Asking the question about Bill is an academic curiosity.
Asking the question about Hillary is to predict and prepare for the next 4 years.
Anyone care to answer the far more relevant second question?
I disagree. I think the current Bush-haters out-do anything conservatives ever felt about Clinton.
Because he is a traitor and that is hard to overcome. The slimeball did get by with some of the sheep out there, but not all of us.
He snuck away from Oxford, and his handlers there, and was escorted by other handlers through Europe, into Oslo, and on to Moscow. His indoctrination there can only be left to the files of the KGB.
Their candidate became elected. They would have won except for one small fact: Ronnie Reagan beat them first. The traitor xlinton was left without soviet handlers, only the homegrown type. These scum who helped xlinton in his power are part of the 'homegrown type'. They desire power for themselves and they wish the ultimate power of communist control over the people.
Everything the scumbag did after his indoctrination behind enemy lines while my brothers were dying is tainted, as is everyone who had anything to do with the scumbag, as did every accomplishment of the scumbag, and most unfortunately, as we all did as a nation. Why won't he address the issue about these forty days and why hasn't someone written a book?
I never hated him, but neither had I any respect for him or Her Heinous.
On the up side, it was like having the David Spade character "Joe Dirt" as president.
Maybe its because of 9/11 and all the missed opportunities to fight islamic facist during his term? Maybe because as he was getting his willy smoked terrorist were killing americans around the world.. If we had a responsible media Bill Clinton would be hiding in shame in Arkansas....
We must not forget that the power behind the Bill Clinton presidency was not Slick Willie, but was instead the evil witch Hitlery. Take a look at his political appointees: Donna Shalala, Janet Reno, Bill Lan Lee, Jamie Gorelick, Carol Browner, etc.--all friends of Hitlery. The Branch Davidian standoff and subsequent immolation of eighty-some men, women and children was orchestrated by Hitlery and Janet Reno in an attempt to convince the American people that the country was threatened by a "vast right wing conspiracy". Yes, indeed, Hitlery was a threat then and is today as she attempts to cloak herself with the "mainstream" mantle.
Did? I think "Do" is more appropriate.
Each clings to a shredded union just to see what political gain and power can be garnered from it.
Each aspires to high and noble positions in this great nation. Each is a sorry, pitiable statement of what honest leadership and moral character should be.
Billary is also a sorry example of the character of Americans who idolize them and would follow them straight to hell.
Leni
Some stains can never be removed.
Dislike for Clinton was, at least in the beginning, largely personal, but it wasn't hard to explain. Clinton looked very sleazy, smarmy, slick, and slippery. And he was. Add to that his conduct during the '60s and '70s, and the general suspicion of Arkansas's corrupt politics, and that's as good a recipe as any for wariness and active dislike. He did look like he didn't deserve the Presidency, but that turned out to be a pretty good indication that he'd act in ways that would bring the office into disrepute.
Ehrenhalt wants to keep discussion of hostility to Clinton in a personal and subjective channel, and argue that objectively Clinton was a good President. To do so, he avoids specifics. That's a funny way to write a review: to focus on Clinton-hatred and simply assert that it was wrong-headed, mistaken, and vile without going into any of the details of what actually happened in the Nineties.
In fact, it's a pretty wretched review of the book, so far as actual substance is concerned. But you can see the logic. Judge politicians against their worst press, and they're bound to come up looking better than that, even if they weren't much of anything.
A little discussion of what Clinton actually did in office would have been appreciated. Without it, Ehrenhalt comes off as a stereotype liberal who can't get away from emotions and the ingrained idea that the good people are on his side and the bad people are on the other. That's really unfortunate.
I suppose on domestic issues and the economy Clinton did turn out to be better that we'd expected. The Internet boom helped him a lot, but at least he didn't screw it up. Foreign and defense policy, though, are another matter, and anyone who looks at Clinton's record there will be less inclined to consider his presidency a success.
Because he was fake. Fake caring. Fake national defense. All appearance and no substance. And of course, the hatred of everyone and law breaking. Oh, and draft dodging! Oh, and adultry. Well, and rape, of course. And assault. Yea, lying, too. Fake tears. Fake marriage. Fake leadership. Fake accomplishments. Oh! And...