Talk:Bill Clinton/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Archive 1
| Archive 2 →


Contents

Article opening statement and Info Box

Party Affiliation does not belong in the introductory area unless it is of historic importance. Instead, it is given in the fact box at the right. This stylistic convention is followed on all Wikipedia articles on Presidents.


The reason the box is there is to give facts like that; the intro should not be duplicating the box material, it should be complimenting it, by stating in words what is historic about the President. For some Presidents, like Lincoln, party affiliation is historic; he was the first Republican President, and it is rightfully noted in the intro. For Clinton, there is nothing historic of note in mentioning his party, hence it does not belong in the intro. There is a scheme here to the display, and it should be uniform. Party information is important, and is easily found in the box, that's what its for. ChessPlayer 05:43, 29 May 2004 (UTC)

How do we fit in the Clinton policy of using executive branch regulations and lawsuits to punish organizations/companies that he did not like? (and possibly to drive them out of business)

He did this to:

  • the handgun industry
  • Microsoft (Al Gore went there to raise funds in 1996 but did not collect any).

Obvious questions:

  • Were the lawsuits/legal actions designed to force companies to pay 'protection money' to Democrat campaign organizations?
  • Were the lawsuits/legal actions designed to force companies to not contest a union action?

Oh, come on. I don't suppose we'd be willing to accept the canonical reasons for actions against such companies - namely "guns kill people" and "Microsoft is a monopoly"? You may not agree with either of those statements, but I don't see any reason to look for hidden motives here - these are precisely the sort of things democrats have a reputation of disagreeing with, so it's no surprise they took action against them.

What is questionable is whether or not the executive branch took legal action that could not be won just to bankrupt the target industry/company.

Unions do this to non-union shops. see Salting

  • Definately not one of the reasons Unions salt. The last thing the Union wishes is to destroy a non-Union business so long as there is a chance of converting it to a Union shop. Please refrain from displaying your antiunion bias. As a former salt, bankrupting a business is not in the best interests of the Union and isn't used as a tactic in conjuction with salting, at least not by any legitimate Union I've ever heard of. You are free to provide documentation if you dispute my contention.00:43, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

In the 1992 election, the other high-profile candidates were incumbent George H. W. Bush (Republican) and Ross Perot (Reform). In 1996 it was Bob Dole (Republican) and again Ross Perot (Reform).

Maybe there should be a page for each election, e.g. us/Election1992, us/Election1994, etc.
I agree, but think harder about what to call the pages. See naming conventions. --LS
Also, Perot was certainly "high-profile" in 1992, but in the 1996 election, he was no more so than Ralph Nader (Green), and received fewer votes and less press coverage. --LDC

Statements like "the most controversial Presidential Pardon in US history" should probably be left till more than 4 weeks after the event. -- Gareth Owen

I totally agree! -- LS
And it can't ever be true anyway; Ford's pardon of Nixon caused much more of a stir. And "...one of the most popular presidents in history..."? Please. I don't think his approval polls ever got much above 70%. That's not something that's really possible to ever quantify, but certainly he was never anywhere near FDR or JFK on that scale. You young folks just don't remember that far back. :) --LDC
The following information should be massively and fairly rewikified and refactored and then reinjected into the main page.

RE: Controversial Pardon. Excuse me for being an ignorant European, but what exactly happened?? -- WojPob

The PresidentOfTheUnitedStates has the power, under the UnitedStatesConstitution, to pardon people for crimes committed.

...or even crimes they haven't committed! --LDC

Clinton critics argue that Clinton's many last-minute pardons were more political than those of the past, and in some cases are baffling except in light of large donations to Clinton campaigns.

Clinton supporters can no doubt point to many other highly political pardons in history, including for example Gerald Ford's pardon of Richard Nixon. I'm sure that in the entire sordid history of politics, there have been many other cases of apparent pardons for money.

Clinton was considered by some to be the most Machiavellian president of the United States often using presidential powers to decrease the focus on troublesome scandals. He ordered the bombing of Kosovo the day of the Monica Lewinsky impeachment vote and bombed an asprin factory in Sudan to cover up ? He used whatever was politically expedient to further his policies such as observing Confederate Day while govenor of Arkansas and then condeming Confederate flags while president.

Bill Clinton was a two (more?) time governor of the state of Arkansas.

Major legislation he signed:

  • Balanced budget
  • Welfare Reform - vetoed twice - signed the third time
  • NAFTA - the previous president George H. W. Bush, was largely responsible for getting NAFTA enacted
  • Tax increase on Social Security recipients
  • Minimum wage increase

SupremeCourt appointments:

Major legislation he vetoed:

Major legislation he failed to get passed through Congress:

  • Healthcare Reform - socialized/nationalized health care (similar to Canada and the United Kingdom)
Actually, although a significant fraction of Americans wanted a system like that, others, wary of a large complex system did not, and what Hillary Clinton and all the conferences etc. ended up with was a difficult-to-summarize public/private mish-mash.
  • Social Security Reform - He appointed a committee on Social Security Reform and then dismissed their recommendations.
So was legislation ever proposed?


Didn't he also create (have something to do with creating) the AmeriCorps. These people do good stuff, imho. Then there is all the stuff about national health care, nafta, welfare reform, increasing money for student loans ... lots more than the scandal happened. He was also the governor of Arkansas a few times. (this page entails lots of hmwk) --PhillipHankins

Clinton's compromises on environmental and social issues were a great disappointment to the more progressive and/or radical types who vote Democrat sometimes. However, he did promote dialogue on race issues during his presidency, both in speeches and with a small budget.

See also:

  • UnitedStatesGovernment1992
  • UnitedStatesGovernment1994
  • UnitedStatesGovernment1996
  • UnitedStatesGovernment1998


Wouldn't it be nice to have (is there already) a short standard for nations? There's one that's used for internet domains, us = United States, ca = Canada, etc. Then we could use us/Democrat (then a us/Democrat page redirects to UnitedStates/DemocraticParty i guess).

No, I don't think so. Such standards are too hard to formulate and extremely fallible, as well as being anti-wiki generally. Just let things develop naturally first, anyway, and see what happens a few months or years down the road. -- Larry Sanger
The standard already exists, it's an ISO thing, the internet country TLDs use it.
Here's an interesting bug. There's patches at UseMod:UseMod/Bugs that look like they might fix it: The BlueQuestionMark after us/Democrat points to a page to edit William Jefferson Clinton/Democrat (the SubPage uses this page as the base page instead of "us"). I'm tempted to create a us page and a us/Democrat page to check, but i don't want to mess up the database.
us/Democrat is not recognized as a link; /Democrat is. You can use square brackets to make us/Democrat a link.
But please don't start in on a "US" page...there's already a United States page.
If i did it would get redirected :-) --JohnAbbe

This would focus on parties as organizations in separate nations, although there are *sometimes* transnational commonalities in purpose between same-named parties. I guess there could then be a separate DemocraticParty or Democratic Party page (we need easier ways to create redirect pages -- is anyone coding a Wiki:WikiBrowser yet? I'll pay real $$ for a GPL'd one that runs on OS X.)

Renaming is something that system administrators can do. We're just exploring it now. And please, do use Free Links rather than that ugly old mashed together style of linking, which looks silly. -- Larry Sanger

But i digress. The more pertinent question i have is, where are the WikipediaStandardsDiscussions? --JohnAbbe

See Wikipedia policy. We've been discussing all this stuff a lot...don't reinvent the wheel.  :-)

Thanks! --JohnAbbe

could someone make the history of his presidency less about "Deomocrats..." "Republicans....", and more like the presidential histories you read about presidents like John F. Kennedy, Truman, FDR, Teddy, etc. etc. etc. this reads like a history of the American two party system during the last decade of the 20th century.

I totally agree. --LMS

I do not agree; at least not totally. First, it is impossible to write anything like the presidential histories of Kennedy, Truman, Roosevelt, etc. because the Clinton presidency is simply too recent for its historical significance to be judged. Second, the impact of the Clinton presidency on American politics is not unimportant; although I agree that in the current article it seems overemphasized, I believe that is mainly because the article is so incomplete in its treatment of other topics. - HWR

Not very Pro Clinton - Created the "unofficial" Clinton at:

This might be useful - The Clinton Presidency and the Crisis of Democracy - by Howard Zinn

Actually, the NY Times article says the following: 'The Bill Clinton entry, for instance, said in late August he was "a two (more?) time governor of the state of Arkansas." Within two weeks it was updated to reflect the years he served as governor. (He served six two-year terms, or 12 years over a 14-year period.)' Our article says he served two terms as governor of Arkansas. --KQ

Why have several links been deleted and replaced by others in the latest version? --Robert Merkel

Is it too early to add a Post Presidential Years section?

If there's stuff worth adding, add it!--Robert Merkel 12:15 6 Jul 2003 (UTC)
I'd add it the day after if there's something to say. --Menchi 12:18 6 Jul 2003 (UTC)
  • April 19, 1993 - government siege on the Branch Davidian compound at Waco, Texas results in the death of 80 people - Republicans blame Clinton and Attorney General Janet Reno, rather than cult leader David Koresh

I've removed the bolded portion until someone can state this in an NPOV way. - RobLa 08:09 Jan 2, 2003 (UTC)

Removed:
He was also a California State Assemblyman from the 19 district.

Is this true? I never heard of him ever even establishing residency in California. --mav 05:02 6 Jul 2003 (UTC)


The article said that Paula Jones recieved money from conservative groups, which makes it sound like she decided to sue Clinton because she recieved money before deciding to sue. That is not the case. Please correct this.

Also, you describe Whitewater as a "failed land deal", but it was much more then that. Hillary Clinton was put in charge of investigating the bank- which lent that "failed land deal" money- to keep going. Another words, she was investigating the very bank that had kept her stake in Whitewater from going bankrupt. That's kind of shady, to say the least. Merely suggesting that it was a "failed land deal" makes it sound like someone was making a mountain out of a molehill. You also should have mentioned that at least 13 people were convicted or pled guilty in the Whitewater investigation, and that Ken Starr was given the edict to follow the investigation "wherever it led".

I would also like to see it mentioned in the article that President Clinton bombed a country on the day of the impeachment vote.


Finally, I think its worth nothing that the impeachment vote was mainly along party lines. John Abbott

If you think the article is incorrect, you can make changes! Remember, however, that they must be in keeping with the neutral point of view.
As to your specific points, it is relevant that conservatives did fund her (would she have pursued her case so vigorously without their encouragement?), though if you want to clarify that fact, go ahead. For Whitewater, try to explain all the complexities of it on this page is probably inappropriate (because Whitewater involved more people than just Bill) but if you can come up with a better characterisation that would be acceptable to people from both sides of politics, go for it. As far as the "bombing on the day of the impeachment vote", why is that significant? If your implication is that a lot of conservatives think that he bombed on that day to avoid getting convicted, you'd want to say that (and provide evidence), otherwise, it's irrelevant. Finally, I agree without reservation that it is important to mention that the impeachment vote, despite the pretentiousness of the whole process, was essentially a party-line vote.

By the way, the person who vandalised the article happens to be from a Navy installation. I wonder what the rules for a sailor misusing the Navy's computer resources are? --Robert Merkel 22:37, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC)

image

The box on the right-hand side gives information about the Presidency of the United States. So shouldn't the image be one from his Presidency? Futhermore, the most important office or job he has ever had is that of POTUS. So this article should have an image of him from that time period. Kingturtle 04:43, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I agree, the presidential image is more analogous with the images of other presidents. Evil saltine 04:48, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)
FYI, the image is from his later years as President, not the first year like the old image.

But the first one is an offical portrait. The older one is just him on the street. --Jiang 07:18, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)

The original picture is the much better one. It is an official picture taken indoors with a flag in the background and is much more professional. Plus it is public domain, unlike the probable copyright infringement which it was replaced with. Anthony DiPierro 07:24, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I have replaced the newer image of Clinton with the WH one. The older one seem to stick out like a sore thumb and looked rather ugly. -- iHoshie 09:18, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)

If not a copyvio, it can be linked elsewhere in the article. --Jiang 09:46, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)


I have asked that is page be protected. That request has been granted. I requested the protection due the row we are having over which image we want use as the former President's photo.

I propose it now: Do we want to use the offical WH photo or the unofficial photo User:ChrisDJackson has uploaded? If we use the unofficial photo, what is the copyright on the photo?

I want to settle this. -- iHoshie 08:31, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Osama Bin Laden

This was just undone in the article:

It is now becoming apparent, following the attacks on September 11th, 2001 that Bill Clinton could have pursued a more aggressive policy toward terrorist groups attacking American interests here in the United States and abroad. He even refused an offer to have Osama Bin Laden handed over to U.S. authorities twice during the '90s. Also, his policies that resulted in the reduction of our intelligence agencies hurt the U.S. abilities to uncover terrorist attacks before they occur. These policies were reversed with the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, a cabinet level position, by President George W. Bush.

Any way that some NPOV part of this can be included. My understanding was that Clinton got an least one opportunity to destroy or capture Bin Laden and decided not to take the action. - Texture 22:47, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The counterpoint is that the opportunity was not credible, and to take advantage of it would have been a major compromise of U.S. interests. The offer was made by Sudan's Defense Minister, ElFatih Erwa (who later became UN Ambassador), in early March 1996 during a secret trip to the United States where he met with the CIA's East Africa bureau chief at an Arlington hotel. The CIA officer had no political authority to negotiate terms of a capture, and the offer was therefore literally left on the table in that hotel room. Later in 1996, Wall Street financier, Mansoor Ijaz, made a trip to Sudan to meet various Sudanese leaders, including President Omar Hassan El Bashir and Hassan Al Turabi.

Turabi sent a letter to Clinton in August 1996 extending an olive branch for cooperation on terrorism-related issues in which Sudan had become embroiled. Ijaz was afforded access to Sudan's intelligence files in October 1996, and then informed Samuel R. "Sandy" Berger, then deputy national security adviser to Clinton. There was no response, according to Ijaz's account in Richard Miniter's New York Times bestseller "Losing Bin Laden".

Ijaz then returned to Sudan in early 1997, where he negotiated and received from Bashir an unconditional offer of counterterrorism assistance from Sudan to the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation, CIA and Congressional bodies that sought to review Sudan's intelligence files. The offer, according to Berger, was not credible because the Sudanese could not be trusted. Berger also repeatedly questioned Ijaz's motives in negotiating the offer, claiming Ijaz had business interests in Sudan (no independently verifiable evidence has ever been found to support Berger's claim). He charged that Ijaz had portrayed himself as acting on behalf of the administration in dealing with other governments, also a charge for which there is no independently corroborated evidence.

Sudan's 1997 offer to examine intelligence data on Osama bin Laden, al Qaeda and other terrorist groups that had operated in and around Khartoum, was acted upon on September 30, 1997 when Sec of State Madeleine Albright agreed to send a team of US diplomats, not including the US Ambassador, back to Khartoum to, among other agenda items, review Sudan's intelligence data on terrorist groups (source: New York Times report). The offer was rescinded less than a week later, when Albright appeared at a State Department news briefing and not only retracted the offer to send US officials to Khartoum, but increased sanctions against the Bashir regime.

Clinton did pursue an aggressive strategy against Osama (c.f. cruise missile attacks on Afghanistan and Sudan in 1998), but not a desperate one. It is far from clear, even in hindsight, that there was an opportunity. Rebrane 07:22, Feb 13, 2004 (UTC)

What is credible is that Clinton had no less than three opportunities to order strikes on Osama bin Laden, as he was spotted in real time by troops on the ground in Afghanistan. This information has been recounted and documented numerous times lately in American literature, by authors who were in or near Clinton's cabinet while the opportunities presented themselves. Each time, Clinton failed to act. Given the gravity of Osama bin Laden's actions and his impact to history, it's not justice to let these facts go without mention. I've added as neutral a point of view on this issue as possible, laying the credit/blame for the situation at his economic policies as many well educated writers and analysts have (policies which are not in dispute - he did cut military and intelligence funding dramatically during his tenure in office).

image choices

It is my opinion that the images used inside the presidential table should be only images made during the presidency. Images made before or after the presidency can still be placed elsewhere in the article, but NOT in the presidential table. Kingturtle 00:39, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

And your point is? Both pics I uploaded are from his presidency and inside the oval office. ChrisDJackson

So is the current one. The pic youre currently inserting has him looking off to the side and is of poor quality. Bad taste... --Jiang
Is Mr. Jackson going to defend his image? I'm waiting for him. --Jiang

There is nothing to defend stalker, it is less dark and smaller. That is it. You have to be childish and follow me to every article and rv everything wheteher it is good or not. Just leave me alone for once.

Both images look the same to me, other than size and some very minor gamma differences. It really doesn't matter which one is used, as anyone who isn't involved in an edit war is unlikely to care. Why not just keep the original since there was nothing wrong with it? (Note: I say this without knowing which one is the original, and I don't care. That's how little difference there actually is in the images.) ShaneKing 01:08, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Please calm down and discuss the issues, not the person making them. An attitude like that will get you banned. A direct facial portrait with him looking at the camera is better than one with him looking away. We only need his face, not his entire upper torso. And yes, larger is better. What have you got against the original image? --Jiang 01:09, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Why not have both? But the longstanding photo shows better facial detail and should be the one in the table. The newer photo can be placed in another section. --mav

I know! you could make an animated .gif out of all the images! And maybe some midi music in the background!

Please let's stop the switching back & forth between photos. If anyone has a particular preference, let's discuss it below. -- Infrogmation 22:47, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Oh, sheesh, if we have multiple image choices, can we PLEASE give them different names (like "Bill Clinton 2" or something) rather than uploading multiple versions over the same name?-- Infrogmation 23:00, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Whatever image we choose, let's not use a painting. In my opinion, a photograph leaves a stronger impression on the reader. –Matt 03:33, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

They were mass inserted a few hours ago. Discuss at Talk:President of the United States or the Village Pump. --Jiang 04:23, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Image:Bill Clinton.jpg

I like this one because:

  1. Because it is smaller in actual size and file size, it is lighter and easier to see detail, and just looks better than the big, dark, ugly picture. I don't see what the big deal is. This is just a continued vendetta towards me, thats it. User:ChrisDJackson
    1. (Anonymous flame I had left removed. Sorry about that. I still disagree with you calling it a "vendetta" but I'll try to be more polite in the future. PenguiN42 17:04, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC))

I don't like this one because:

  1. Because the color is flushed out. It looks like a mistake. It is weaker in color and detail than the other version. This is nothing against ChrisD personally. The other JPG of the same portrait is better. Kingturtle 23:20, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)~
  2. Because smaller is not better when we have a new syntax to reduce the size of images. --Jiang 00:05, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Image:Bill-Clinton.jpg

Image:Bill-Clinton.jpg

I like this one because:

  1. The colors are deeper, which provides more contrast. Kingturtle 23:20, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  2. Better colors, and larger, for those who want to click on the pic and view a larger version. --Jiang

I don't like this one because:

Image:BillClinton1999.jpg

I like this one because:

  1. It is an official portrait that as far as I know has not yet been involved in an revertion conflict on Wikipedia. -- Infrogmation 23:03, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  2. I really like it but they will bitch you out for it. They think what they say goes and they don't like other images being added. However, I think it may be a bit small.

User:ChrisDJackson

I don't like this one because:

  1. looks like promotional propaganda with the special lighting. --Jiang
  2. he's not looking at the camera - dcljr

Image:Bill_Clinton_2000.jpg

Image:Bill Clinton 2000.jpg

I don't like this one because:

  1. The cameraman didnt center his frame. --Jiang
  • It might just be poorly cropped. Kingturtle 00:24, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • No, this is the way the picture is supposed to look. I am sure that the person who took the picture was a pro unlike some people who seem to think they are. User:ChrisDJackson


Okay, it looks like is the only one of the choices with no serious objections raised to it above. Let's leave it unless we can reach a consensus about some other photo the majority likes better. -- Infrogmation 01:21, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Poverty?

I don't think it's correct to refer, as this article does, to Bill Clinton having grown up in "poverty." That's a pretty specific term, and I've never read anything to indicate that Bill Clinton grew up in poverty. Lower-middle-class, sure. But poverty? No. I'd like to change that reference when this page is unprotected. Moncrief 02:18, Mar 24, 2004 (UTC)

So how do we go about getting it unprotected? It's been months now. Mdchachi 16:10, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
unprotected. rm the notice on your next edit. --Jiang 22:20, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

First Lady's Maiden Name and Presidents table

I don't see any reason why the presidents table should be removed and not taken into consideration the display Hillary Clinton's full maiden name before she married Bill Clinton. Why undo my changes? --65.73.0.137

How about this?--because the cell is labeled as "First Lady" and not as "First Lady's Maiden Name". As the First Lady, she was known as "Hillary Rodham Clinton " not as "Hillary Diane Rodham". older≠wiser 15:10, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

It doesn't make any difference. The full maiden names of other First Ladies also appear on other presidents' cells. And you didn't read my last message on the presidents table. I don't see why it should be removed because it is seen in other presidential bios. --User:65.73.0.137

Heh--the only reason they appear on the other presidents is because you have been waging a campaign to change them all. Rather disingenuous. older≠wiser 15:34, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

Wrong! My 'campaign' started because of the reasons I've given you. I really have seen similar sights on other pages before I starting editing presidential bios. --65.73.0.137

Ok, I may have been a bit presumptuous, although there does appear to be some disagreement about what form of the First Lady's name should go in the box. I have no strong opinion about the table, though I think there's a lot of redundant clutter with the table on the side and two msgs at the bottom. older≠wiser 16:08, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

You have a point there, sir. But wait till I tell you mine. Some people would like to check out the previous or next President, or they may decide to find out about an unlinked President. I hope this helps. --65.73.0.137

It seems like an edit war is developing over how to properly cite Hillary's name. Can that be resolved here before the page needs to be protected?

Acegikmo1 03:03, 17 May 2004 (UTC)

Page Move

I have moved this back to Bill Clinton, in accordance with Wikipedia:Naming convention, which states "Use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things." See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names) for more. Meelar 15:44, 22 May 2004 (UTC)

  • I would have made the same decision Meelar made: change it back to Bill Clinton. Kingturtle 17:08, 22 May 2004 (UTC)

Profession

Jiang, can you explain why you keep reverting to laywer? Is it wrong to say "attorney" and "gov of Arkansas"? Paranoid 20:48, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

Job titles are not the same as professions. Visit attorney and tell me what's wrong with that link. It's customary not to include political titles - World Book doesn't do this. --Jiang 04:54, 31 May 2004 (UTC)

Since all Presidents are politicians, I removed "politician" from Profession. --H. CHENEY 19:05, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

UK edition vs US edition

Is there any guidelines about when/how to list a UK/Eurpean edition of a book vs. the US edition? Currently Clinton's bio lists the UK edition, which, if you follow the ISBN link takes you to nothing if you try US booksellers. Seems this should be the US edition, or at the very least list both. older≠wiser 03:18, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Good point. Maybe we need to add a US and UK version of the ISBN number. -- Ta bu shi da yu

Image of young kid reading with Clinton

President Clinton remained very popular throughout his scandal ridden presidency, especially with younger people.
President Clinton remained very popular throughout his scandal ridden presidency, especially with younger people.

The caption doesn't seem very NPOV to me. Could this be changed?

This is backed by opinion polls of the era. I don't see how it's POV, but it might be irrelevant for this photo. Youger people usually refers to younger people of voting age. --Jiang 03:47, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I believe the NPOV concern is because of the phrase "scandal ridden". Why mention scandal at all in this caption? If we do want some kind of contrast between his popularity and the scandals, a more NPOV caption might mention "investigations" and/or "impeachment proceedings" instead. - dcljr 02:20, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I agree. The phrase "scandal ridden' does not belong in the caption. Having it there is highly POV. I'm removing it. Bill 16:07, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Timeline entries

I'd like to add an entry to this effect:

  • August 17, 1998 - Clinton testifies before a grand jury about his relationship with Monica Lewinsky. In the evening, he delivers a nationally televised address in which he describes his relationship with Lewinsky as "not appropriate" but also "nobody's business".

I hope this is not seen as NPOV (no Clinton basher, I) -- I just think that day was one of the most bizarre and critical days of his presidency (with respect to how he has been judged since). Comments? Criticisms? - dcljr 03:12, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I can see no reason why the entirety of the article should be pro-Clinton, or why the unpleasant facts about his actions as an individual while president should be documented in an apologetic fashion. This is an article about the man, and your addition is both factual and relevant.

Then why didn't you (User:208.20.195.222) include the whole thing? And why did you add clearly non-NPOV material in the economic section? - dcljr 03:36, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I've changed the wording of "my" entry to (essentially) the original version above (one small change to minimize redundancy)). I also removed the following statement: "Military disgruntled because it was denied the hardware it thought essential to the operation." -- mainly because of the personification and generality involved (who in the military? and denied by whom?). I couldn't improve the wording without potentially introducing inaccuracies, so I removed it in the hopes that someone knowledgable in the area would resubmit the info (if necessary) in a slightly different form. BTW, some of these entries push the bounds of relevance, IMHO. - dcljr 08:00, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Post-Term Impact of Clinton's Policies

I removed the following paragraphs:

Despite the dramatic increase in personal wealth amongst many Americans during this period, economists and analysts in the private sector, government, military, and even the Federal Reserve Bank predicted that policies enacted or supported by President Clinton were in fact damaging the country's long term economic health. Some of these fears did in fact become reality - particularly, the United States military has been forced to implement an unprecedented recall program for military retirees to address troop shortages in the nation's continuing War on Terror. During President Clinton's years in office, the strength of the nation's military was severely weakened due to dramatic spending cuts. It is also believed that these budget cuts led to breakdowns in the nation's intelligence capability, eventually leading to failures that did not predict the WTC attacks on 9/11/01.
Additionally, much of the strength of the economy for which President Clinton was credited resulted from the growth of the "dot-com bubble", and not the economic policies that President Clinton favored. When the irrational exuberance of the stock market, as termed by Federal Reserve Board chief Alan Greenspan, finally reached its maximum in the late 1990s, a much more accurate state of the impact of Clinton's economy was evidenced. The resulting economic downturn was, broadly and without specifics, blamed on President Clinton's successor to the Oval Office. Due to the fact that President Clinton's successor, George W. Bush, had not been in office long enough to see his economic policies affect the nation's economy, many conservatives attributed the popular view of recent history to an American liberal media bias.

What specific policies of Clinton did the Federal Reserve predict to damage the economy? The reduction in military was IIRC largely bipartisan. Who believes these budget cuts led to breakdowns in the nation's intelligene capability? In the 2nd paragraph, we move into damned if you do and damned if you don't territory. It reads like Clinton wasn't actually responsible for the economy, but he is still blamed for it anyhow. I agree that Bush was sometimes unfairly blamed for the downturn, but I'm not sure what exactly that has to do with Clinton. older≠wiser 03:59, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

To answer your first question, the surplusses that Clinton enjoyed as a result of the booming stock market were believed by Greenspan to be dangerously oversized. As a result, he suggested tax cuts to lower the surplusses and to prevent the economy from reaching a growth rate that could not be sustained. He also had some well founded but unpopular suggestions for handling Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid. Clinton and Greenspan had an unwritten agreement to "tolerate" one another in a friendly fashion. Clinton wouldn't argue with Greenspan publicly, and Greenspan wouldn't call him out as a tax-and-spend liberal. This is obviously subjective, and as such unfit for inclusion in the article, but can be backed up by interviews with former Clinton cabinet members and writings of prominent political thinkers (just do a Google search on "clinton greenspan disagree" for starters). The whole point of the contribution was to provide a balance to the immediate evidence of bias in this article. Clinton wasn't responsible for the unprecedented rise in the economy, the surging technology stock market was. Bush wasn't responsible for the downturn resulting from its explosion - the country was experiencing a hangover from the party that got out of control, which was then worsened by 9/11. In so far as the article does not unduly credit Clinton with this economic phenomenon (as is already, repeatedly, seems to do), I've no problem with altering the wording.

My issue is that virtually nothing in those bullet-points mentioned is universally, or even reasonably believed to be attributed to Bill Clinton's economic policies. That said, they were not removed as they were obviously believed by enough people to warrant its inclusion. And while you may not be aware of them, there are in fact quite a few people and numerous (dozens? hundreds?) of pundits/experts who attribute the meltdown of our military and our intelligence arsenals to events that occurred by Clinton's hand, or on his watch (e.g. cutting their spending in the face of huge surplusses, a mounting middle-eastern threat that went virtually ignored, and a surging economy????).

It doesn't seem like the rest of this article was subjected to the "prove it" mandate, if it were, it would necessarily read quite differently. However, if there is in fact some unwritten rule whereby every single contribution needs to be substantiated with a bibliographical reference, I'd be happy to perform that work - provided those who are painting this individual in a much rosier and glossier manner than is warranted do the same. If that's unreasonable, I'll put the text as written in place again in one week's time. Please try to act professionally toward those with whom you do not agree - provide a suggestion for modification that you feel is mutually agreeable rather than performing wholesale removal of a contribution. See the NPOV guidelines. - TRM 17:07, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Quote: Please try to act professionally toward those with whom you do not agree - provide a suggestion for modification that you feel is mutually agreeable rather than performing wholesale removal of a contribution. Huh? Simply because I removed a section of text that is full of unsubstanitated vagaries, I am also responsible for editing it? No, I don't think so. However, I am mildly offended that you consider it to be somehow "unprofessional" (whatever that might mean). That said, what I object to is not that something critical was said about ole Billy Boy, but that it was full of vague allegations. When you say "policies enacted or supported by President Clinton were in fact damaging the country's long term economic health", which policies? leaving it unspecified implies that it may be any or all of his policies. When you claim there are in fact quite a few people and numerous (dozens? hundreds?) of pundits/experts who attribute the meltdown of our military and our intelligence arsenals to events that occurred by Clinton's hand, there are in fact quite a few people and numerous (dozens? hundreds?) of pundits/experts who attribute any number of bad things to Clinton and his policies, some perhaps justified and many not--so what? That's what pundits do, offer opinions according to their biases. older≠wiser 17:25, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Well, you win. Herein lies the fundamental issue with "Open" technologies - the content/benefit becomes weighted by whomever is loudest. The fact is that the entire article could be construed as being full of "unsubstantiated vaguaries" - to wit, sentence #2: "During his administration, the United States enjoyed more peace and economic well being than at any time in its history". Where is this substantiated? The problem is that I don't care enough about this guy, or the accuracy of the document, to argue with zealots such as yourself in cyberspace. Ultimately, people will believe what they want to believe, regardless as to what is written. However, the NPOV guidelines state that rather than removing a contribution, it should basically be couunterweigted by an opposite view - this is what I did, and you've plainly and blatantly acted contrary to those guidelines. I have better things to do. Maybe someone else will realize that you are not neutral enough to contribute and take appropriate action - a simple review of your user page reveals all, you in fact hold President Bush responsible for the state of the economy and your joblessness (or did at one time), hardly a neutral sentiment. I think if neutral individuals with as little tolerance for nonsense as I had visited this article before, this conversation would already have taken place. - TRM 17:52, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
The pot calls the kettle black. Sure, I think Bush is a bonehead and that in general, Clinton was a far better president, even with his personal failings which were made into a public spectacle by right-wing zealots. I try not to hide my biases--NPOV applies to articles, not to user pages, and arguably not to the discussion pages. Once again, I removed the text not because it was biased (althoug it was that also), but because it was too vague for me to even know where to begin with editing it into something more acceptable. If what you wrote was so vague that I didn't know what you meant (aside from casting Clinton in a negative light), how am I supposed to know how to edit. And I will note, that I did not simple delete the text, I moved it to the discussion page, where it could be, well, um, discussed. If you think this is improper, well, so it goes...we have a different interpretation of the NPOV editing policy--if you think I have abused the policy, then you're free to pursue the matter. If you think the rest of the Clinton article is biased, you are welcome to edit it. I actually agree with you that it is probably a bit too rosy right now, but like you, I don't feel any particluar inclination to chase down details and edit it at this point. older≠wiser 18:34, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

BIAS: Accusations, impeachment, and legal problems

This section contains obvious, overt bias. A non-biased article does *not* use such phrases as::

"Clinton was dogged by a group of conservative activists who despised him" - you cannot presume a group "despises" anyone, disagreement != despise

"she said that her husband's administration had been persecuted by a "vast right-wing conspiracy," but the facts tend to bear her out." - an opinion

"Scaife and his minions" - rediculous, unfettered bias

"news outlets took on faith any claim of wrongdoing by the Clintons and trumpeted them around the country" - this is an opinion

"Even if they admitted that some particular claim had been disproven, the very next moment they would continue to repeat the disproven claims as if they had been true all along" - rhetoric

"Right-wing scourge David Brock later described how he and other shills" - come on.. does Britannica use the terms "scourge" and "shills"??

Who the hell added this yellow crap?

If you feel that the wording is inappropriate, then reword it, don't simply delete whole sections of material. Gamaliel 18:54, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
"Inappropriate" is an understatement. It is quite apparent the author is a childish, politiking troll. My version of rewriting is deletion, because that block is unrevisable. Bias and yellow journalism does not belong in an encyclopedia.

I'll admit I went over the top with that section and I don't dispute that it should be revised. However, I don't agree with the (anonymous) editor who thinks it should just be killed. NPOV doesn't mean that demonstrable facts such as the activities of Scaife and the Arkansas Project and the media's treatement of unproven charges against Clinton should be ignored. They are important to understanding what happened during that time. Maybe I'm a "childish, politicking troll," but I'm not immune to correction. Acsenray 15:46, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Proposed revision (please comment)
Clinton's political success triggered a firestorm of reaction from right-wing activists, led by a newly effective network of conservative media outlets and funded by wealthy conservatives such as Pittsburgh banking heir Richard Mellon Scaife. Radio broadcasters such as Rush Limbaugh daily made accusations of corruption and dishonesty against Clinton, often without solid evidence or by shading facts. Scaife's Arkansas Project went about trying to find suggestions of wrongdoing in Clinton's past and publicizing allegations without solid evidence. When Clinton's wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton described this informal network as a "vast, right-wing conspiracy," she was ridiculed by the conservative media; however, former conservative journalist David Brock has described in books such as Blinded by the Right: The Conscience of an Ex-Conservative and The Republican Noise Machine : Right-Wing Media and How It Corrupts Democracy his own involvement in exaggerating claims against the Clintons and the network of conservative media operations (including those owned by Rupert Murdoch and the Rev. Sun Myung Moon) that kept such accusations at the forefront of the public's attention.

No comments so far. I'll insert the above section into the article and wait for further comments. Acsenray 17:37, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

  • Disclaimer: I didn't vote for Clinton, I am a Socialist and consider the Clintons to both be DINOs. Can't stand people who claim to be one party but belong in the other. Zell Miller for example, a good old "Southern Democrat" who should have had the decency to join his peers and become a Republican. I am, however, one who considers bias by ommission to be as aggregious as bias by demonstration. This claim of a "vast right wing conspiracy" was laughed at at the time, but has long since been placed in it's proper context. Had such a well funded and concerted effort not been ongoing, there is little doubt Ken Starr would have ever had any traction at all. The Jones incident would have died as it should have, since it was first tossed as having no merit, no timeliness, and most of all, no relevance to anything other than the 8 year campaign to damage the Clinton name in hopes of defusing some of his popularity and power. I am strongly in favor, in the interest of completeness, of seeing both Ken Starr's name in this section and at least a moderated concensus entry about the "vast right wing conspiracy". It is the most glaring ommission in the entire entry.

Proposed changes: The "vast right-wing conspiracy" charge

Clinton's political successes drew reactions from several well funded conservatives. Led by a network of largely conservative talk radio media outlets, & FOX NEWS, radio broadcasters such as Rush Limbaugh and television commentators such as Sean Hannity, Geraldo Rivera, and The O'Reilly Factor's Bill O'Reilly (commentator) almost daily made accusations of corruption and dishonesty against Clinton and his administration. Other efforts such as Scaife's Arkansas Project funded by wealthy conservatives such as Pittsburgh banking heir Richard Mellon Scaife went about trying to find suggestions of wrongdoing in Clinton's past and publicizing allegations. When Clinton's wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton described this informal network as a "vast, right-wing conspiracy," she was ridiculed by the conservative media; however, former conservative journalist David Brock has described in books such as Blinded by the Right: The Conscience of an Ex-Conservative and The Republican Noise Machine : Right-Wing Media and How It Corrupts Democracy his own involvement in exaggerating claims against the Clintons and the network of conservative media operations (including those owned by Rupert Murdoch and the Rev. Sun Myung Moon) that kept such accusations at the forefront of the public's attention. Special Prosecutor Kenneth Starr's investigation covering an ever widening sphere of topics could well have ground to a halt without the support of public opinion bouyed by the these conservative efforts against Clinton.

  • I have made the re-entry as neutrally as possible considering my own disdain for the Clintons. I have no problem with any further attempts at moderating the language but feel ommission of it completely would be less than full disclosure and demonstrate bias by ommission as a result. IdioT.SavanT.i4 01:51, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Most famous quotes

I object to this section as POV. It gets the last word in the article. And it is solely intended to highlight scandals -- who says these are the "most" famous? Consider, for example, if the GW Bush article ended with:

  • Make the pie higher
  • major league asshole
  • now watch this drive

Or Reagan with:

  • We begin bombing [Russia] in five minutes
  • I did not trade arms for hostages
  • Trees cause more pollution than automobiles do.

Cutting as promoting POV.

IT IS NOT POV!

Ask anyone, Democrat or Republican, what are the three most famous quotes. This is what you will get.

I am a Democrat (large D) and I am a Clinton supporter. If you can come up with any quote, recognizable by any non-wonk, then substute them - but by replacement one at a time - not removal - I think these quotes demonstrate the humanity (and flaws) of this truely great president Leonard G. 03:59, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Your political affiliation does not make you immune from POV edits. It may not be your point of view that Clinton is a scoundrel. But, that is the message of putting these selected quotes as the very last word of the article. That, by the way, is why I was careful to revert my phrasing 'intended to promote POV'. Each of the scandals is discussed in the text. Taking them out of context, calling them most famous, and making them the last word unduly emphasizes these already discussed scandals and quotes. Can you imagine the firestorm if someone tried to insert the analogous lists I created above as the last word? Wolfman 05:14, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Ramzi Yousef/Operation Bojinka

It seems to me that most of the information here should go on some other page (such as Ramzi Yousef's page). Several of the points seem not to have a direct relationship to Clinton. Acsenray 13:46, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Approval ratings

I think the end of paragraph 2 needs to be changed. Clinton did have high approval ratings when he left office, but Eisenhower's ratings were as high, or higher (I don't have exact stats, so I'm going by this chart). Most of our presidents (at least up to Roosevelt) didn't even have to deal with approval ratings! - Sekicho 23:36, Sep 6, 2004 (UTC)

Some excluded major accomplishments

I think there should be a separate section or at least a link to his military endeavors as President. And how these especially fit in with his relationship with the UN. Sub-chapters or links could include "Attack on pharmaceutical plant in Sudan" , "Attack on Saudi Arabia", "Attack on Yugoslavia", etc. Numbers of civilian deaths for each attack would underscore the meaningfulness of each military adventure.

In the realm of his successful economic policies, mention of the the Wall Street Bubble Burst during the last year of his term as President and the resulting loss in value of pensions for working class Americans is pretty important. (Many people had also invested their savings during the period of economic optimism during Clinton's Presidency.) Also, the corruption in firms such as Enron during his Presidency, came to light only afterwards.

major military operations should be briefly mentioned somewhere with links to the relevant wikipedia article. what does enron have to do with clinton? some crimes happened there during his tenure, but so did the OJ Simpson incident. not everything that happens during a presidency is about the president. Wolfman 14:54, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

For more on Clinton and Enron: http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A37287-2002Jan12&notFound=true http://www.bear-left.com/original/2002/0120lessons.html I would think that in assessing the economic growth during the Clinton era one must at least mention the overly valued worth of firms such as Enron, Worldcom, etc. It was quite obvious that Clinton accepted this unprecendented "growth" which with increase employment, stock market and political contributions made "his" record look good. Whether he had anything to with the ensuing scandals is not the point. The economic growth was based on "fiction". As far as I know the stock market was near 4000 at the beginning and at the end of Clinton's Presidency. The tip of the iceberg at 10,000 points reflects self-delusion at best and greed at worst, quite characteristic in the 90's. To sum it up, the up-beat remarks in the Wikipedia entry concerning the economy during Clinton's Presidency has a dubious, if any, basis. Maybe there's someone more neutral than I who would put this in a few sentences. I would go overboard like Christopher Hitchens. whyerdWhyerd 19:36, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

you are factually mistaken about growth being a fiction. according to the BLS household incomes increased every year of Clinton's presidency. that's money directly in people's pockets. Wolfman 19:00, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

sudan strike

in this edit some anon ip cut the reference to the strike on terrorist facilities in Sudan. reason given was that it was actually a civilian factory. i remember at the time there was some dispute about this. does anybody know what the truth was (with documentation)? and regardless, if the sudan strike was the motivation as was stated, should not some appropriate reference still be included (with a wikilink to any article about the operation)? Wolfman 14:47, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Impeachment Trial Impartiality

I added a few lines on Tom Harkin's statements about the trial of Clinton being a piece of dung. And Harkin did actually say that during an impromptu interview at the capital. So not all the Senators were the impartial jurors that they had sworn to be - and that extends to both sides of the floor.

I removed the following sentence from the Presidency section because it doesn't make sense to me. If anyone knows what it means, please feel free to re-add it. "However, the only evidence found was Bill Clinton formerly dating two current La Presidente de Argentina." DJ Clayworth 17:44, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)