|
Here's what I don't get:
Why, all the sudden, have we had an outpouring of Clinton apologists?
The man is not considered a remarkable president, according to anything I've read - even ignoring his arrogance with regard to perjury etc.
I'm going to have to agree with a non-traditional school of thought and posit for you all that the legacy of a president should have little to do with the economic stability of the country DURING his presidency. Economic fluctuations are largely cyclical (yep, oversimplification, i realize), and the long-term effects often are seen years later.
Guess what . . . it's starting to be years later.
So when we talk about Clinton's presidency . . . what do we talk about? Unparalleled lows in unemployment? Increases in standard of living? Decreasing crime rates?
All patterns whose roots may not be planted in any of Clinton's decisions.
In fact - there might be absolutely no reason to exalt any president for these actions. Clinton was an amazingly charismatic man, a great speechwriter and a fantastic pitchman, that, I think, is certain.
Just like the few before him, however, I do NOT think he was a remarkable president. I'm not a presidential scholar, by any means, but I find it difficult to understand this sudden outpouring of pro-Bill sentiment.
Does he really just look that good by comparison to the current conservative platform?
|