Talk:Bill Clinton/Archive 1

Word Choice

Which would be the best word to describe those of alternative sexual preference; "gay" or "homosexual"?--Robert W King 09:56, 25 June 2007 (CDT)

Gushing?

This turn of phrase comes across like cheerleading: "Known as a brilliant campaigner and policy wonk ...". Aren't all Presidents brilliant campaigners? Aren't all gold medalists "brilliant athletes"? All Presidents also know a great deal about policy. I think Clinton is a brilliant campaigner. I think Bill Clinton knows policy. But what President doesn't?

Also, it has been argued that it's of prime importance to mention that George W. Bush didn't win the popular vote vs. Gore. Is it important to mention that Clinton did not win a majority in either of his elections? Will Nesbitt

Clinton was a much better campaigner than Kerry, Gore, Dukakis, Mondale, or Carter, experts agree. He's a policy wonk, they all agree--like Gore but UNLIKE George W. Bush or Ronald Reagan. Richard Jensen 07:14, 22 July 2007 (CDT)

Clinton is a better campaigner than Carter, who only won one term. None of the others you mention were Presidents. Carter was clearly a better campaigner than Kerry, Gore, Dukakis or Mondale. (I voted for both Dukakis and Mondale, btw.) So the question remains, what President wasn't a great campaigner? Truman, Nixon, Kennedy, Reagan and virtually every other two term President was a "brilliant campaigner". Can't we just say he had two terms? That's a fact. His "brilliance" is an opinion. It is an opinion that can be argued.

Consider this: if Bill Clinton was so brilliant then why did ALL of the candidates you just mentioned gain a higher percentage of the popular vote than Clinton. And MOST of those candidates lost! A lot more people voted for Gore than Clinton in either of Clinton's elections. (It must be noted that I'm not arguing your point. I'm merely showing that the point can be argued.)

I would much safer and much less inflammatory to report the fact that he won two terms instead of taking an official stance on Clinton's brilliance. Alternately, we could cite an expert who said Clinton but brilliant.

We don't know much about the Bush administration yet, because he's still in office. When Reagan was in office it was widely reported that (and I believed that) he was a bit of a good natured dolt. The story was that Reagan didn't really understand this or that. Now that the internal documents have been released and now that Reagan is in a historical context, we have learned that he had a brilliant political mind and he was far more involved than anyone ever suspected at the time.

I don't understand why those opinions remain in the text, but the fact that Clinton never won a majority is not mentioned. Compare and contrast this with the George W. Bush. I don't care if it's mentioned or not, but I do think there should be something resembling consistency. The Bush intro is about vote counts. The Clinton intro is about how brilliant he is? Will Nesbitt 09:23, 22 July 2007 (CDT)

I'd rather build a consensus than edit in a vacuum, but if I receive no response I'll assume that this is a non-issue and insert. Will Nesbitt 08:56, 23 July 2007 (CDT)

The rules of the game call for winning the electoral college, with Clinton did by two landslides (compare Bush's two very-narrow=electoral colege wins) Richard Jensen 10:32, 23 July 2007 (CDT)

On evaluations of Clinton's campaign skills see [1] I have never seen a serious critic challenge the consensus about his skills, often compared to Reagan as the best in 60+ years </ref>

My argument is that everyone who won two presidential elections (except possibly Washington) was a pretty good campaigner. On the other hand, if the name of the game is winning the electoral college then why mention the popular vote when talking about Bush. I don't care which way it's reported, but it should be reported the same way for both presidents. Will Nesbitt 11:29, 23 July 2007 (CDT)

BTW, there is a big difference between quoting an expert who describes Clinton as a brilliant campaigner and arriving at a value judgment then stating Clinton is a brilliant campaigner. Will Nesbitt 11:57, 23 July 2007 (CDT)

Actually Jensen is an expert on the history of American election campaigns. That's why he's at CZ not Wikipedia. :) Richard Jensen 12:59, 23 July 2007 (CDT)

Of course, any expert in any field (Jensen included) would have a conflict of interest with regards to questioning his own opinion. So please don't take it personally when I say that I challenge this opinion, albeit an expert one. It is my hope and expectation that Jensen will remain objective while I lay the grounds for my challenge of this opinion, and more importantly how the opinion is presented. I challenge this opinion, not because it is wrong, but rather for these three reasons: 1) it is a value judgment; 2) the same could be said of nearly all Presidents; 3) editorial balance. While challenging the opinion, I think the opinion is a valued and important one.

I oppose Citizendium making value judgments, because Citizendium speaks for all of us. Therefore, I think it inappropriate and would oppose a Citizendium article which said, "Clinton is a brilliant campaigner and a policy wonk." However, I support quoting expert opinions. Thus, I would support an edit which said, "Jensen says Clinton is a brilliant campaigner and a policy wonk." Like me, the reader might very well examine the credentials and motives of Jensen and agree that he is a credible resource. Unfortunately, if Citizendium crosses this line we are no longer a credible resource.

As I wrote, above I think all Presidents are by default brilliant. Although many Presidents have been called stupid, it's a statistical improbability that a man can rise to that level of power in a democratic system without have the confidence of a great many people who have had the opportunity to examine the man up-close and personally. Sometimes only in retrospect do we come to learn how brilliant a President was. Often there are material facts which are undisclosed to critics and to the public that later exonerate decisions which were panned when they were made. Therefore, calling a President brilliant is like calling a boxer strong or a cheetah fast or calling a fish wet. Unless you say it about every single President, this statement reads like partisan cheerleading.

On the point of editorial balance, I have compared and contrasted this article about Clinton and to George W. Bush. When I read Bush, I do not find a value judgment praising about Bush's best qualities as an apology for his shortcomings. Both men have shortcomings. Both men have strengths. In the Bush article editors find it important to mention the popular vote, but there is no mention of the fact that Clinton did not reached a majority of popular vote in a Presidential election. These articles should be a mirror image of facts and opinions. They are not.

In present form, there is an editorial detachment from Bush and but an editorial affinity for Clinton. I would prefer to find an editorial detachment from both men. However, I'm willing to defer to my editor's better instincts and allow for an affinity for both men. But whatever editorial choice is made, in all fairness, both men should meet with the same standards of journalism. If a fact is material for one man, then a similar fact is material for another. If a gushing value judgment is fair for one man, than no doubt a gushing value judgment can be found for the other man.

Although I think Clinton's brilliance has been overstated by those who do not understand the crazy Perot voters (i.e. me), please don't read this to mean that I am seriously trying to say that Clinton is something less than brilliant. I agree that Jensen and a good many other experts think Clinton is brilliant. Few serious people would disagree with those opinions. Will Nesbitt 07:02, 24 July 2007 (CDT)

Geez, Will, don't you read the NYT, Time, Newsweek, other newspapers, editorials from all over, columnists from all over? For the last 15 years these sources have almost universally used the word brilliant or great or unrivalled or some such when talking about Clinton's political skills, no matter whether they liked him or not. "The greatest politician since FDR" is a common phrase. I don't see how you can *possibly* argue with Prof. Jensen about this. Are you going to say that FRD and LBJ weren't brilliant politicians? Dan Quayle was a heartbeat from the Presidency: Does that make *him* a brilliant politician? You can write "Bill Clinton was a despicable president [I saw that yesterday in the Oakland Tribune], a lousy human being, but a brilliant politician." And it might be true, at least the politician part. Hayford Peirce 11:43, 24 July 2007 (CDT)

At first I thought you were being sacarstic, because you listed a series of sources which I generally scoff at. Then I realized what you were saying is that you do not read the Washington Times, the Wall Street Journal and other papers with increasing (not diminishing) circulation. Some of us (we're called "the minority" now, but for 12 years we were called "the majority") take each of the sources you mention with a grain of salt. Don't take that to mean that I'm being angry or argumentative. I'm actually a bit amused.

Your response seems to ignore the part where I repeated: "please don't read this to mean that I am seriously trying to say that Clinton is something less than brilliant". Clinton is probably brilliant. Like it or not, Bush is probably brilliant too. (I believed Reagan was a dolt when the same sources you just listed told me he was a dolt. Now that I know more of the truth it's hard to get me to agree again that a sitting President is a dolt.) As I said above (you must have missed it) all Presidents are brilliant politicians. This would include LBJ and FDR. I would say that Dan Quayle is a pretty damn good politician too. Why? With his (lack of) skills, he managed to guide his career to the Vice Presidency? If that's not an example of over-achieving and brilliant politics, I don't know what is.

It's fair and accurate to say that NY Times, Newsweek, the Boston Globe and others describe Clinton as brilliant. It's okay for Jensen to say that in his opinion Clinton is brilliant. What is unfair is to make a definitive value judgment about Clinton's brilliance. When we say that any of the sources say Clinton is brilliant we can put it in a context with everything else they've said. When we say Clinton is brilliant that we begin to define our own official opinions. I don't think that's where this reference wants to go. I'm pretty sure that NPOV means that Citizendium doesn't make value judgments about the brilliance of individuals. We report the value judgments of others. Thus, it is not our place to take a position on Clinton's brilliance. However, it is our place to report on what others have said about his brilliance.

I've already address my personal opinions on Clinton's brilliance. You're free to disagree with my opinions. Obviously, many people think he's brilliant. I'm more concerned with the three issues I raised that were not addressed. I challenged this verbiage, not because it is wrong, but rather for these three reasons: 1) it is a value judgment; 2) the same could be said of nearly all Presidents; 3) editorial balance. I've explained these issues at length above.

Sorry for being so thorny and thanks for chiming in. Your input is valued. Will Nesbitt 15:04, 24 July 2007 (CDT)

Should assume that no response means that I'm clear to begin making edits? Will Nesbitt 02:42, 27 July 2007 (CDT)

At least some winning candidates have been far from brilliant in their campaigns

I just returned home after two weeks out of my office, where it has been difficult to always check into CZ. Off the top of my head I would like to make major points:

1) "Brilliant" is such a charged word that it probably should *never* be used by anyone unless it is a direct quote with multiple citations, ie, Newsweek, Time, yesterday's NYT, Washington Times, WSJ, etc. So I belatedly agree with you there.

2.) I think the point that I most object to that Will keeps making is that any presidential candidate who wins is, by simple definition, brilliant. I don't have Prof. Jensen's knowledge, and all of the following is what I pondered while walking the Oakland nature trails without recourse to sources, but I think I am being fairly accurate when I say about the following elections:

• 1912. Teddy Roosevelt ran the only "brilliant" campaign. As a third-party candidate he naturally lost. But no one has ever, I think, commented on what a brilliant campaign Woodrow Wilson ran -- he won solely because Teddy and Taft split what otherwise would have been the winning vote.

• And what exactly is the difference between Wilson vs. Teddy & Taft and Clinton vs. Perot & Bush or Dole? Will Nesbitt 08:51, 2 August 2007 (CDT)

• 1916. As the famous cliche goes, Charles Evans Hughes went to bed knowing he had been elected President -- only to wake up in the morning to discover that Wilson had won California and hence the election by a very narrow margin. Hughes ran a terrible campaign, otherwise he would have been elected.

• 1968. The Vietnam War was at its height. The Tet Offensive had shocked America. LBJ had announced he would not run. Kennedy and King had been shot. No one except big-city pols liked HHH. There was serious rioting in the streets, particularly Chicago, and the Democratics were chaotic as never before. George Wallace was poised to take the Southern vote (which he did). Nixon should have won by a landslide. He squeaked in by a hair. If LBJ had announced his bombing halt a week earlier, or if the campaign had run a week longer, HHH would have won. A far from brilliant campaign by the winner.

• 1972. This time Nixon did win by a landside. His tactical relection campaign was so brilliant that, directly because of it, he was forced from office two years later, the only President to ever resign.

• 1976. In the summer of 1976 Jimmy Carter was ahead of Gerald Ford in all the polls by 32 to 36 percent. Read that carefully: 32 to 36 percent. In spite of Ford's infamous statement that the USSR did not control Eastern Europe, Carter barely squeaked in. If the campaign had lasted another week Ford would probably have won. Hayford Peirce 23:52, 27 July 2007 (CDT)

"Brilliant" and superlatives in general should be used in CZ when they are appropriate. The idea that we reject the proper word because we don't like the man's politics is a bad idea.Richard Jensen 09:24, 28 July 2007 (CDT)

Hayford, I think you're making my point not undermining it. My point is there is an argument to be made for or against the use of the word brilliant to describe any of the campaigns in the examples above. So long as the point is arguable, we should maintain a position of neutrality. I endorse your insertion of "considered by many" as accurate and fair. Will Nesbitt 07:07, 30 July 2007 (CDT)

There is no argument here--no expert disagrees, they all think Clinton was a brilliant campaigner. What we must avoid is allowing a GOP partisan to distort the article because some point might emphasize Clinton's strengths. That is a bias CZ cannot allow and no one can be a CZ author if they want to insert political preferences into CZ. Richard Jensen 11:47, 30 July 2007 (CDT)

Richard, it is perhaps most productive if you stick to characterizing your POV and let me characterize my POV. I do not consider myself a GOP partisan. The fact remains that this article gushes over Clinton's strengths and paves over his weaknesses. I really don't have a problem with that, so long as all Presidents are treated the same way. It smacks of unfairness when the same facts that are considered material to understanding George W. Bush are not reported on the Clinton page.

On one of your deletions you said that something read "like Rush Limbaugh". Is it not true that the neutrality policy expects that all political perspectives are fairly represented --- including the GOP partisan position. Rush Limbaugh does not speak for me and I often disagree with him. However, your statements seem to imply that you think Rush Limbaugh's views are unimportant in a political dialogue. Why wouldn't the political perspective of the most popular (by a long measure) political commentator in America, an expert in the field of politics, not comprise one small part of understanding the Clinton Presidency? Will Nesbitt 06:36, 31 July 2007 (CDT)

Regarding Clinton's brilliance please consider the following quote from a self-described "progressive" named Sam Smith who wrote "Shadows of Hope" (Indiana University Press) about Bill Clinton :

BILL CLINTON AND GEORGE BUSH are the two most corrupt individuals to have occupied the White House in modern times. While Bush has clearly proved more venal and deadly and far more destructive of the American republic, it is a fair reading of history to say that Clinton was the warm up band for George Bush, towit:

That preamble is just to let you the author's perspective. He's not exactly part of the Rush Limbaugh movement. Here's what he says about Clinton's brilliance:

CLINTON WAS NOWHERE NEAR as good a politician as the Washington media and political establishment has claimed and the myth has proved to be a destructive fantasy for the party. Bill Clinton got 43.9% of the vote in 1992, while Michael Dukakis - purportedly the worst of all candidate - got 45%. True Clinton was up against Ross Perot who got 19% as well as Bush, but Clinton might well have lost were it not for Perot, in which case he would have joined Michael Dukakis in the hall of shame. Clinton won a majority in only two state-like entities: Arkansas and DC. In only 12 other states was he able to get ever 45%. Dukakis, meanwhile, got over 50% in 11 states and got over 45% in 12 others.

THE DAMAGE DONE TO THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY by Bill Clinton was the worst experienced under any incumbent president since Grover Cleveland. Here are some of the stats:

• GOP seats gained in House after Clinton became president: 48
• GOP seats gained in Senate after Clinton became president: 8
• GOP governorships gained after Clinton became president: 11
• GOP state legislative seats gained since Clinton became president: 1,254 as of 1998
• State legislatures taken over by GOP after Clinton became president: 9
• Democrat officeholders who became Republicans since Clinton became president: 439 as of 1998
• Republican officeholders who became Democrats: 3

These are material facts which are not easily dismissed. These facts seem to stand in opposition to your characterizations of Bill Clinton's brilliance. Will Nesbitt 06:59, 31 July 2007 (CDT)

Pardons

Is there room in this article for the Marc Rich et al pardons on the way out the door? Will Nesbitt 09:31, 22 July 2007 (CDT)

When an expert says Clinton is one of the best campaigners in last half century readers show pay attention. It's true and widely held by all experts in the field. Editoral detachment that leaves the truth out (which is non-controversial and important) makes a bad encyclopedia.Richard Jensen 11:04, 24 July 2007 (CDT)

I'm sorry I can't understand what you're saying. Are you say that Alberto Gonzalez is important enough to warrant a paragraph under George W. Bush, but Clinton's mass pardons aren't worth mentioning? Will Nesbitt 15:15, 24 July 2007 (CDT)

I think eventually there will be a section dealing with those controversies, including the Marc Rich's pardon, the impeachment, and the China fundraising scandal, among others. Yi Zhe Wu 15:14, 24 July 2007 (CDT)

Fairness

I compare and contrast the admiration for Clinton in this article with the handling of George W. Bush. Perhaps this is a work in progress and it just needs more progress. This article doesn't mention the fact that Clinton never won a majority of the popular vote, the the Bush article makes such point at the outset. The Bush article goes out of its way to make mention of Alberto Gonzalez, a non-issue for a good many people, but this article fails to mention the long, long list of Clinton scandals. [2][3]

In the strictest sense of the word, you are correct, neither Clinton nor Bush won a "majority" of the popular vote, rather they won a plurality. I believe the reference in the Bush article is to the fact that Al Gore recieved more of the popular vote than Bush, yet lost in the electoral college. Most of the articles are works in progress here, so I would suggest if you want to add something about Marc Rich, etc, you should. --Todd Coles 08:24, 31 July 2007 (CDT)

It is my experience that my edits are deleted minutes after contribution. I'm trying to build some sort of consensus before start an edit war. Will Nesbitt 09:28, 31 July 2007 (CDT)

If you add a brief paragraph about Marc Rich in an appropriate place I don't see why it would be deleted except, say, for horrendous writing or egregious errors of fact, neither of which I expect from you. If you put it into the first sentence or two, yes, it would be either deleted or moved to a more appropriate spot. So go ahead!Hayford Peirce 11:39, 31 July 2007 (CDT)

I think someone who adds negative stuff about Clinton should at the same time add some positive information. We don't want our authors accused of political bias one way or the other. Richard Jensen 15:19, 31 July 2007 (CDT)

That sounds dangerously like WP-think to me if you can't add one without adding some of the other in order to ensure *every* point of view. The article on Hitler doesn't have much positive stuff to say. Hayford Peirce 15:24, 31 July 2007 (CDT)

comparing Hitler and Clinton is not useful. The editors will not allow political partisans to use CZ as a partisan tool to attack people they oppose (or support those they favor) in current US politics. The person who wants to add Mark Rich is advised to writethe original article on Rich to demonstrate he actually knows a lot about the issues before moving to Clinton article. Richard Jensen 19:00, 31 July 2007 (CDT)

I voted for Clinton twice and I have no axes to grind in this or any other article. But are you saying that *I* couldn't add a couple of sentences to the Clinton article about Mark Rich without *first* having written an article about *Rich*? That seems like a fairly unreasonable requirement to me.... If that's *really* what you mean, I'll be happy to run it by Larry to get his opinion on the matter. Hayford Peirce 20:15, 31 July 2007 (CDT)

A comment here was deleted by The Constabulary on grounds of making complaints about fellow Citizens. If you have a complaint about the behavior of another Citizen, e-mail constables@citizendium.org. It is contrary to Citizendium policy to air your complaints on the wiki. See also CZ:Professionalism.

A comment here was deleted by The Constabulary on grounds of making complaints about fellow Citizens. If you have a complaint about the behavior of another Citizen, e-mail constables@citizendium.org. It is contrary to Citizendium policy to air your complaints on the wiki. See also CZ:Professionalism.

If you will forgive me here (I have just been working on Tony Blair, in many ways a similar politician. I have to say that I feel that the opening paragraph does show apparent bias, in that it appears to give Clinton's administration the credit for the strong state of the economy. This is an interpretation that many might agree with but probably others wouldn't; the point is that it is an interpretation not a fact. I'd suggest neutralising it (e.g. during Clinton's administration, the economy prospered etc) I also think that the word brilliant should be avoided, as an adjective it is not specific, and so attaches itself as an accolade to the person (Clinton) rather than simply qualifying the specific noun (campaigner). I'd be happy with a specific superlative (e.g. outstandingly effective campaigner) but it would probably be better if this were expressed as reported opinion not as the editorial judgement here ("known as an outstandingly effective campaigner"). Apart from in the lead, I read this article as seemingly a fair and balanced account though.Gareth Leng 14:55, 1 August 2007 (CDT)

Gareth, on the whole I would agree with your comments. However I compare and contrast this article with George W. Bush. The tone and focus of the two articles is markedly different. The tone of one article seems admiring, while the tone of the other article is distant and at times accusatory. If we ignore the prosaic style of the articles and focus instead upon the facts of the article, one article chooses to highlight the personal attributes and accomplishments of one man and the nation he led. The other article focuses on the shortcomings of the subject and the failings of his administration.

Some obvious examples:

• Why is Bush's vote count important enough to mention in the opening, but there is no mention (anywhere) of the fact that Clinton never won a Presidential majority of the vote? (See the criticisms of Clinton's "brilliance" by a liberal political author above.)
• The implication in the Bush article is that Cheney is a co-president. There is no mention of Gore in Clinton's victories.
• Compare the Bush milestones: "the midterm election gains of 2002, the midterm loss of Congress in the 2006 elections" to the unmentioned losses in governors, legislatures, and Congress during Clinton's term.

There are more examples (documented above and elsewhere). I don't care if the tone is accusatory, distant, factual or admiring, but I should like to see both men given relatively similar treatment. Will Nesbitt 15:48, 1 August 2007 (CDT)

I see your point. My preference for biographical articles is that they should be sympathetic (in tone) about the person while being coolly objective about the facts; maybe there is a problem with the Bush article. However on the vote count, from a very distant perspective I'd say that the agonies of the recounts and the delay in the outcome ineviably made the voting figures a defining event in the early days at least of the Bush administration, and I don't recall it being a comparable issue for Clinton. However the media here anyway were saturated with analysis of the Bush-Gore outcome. So I'd say it's an important item in reporting on Bush, but unimportant for any other president before or since, but it should be clear why it was important - i.e. because of the media coverage and because it raised questions in the minds of some about the moral legitimacy of Bush's election victoryGareth Leng 16:40, 1 August 2007 (CDT)

There are some who theorize that Clinton's many "scandals" were not scandals at all, but rather a by-product of the fact that many saw his presidency as illegitimate because he never came close to winning a majority. This is among the many reasons that Clinton's vote tallies are an important part of his Presidency. The fact remains, Clinton's vote tallies are no more or less important than those of a good many other Presidents. Consider the voting totals of Lincoln, JFK, Nixon, Reagan and T. Roosevelt and the effect/relationship of those tallies on their administrations. Only in the case of Bush are Presidential voting tallies mentioned in the introduction of the man. Will Nesbitt 18:42, 1 August 2007 (CDT)

Sorry for the brevity in the comment above. It's not meant to imply anything less than the best of intentions and highest of regard for my colleagues. BTW, I'll be off at the beach for a holiday, so this means I will provide one less thorn to the rose we know of as CZ. Will Nesbitt 19:09, 1 August 2007 (CDT)

The implication of Cheney as a "co-president" (or a prime minister) was something that the Republican campaign pushed, in part to counteract a perception of Bush as a lightweight. The Democrats didn't push that implication for Gore, though Clinton did openly dump a lot of work on Gore, and said he would, but more in the way he might a cabinet secretary.

While Clinton never received a popular majority, nobody disputes that Clinton won both elections under the rules of the game as they are set. There was a significant dispute over whether Bush had legitimately won Florida's electoral votes in 2000, and a small (crankish) dispute over whether Bush legitimately won Ohio's votes in 2004.

Failing to mention that the House went Republican in 1994, however, is a HUGE oversight - it was the defining political event of the Clinton administration.

Anthony Argyriou 19:13, 1 August 2007 (CDT)

You may or may not be right about Cheney, but that opinion is a conclusion not a neutral fact. If that opinion is germane to the discussion, it should be quoted from an expert rather than inserted ad hoc into the introduction.

I do not dispute the importance of the narrowness of Bush's victory. I just challenge how and where this fact is reported. I do this because a similar fact is completely omitting regarding Clinton. Keep in mind, there were charges of election fraud in Chicago in Kennedy's narrow defeat over Nixon. I don't think the place to mention this is in the first few sentences about [JFK]. So, no mention for Clinton. No mention for Kennedy. But this is in the Bush introduction? Clinton is brilliant. Kennedy is glamorous. It would seem fair by this measure that Bush would be affable, but he's not. He's the guy who lost the popular vote.

The House going Republican for the first time in 30 years was the tip of the iceberg. The Senate went Republican. Governors went Republican. The Democratic representation at the state legislatures was decimated.

There a a good many of Bush's shortcomings. Let's not forget to mention a few of Clinton's masterpieces. The Federal government was shut down in a budget crisis/showdown. How about the campaign finance fiasco that resulted in an $8.5 million fine and the massive amounts of Chinese money, along with the sale of technology to China. In due time we can cover the disappearing and reappearing FBI files. There were also (some say well-founded) allegations of audits and FBI investigations launched on political opponents. Whatever happened to Vince Foster and the other Clinton related deaths and disappearances? When we mention that Clinton is a brilliant campaigner can we mention that he rented out the Lincoln bedroom to DNC donors for $150,000 a night? That's brilliant

Don't take this to mean I want to trash Clinton. I don't want this article to trash Clinton. I don't mind if we gloss over his many scandals. I would prefer that we ignore his many scandals. But if we do, let's give President Bush the same amount of respect. Will Nesbitt

Will, you have absolutely got to see that there is a quantum leap of difference between Bush's disputed victory in 2000 and other closely contested elections going back to 1876, for pete's sake! The 1876 election was the Bush-Gore election of the 19th century and it marked the politics for the rest of the century. Sure, it can be said for many other elections, including Kennedy's that they were "close", or "narrowly won" or even "contested" -- but none of that stuff deserves first paragraph attention. For many, many, MANY people the closeness, and the disputed resolution of the 2000 election, is still the defining point of the biography of George Bush, as much as, or even more so, than the Iraq war. And even if *you* think they're equivalent, you've got to stop trying to conflate things like "brilliant campaigner" and renting out the Lincold bedroom as "brilliant". They're not equivalent. And by harping on them to the exclusion of more important matters, such as writing a neutral article, or articles, you make yourself sound foolish. You can argue this as long as you want, but you're never going to get these very biased opinions into *any* articles. You KNOW the facts -- why don't you just concentrate on getting the FACTS into the articles in an unbiased way? The readers are smart enough to eventually draw their own conclusions from the facts themselves.... Hayford Peirce 21:23, 1 August 2007 (CDT)

Hayford, I think you're arguing in good faith, so I won't flag you for characterizing my arguments with the term "foolish". I would expect my arguments would sound foolish to you, based upon what you listed as your primary news sources above. ;^)

You also have to consider the fact that a good many people find those arguments that oppose these arguments "foolish". Those people read the Washington Times & Wall Street Journal. Those people watch the most popular news channel in America. Those people make conservative talk radio a commercial success. Any argument based upon the foolishness of their views is, well, as foolish as calling them "foolish".

I will admit to an Irish temper and I will admit to getting unnecessarily worked up over the current state of the article and over the oppressive manner with which it has been edited. That said, you will find that I am not arguing for this to read like a GOP pamphlet. I don't like Republicans. If I'd have had a better alternative I wouldn't have voted for Bush. I'm a wacky Perot two-timer and thus I will remain. (Bloomberg is courting me now.) ;^)

I am in complete and total agreement about the reporting of facts. The next question is which fact is reported where. I think vote tallies are extremely important. They measure the mandate of a President. Like him or not (and at the time I hated him), Democrats had to deal with a force called Reagan. Clinton never, even in two terms, came close to possessing this kind of power. Thus I would agree that Bush's vote tallies are an important part of understanding his place in history. But I don't buy into the assertion that Clinton's vote tallies are less important / less newsworthy than Bush's tallies. All Presidential vote tallies are equally important when understanding the subject in question. Bush had higher vote tallies than Clinton, but Clinton out right won the election by the rules of the game. These aren't secrets. They are facts. People can judge for themselves how important they are. We just need to treat equivalent facts ... well ... equally.

It sounds like we're saying almost the same thing to me. The only point of contention is that I think we need to position and order Bush's facts in the same perspective as Clinton's and vice versa.

As for my "opinions" I have no idea what you're referring to. It is my opinion that "brilliant" is an opinion. I believe that an editor who understands the neutrality policy will agree and brilliant must go or must be ascribed to an expert. Aside from that I've done nothing but present facts.Will Nesbitt 07:51, 2 August 2007 (CDT)

Will - the narrowness of Bush's victory is more notable than pretty much any other narrow election result in U.S. 20th century history, because of the way it was contested. There is no Supreme Court case Nixon v Kennedy. Anthony Argyriou 09:43, 2 August 2007 (CDT)

Skillful

I think this is very satisfactory. Maybe "exceptionally skillful"? For instance, Phil Gramm was skillful enough to be elected Senator a couple of times. He then raised a gazillion dollars to run for President. In the primaries I think he ended up with *one* delegate. So there are definitely *layers* of skillfulness. But I certainly won't insist on it. I will, however, back you up against any attempt to put "brilliant" back in -- there's just too much baggage attached to that word, as evidenced by the on-going disputes here. Best to let it drop and move on. Hayford Peirce 11:19, 2 August 2007 (CDT)

In general, words like exceptional should be used rarely. Maybe this is an example of such a rare case here, but too many superlatives just make painful reading, IMO. Chris Day (talk) 11:29, 2 August 2007 (CDT)

Yeah, it would probably just lead to more squabbling a la "brilliant". So I withdraw my suggestion. Hayford Peirce 11:37, 2 August 2007 (CDT)

Clinton was one of the 2 or 3 most successful and innovative campaigners in last 50 years (with Reagan) and the article should say so, as that is the consensus of experts....I don't believe there is any minority view among experts.Richard Jensen 21:45, 2 August 2007 (CDT)

Impeachment

The impeachment is still blank, so maybe in the checklist it should be written as incomplete. Regards. Yi Zhe Wu 22:18, 2 August 2007 (CDT)