Exactly.
But, give it about 20 years. History has a way of getting to the real truth.
William Clinton = average? The average president gets impeached?
and also disbarred from his home state during his presidency, which is also a total failure.
It's far too soon to give an objective answer on Clinton: in essence, the historians are having to predict into the future in order to assess his actions. My sense is that his ratings will go way down after there's been some time for the hype to shake out, and the true consequences of his presidency to become clear.
I think in terms of 9-11, and foreign matters in general, Clinton's legacy is already becoming clear, and he's headed to the failure column. In terms of domestic policy he was at best "average," and (because he was largely ineffective) probably closer to failure.
It's even somewhat early to judge Bush 41, but he will probably remain basically where he is.
That's my thought exactly...he should be listed as a failure as should Carter!!!
Exactly.
But, give it about 20 years. History has a way of getting to the real truth.
>>William Clinton = average? The average president gets impeached?<<
EXACTLY!!
By the way, Cleveland and Coolidge are so far ahead of any of the rest of these guys---other than Lincoln, Washington, Reagan, TR, and maybe FDR---that it's a shame. Cleveland and Coolidge were great, great presidents.
McKinley is only average and the highest Mountain in the country bares his name? That should be Mt. Reagan.
My thoughts exactly. I guess it is "LUCKY" he didn't get an ABOVE AVERAGE, then IMPEACHMENT would have become a necessity for a successful Presidency.
The insanity of redefining standards DOWNWARD and WORDS in general continues.
Jimmy Carter Lyndon B. Johnson, and Bill Clinton need to be moved to the FAILURE Column. Give the other guys a bump up. They can't be as bad as these.