in character explains how US politics arrived at the sorry level of corruption it exist in today. A return to honest government was the Change I looked forward to. Hopefully my cynicism is misplaced...

My experience in various political cuases lead me to think that power is corrupted from the lowest levels of city governement right on through up to the Oval Office.

You cycnicism is not misplaced in my opinion. In fact it's not cynicism to see things as they really are.

We are NOT a very ethical people, we Americans.

Our system rewards selfishness at every turn, and while it gives lip service to a higher value systems, that's pretty much all it gives to that quaint notion.

Honest players are dismissed from the corridors of power as goofy idealists at best, or as dangerous loose cannons at worst.



Who knows what these idealists might do?

They might spill the beans. They might take their oaths of office seriously. They might expose the cozy corruption around them and break everyone's rice bowl.

Our system is corrupt because MOST AMERICANS are so easily corruptable.

This is what happens when your propaganda is all basically set up to give people the message that GREED IS GOOD, and a person's WORTH is measured by his bank account.

This is what happens to a people who WORSHIP MAMMON.​

We are a nation which tells itself sweet lies about itself, folks.

And this is a nation goes far out of its way to punish those who won't bow down to those lies or worship the golden calf of Mammon, either.

You're not cynical, TR. (well actually you are, but few people realize cynicism is the philosophy of truth tellers, not an insult about people who only see the bad side of things)

You are just not seeing the reality around you through partian-tinted, self agrandizing, I got mine, get yours, glasses.

 

[Red Dawn]

Bill Clinton's third term

CONCERN TROLL (definition): "A concern troll is a false flag pseudonym created by a user whose actual point of view is opposed to the one that the user's sockpuppet claims to hold. The concern troll posts in web forums devoted to its declared point of view and attempts to sway the group's actions or opinions while claiming to share their goals, but with professed "concerns". The goal is to sow fear, uncertainty and doubt within the group."


Examples:

"I am a lifelong Democrat but I just feel the party is being damaged by association with Howard Dean/Russ Feingold/DailyKos"

"I don't know why you're so upset. I only called you a big-assed whore because I'm so worried about your health."

"I'm just a plumber who's buying a company that nets $250k. How will your tax plan hurt me, Senator Obama?"

"I voted for Obama and change, but these crap Clinton appointees smacks of nepotism and more of the same"

 

[TR_GOP]

Editec...my god, you're one of the few people I've discussed such topics with who gets it! However it seems some people are so accustomed to being lied to they just can't comprehend the idea that a perceived political enemy voted for Obama and is merely being sincere.

CONCERN TROLL (definition): "A concern troll is a isfalse flag pseudonym created by a user whose actual point of view is opposed to the one that the user's sockpuppet claims to hold. The concern troll posts in web forums devoted to its declared point of view and attempts to sway the group's actions or opinions while claiming to share their goals, but with professed "concerns". The goal is to sow fear, uncertainty and doubt within the group."

 

[editec]

I doubt anyone here thinks you've sewn fear in me, TR.

I have described our political doings as so much shadow puppet theater so many times, that nobody can be surprised when I express less than adoration for Obama.

I don't comment on the politicians I want, I comment on the politicians I have.​

Despite all my misgivings and concerns, I do think Obama is a several cuts above most Pols we've seen in our liftimes, though. That is hopeful.

I don't think he walks on water, and I surely don't think he's going to turn the world into editecitopia, either (damn it!).

But he may be the man we need at the moment. He may understand that his task, much like FDR's was, is to help capitalism save itself.

What comes after that I can only guess.

More of same, I expect.

A continued trend toward internationalism.

The continued devaluation workers world wide.

The continued increase in shamocracies worldwide which will have increasingly less real power to meaningfully respond to the needs of the people.

I don't think Obama could stop that trend if he tried.

It really would take a class revolution, and I don't think that he's that revolutionary leader.

I doubt we'd have ever heard of him, if the puppetmasters thought he was.

I think the longer range plan is to dramatically cut the world's population by attrition this century.

WE'll let the invisible hand of the market to do the dirty work of making that happen.

When more than half the world lives on $2 a day or less, that will be the easiest way to cut that population, giving the survivors plausible deniability so they can say it was beyond their ability to control.

We didn't starve half the world, the market did.​

See? I can think like a social darwinist, too.

Only that's not really social darwinism, is it?

That's really social engineering pretending to be market forces.

So if you're a "concern troll" mean to sew doubt into true believers, you've got a great long way to go before you could possibly breach my "concern" event horizon.

 

[Gord]

Happily, the Clintons are not only politically powerful, but they are also very competent administrators

Really? Where the hell did you get that idea from?!?

Bill Clinton started his presidency with an expanding economy and left it in a disaster. First there was the stock market bust. And don't forget about the Enron, Tyco, Worldcom, Global Crossing, etc. fiascoes. Those led to a recession (remember it was president Clinton that declared that the business cycle was over - LOL). Then there was the "Wall" which he erected between the FBI, the NSA and the CIA so they could not share information and dig into his Chinese money-laundering, and which led to the security intel failure of 9/11. Oh, and don't forget about allowing Loral Space to hand the Chinese ballistic missile technology that brought them 30 years ahead, and now they have nukes that can reach N.A. (was that a payoff for the laundered money they contributed to his campaigns or was it from being blackmailed over Monica or other "interns"?). And then after much posturing in 1998 about Saddam's WMD's president Clinton instead left his mess for president Bush to solve:

Transcript President Clinton explains Iraq strike - December 16, 1998

Transcript: President Clinton explains Iraq strike - December 16, 1998

"The hard fact is that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well-being of his people, the peace of his region, the security of the world."

"The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government - a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people."

"If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future. Saddam will strike again at his neighbors. He will make war on his own people."

"And mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them."

President Clinton should have invaded Iraq in 1998 when Saddam kicked the UN inspectors out, and they knew he still had stockpiles of WMD's. But we all know that Clinton was just a poser - everything he said and did was with an eye on the polls (and the Monika problem).

Osama bin Laden specifically pointed to Clinton's quick retreat from Somalia that led him to conclude that America was weak. Sudan offered to hand over Osama bin Laden to President Clinton on a platter, but Clinton refused to take him. Look where that led to.

President Clinton also let North Korea continue to develop its nuclear weapons program without repercussions even though he supposedly "negotiated" an agreement with the N. Koreans to not make nukes.

The political correctness of the Clinton administration had CIA operatives sewing "diversity quilts" supposedly to make them more sensitive to the countries they were supposed to spy on. That and similar nonsense allowed Libya to develop a nuclear weapons program even more sophisticated and mature than today's Iran program. (Thank goodness Bush invaded Iraq, which directly led to Libya voluntarily giving up its nuke program so it would not be the next country invaded by Bush - that alone makes the Iraq war worthwhile. And now Libya is expressing desires to democratize.)

And then there was the illegal attack on Serbia without UN consultation or approval and based on a completely fraudulent claim of "500,000" Kosovars supposedly "ethnically cleansed" and Clinton comparing it to the Holocaust on television to sell the war. This was done to make up for the "embarrassment" of allowing up to 1 million Tutsis be mass murdered in Rwanda, after which Clinton admitted as few as 5,000 troops could have prevented the slaughter. And it turned out only a few thousand Serbs and Kosovars had died - hardly "ethnic cleansing".

And then there was the selling of White House bedrooms.

And severely cutting CIA funds and resources when terrorism was on the rise, with multiple terrorism events throughout his presidency which he refused to reply to.

Of course there was FBI filegate.

And there was the botched peace agreement that led to the Palestinian Intifada.

And of course we can't forget White Water, impeachment, cattle futures, Waco, Elian Gonzalez and bombing aspirin factories.

And one last thing - thanks to Clinton for significantly stiffening the CRA that directly led to the current worldwide economic meltdown.

But liberals with their horse blinkers on love to tell everyone what a great president Bill Clinton was. Sheesh! How could he have been worse?!?

President Clinton will always be known as the "blue dress" joke-of-a-president who couldn't keep his pants up or his enemies down, and turned a two-term presidency into a disaster for which the country will pay in many ways for years to come...

 

[editec]

Editec...my god,

You noticed, huh? Keep it down though, please. I'm attempting to maintain a low profile.

You can just call me editec, my Lord.

you're one of the few people I've discussed such topics with who gets it! However it seems some people are so accustomed to being lied to they just can't comprehend the idea that a perceived political enemy voted for Obama and is merely being sincere.

You have no political enemies.

You merely have temporarily non-allied players who have yet to see the clarity of your vision.

RD has one of the better minds on this board.

Naturally that means he's paranoid.

Don't sweat it.

We may all be Bozos on this bus, anyway.

 

[editec]

Really? Where the hell did you get that idea from?!?

From the liberal media, where else?

Bill Clinton started his presidency with an expanding economy and left it in a disaster.

Yeah but what a wild ride while it lasted...for some people.

First there was the stock market bust. And don't forget about the Enron, Tyco, Worldcom, Global Crossing, etc. fiascoes. Those led to a recession (remember it was president Clinton that declared that the business cycle was over - LOL).

Yup the excesses of our XXth century guilded Age. Do you think Clinton was responsible for any of those?

I'd love to see the responsibility flowchart that proves it, if you do.

Then there was the "Wall" which he erected between the FBI, the NSA and the CIA so they could not share information and dig into his Chinese money-laundering, and which led to the security intel failure of 9/11.

I don't know much about that so called Wall. Everything I know about our police state is that the CIA and FBI have had a fairly effective WALL since the CIA was first founded.

The FBI is a fairly effective Federal police force. The CIA is an arm of the clanestine forces which is very good at buying allies to topple governments and not at all good at gathering intelligence.

Oh, and don't forget about allowing Loral Space to hand the Chinese ballistic missile technology that brought them 30 years ahead, and now they have nukes that can reach N.A. (was that a payoff for the laundered money they contributed to his campaigns or was it from being blackmailed over Monica or other "interns"?).

the USA started selling high technology a mighty long time ago. I myself worked for an industry which shall not be named but which brings good things to life, which was selling them Jet technology nearly thirty years ago...back when Reagan was in office.

And then after much posturing in 1998 about Saddam's WMD's president Clinton instead left his mess for president Bush to solve:

Clinton inherited a foreign policy mess, dealt with it more or less, and left a mess, true.

As did Bush II, as will Obama, and whomsoever follows him. Foreign affairs are ALWAYS a mess.

Transcript President Clinton explains Iraq strike - December 16, 1998

Transcript: President Clinton explains Iraq strike - December 16, 1998

"The hard fact is that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well-being of his people, the peace of his region, the security of the world."

"The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government - a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people."

"If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future. Saddam will strike again at his neighbors. He will make war on his own people."

"And mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them."

You are expecting me to defend Clinton's foreign policy failures? See above.

President Clinton should have invaded Iraq in 1998 when Saddam kicked the UN inspectors out, and they knew he still had stockpiles of WMD's. But we all know that Clinton was just a poser - everything he said and did was with an eye on the polls (and the Monika problem).

Clinton was practically neutered because of that affair. Had he gone to war the Republicans would have eaten him alive as an interventionist, just as they did because of Kosovo.

Osama bin Laden specifically pointed to Clinton's quick retreat from Somalia that led him to conclude that America was weak.

It is, much weaker than it should be, at least.

Sudan offered to hand over Osama bin Laden to President Clinton on a platter, but Clinton refused to take him.

You and I have a different take on that. I'm informed that is total bullshit, actually

President Clinton also let North Korea continue to develop its nuclear weapons program without repercussions even though he supposedly "negotiated" an agreement with the N. Koreans to not make nukes.

He let them, eh? What should he have done?

The political correctness of the Clinton administration had CIA operatives sewing "diversity quilts" supposedly to make them more sensitive to the countries they were supposed to spy on.

Rhetorical nonsense

That and similar nonsense allowed Libya to develop a nuclear weapons program even more sophisticated and mature than today's Iran program.

News to me. Probably news to Libya, too.

(Thank goodness Bush invaded Iraq, which directly led to Libya voluntarily giving up its nuke program so it would not be the next country invaded by Bush - that alone makes the Iraq war worthwhile. And now Libya is expressing desires to democratize.)

Don't trust those pirates.

And then there was the illegal attack on Serbia without UN consultation or approval and based on a completely fraudulent claim of "500,000" Kosovars supposedly "ethnically cleansed" and Clinton comparing it to the Holocaust on television to sell the war.

See? The above Republican spin is why he probably didn't go to war with Saddam. Here he's an interventionist. Elsewhere he's not interventionist enough.

You're busted as a partisan, dude.

This was done to make up for the "embarrassment" of allowing up to 1 million Tutsis be mass murdered in Rwanda, after which Clinton admitted as few as 5,000 troops could have prevented the slaughter. And it turned out only a few thousand Serbs and Kosovars had died - hardly "ethnic cleansing".

I'm certain the Serbs and Kosovars will be happy to hear that it was "hardly- ethnic cleansing"

And then there was the selling of White House bedrooms.

Yeah, but they put them back. You can go check. The're still there. Honest!

And severely cutting CIA funds and resources when terrorism was on the rise, with multiple terrorism events throughout his presidency which he refused to reply to.

Were I POTUS, I'd sink the CIA and start over.

Of course there was FBI filegate.

Yeah, I remember all those people being frogmarched out of the White House in leg manacles.

And there was the botched peace agreement that led to the Palestinian Intifada.

Blather. You forgot that he was responsible for the hundred years war, too.

And of course we can't forget White Water, impeachment, cattle futures, Waco, Elian Gonzalez and bombing aspirin factories.

Maybe you can't.

And one last thing - thanks to Clinton for significantly stiffening the CRA that directly led to the current worldwide economic meltdown.

Nonsense. Sheer partisan sophestry. If you truly believe that, you don't know jack about this economic meltdown. Seriously. Do some reading.

But liberals with their horse blinkers on love to tell everyone what a great president Bill Clinton was. Sheesh! How could he have been worse?!?

Yes, much. (See Bush II for example)

President Clinton will always be known as the "blue dress" joke-of-a-president who couldn't keep his pants up or his enemies down, and turned a two-term presidency into a disaster for which the country will pay in many ways for years to come...

I think I saw that entry for him in Wickedpedia.