I doubt it. God forbid that any right thinking person would ever conflate the character of those two exemplars of narcissistic, repulsive, nauseating, reprobate human depravity (notwithstanding the 30 lb Bibles) with the character of George Washington. It is highly unlikely that anyone will ever write of Kwrinton,
"He was a silent, thoughtful man. He spoke little generally; never of himself. I never heard him relate a single act of his life during the war."
Even Washington's enemies praised his character and virtue, something the Clintons' friends cannot even bring themselves to do of them:
When an American-authored poem dedicated to Washington was reprinted in London in 1780, the dissenting Whig Monthly Review and traditionally Tory Critical Review expressed a rare consensus.4 They agreed that the poem was poorly written, and they praised its subject. Although the Critical Review described Bostonians as a wretched people "used to tarring and feathering those who have been so unhappy as to offend them," it described the rebel leader's character as "very respectable" and proclaimed "we have a high opinion of his hero." The Monthly Review concurred, describing Washington as "this modern Fabius"--a reference to the then well-known paragon of Roman republican virtue, Fabius Maximus.5
link
Cordially,
The kind of "evidence" being used to support the claim of literal faith in Christianity is virtually identical to my example. What a powerful public figure says/does in public is carefully crafted to be acceptable to that public. It is not evidence of the public figure's actual beliefs or opinions. I don't doubt for a moment that George Washington was of far higher character than Bill & Hillary Clinton, but the likelihood that any of them harbored a literal belief in Christianity beyond childhood is very, very remote.