You'll note my reasons for why I think Clinton's "historian" numbers can only go down. You'll note, by contrast, that Eisenhower's numbers have been going up over the years, as more about his actions become known.
"The key word is "objective." We both feel that Clinton was an absolute disgrace to the office, and an utter failure. But if we want to look at Clinton's ultimate impact on the affairs and future of the nation (which is what these historians claim to be doing), we couldn't possibly do that yet, because there hasn't been enough time for his actions to fully shake out. "
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
I understand what the "historians" want....
I take some moderate exception to your assumption that I "feel" Clinton was a disgrace, and failure. He was. Period. No "feelings" involved in my thinking on those points. ( VBG )
My mind is made up....and I could round up a boat-load of highly objective facts to bolster my argument. Why wait for other "bad" things to happen, or come to light?
Bottom line is....I don't need no stinking historians to tell me what I think and know.
FRegards,