Talk:Bill Clinton/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 14

Alleged speech before the Joined Chiefs of Staff

Hello. At the moment I'm studying Russian history using Russian textbook "History of Russia. 1917-2004" by A.S. Barsenkov and A.I. Vdovin. Page 642 reads (it's my translation from Russian):

American strategy towards USSR during perestroika years was later sufficiently openly explained by President B. Clinton. Making a speech in October 1995 in the Joint Chiefs of Staff he said: "The policy towards USSR and its allies during the last 10 years has convincingly proved correctness of our course towards elimination of one of the mightiest world powers, and a powerful military block as well. Using mistakes of the Soviet diplomacy, excessive self-confidence of Gorbachev and his surroundings including those who's clearly accepted pro-American attitude, we've managed to do what Truman had been going to do with the Soviet Union with the use of a nuclear bomb. With a sufficient difference, however — we've got a raw-materials appendage, the state which isn't nuclearly destroyed, that would be uneasy to establish (1)... During the so-called Perestroika... by shaking ideological base of USSR we've managed to bloodlessly draw from the war for the world dominance the major counterpart of America."

After an hour of attempts to find the original Clinton's speech I've refused of an attempt. On one side, it's an authoritative Russian textbook: AFAIK it's one of base history books at the Historical Faculty of the Moscow State University. On the other side, such a powerful Clinton speech would doubtlessly leave some trace in the Net.

Would be grateful for everyone who would shed some light upon this problem. ellol (talk) 14:19, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I have a large collection of Clinton books and speeches and I'm afraid I couldnt find it. However it might be easier if you could clarify when it was made, I assume you mean it was to the Joint Chiefs of staff but in what location, its possible you might be able to locate the source by asking the experts at the Clinton library in Arkansas, especially if its from a military briefing that hasnt recieved much academic/press/internet attention. Sorry I couldnt be of more help. LordHarris 20:32, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Russian internet is also scarce on this quote. The earliest source I found was 2000 interview with former SVR colonel Aleksandr Drozdov [1]. It specifies the date as October 24, 1995. It seems to be the whole quote. It goes as the the above text, but the difference is it's more full:

The text after first omission marks (note 1) goes as the following: "Yes, we've spent many billions dollars for that, but they are already close to what Russians call 'self-repayment': in four years we and our allies got various strategic resources amounting to 15 billions dollars, hundreds tons of gold, gems, etc. As a pretext for non existing projects, we have obtained for insignificantly low prices over 20 thousands tons of copper, almost 50 thousands tons of aluminium, 2 thousands tons of caesium, beryllium, strontium, etc. (Paragraph) In the years of so-called perestroika in USSR a lot of our military and businessmen didn't believe in success of the upcoming operations. And that was in vain. By shaking ideological base of USSR we've managed to bloodlessly draw from the war for the world dominance the major counterpart of America. Our aim and objective is further providing help to all who want to see a specimen of western freedom and democracy in us..."

That starts to look like some James Bond story! It's a pity if this information is classified in the U.S. That means we can never know truth, and couldn't regard the quote as truthworthy. Well, in fact as a Russian citizen I could try to send a public inquiry to the FSB to validate the quote. Just wonder if that worths a trouble. Will consider asking experts at the Clinton library in Arkansas, though. ellol (talk) 23:33, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

LordHarris, really, thank you for the help. ellol (talk) 16:45, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Strange foot notes

The foot notes rangeing from 133 to 152 all lead to sites at something called Ourcampaigns.com/. When you enter those sites, you are brought to a blank, blue page with a login box. Besides, as far as I can see, none of the references mentioned above is used in the actual article, the last foot note in the running text is nr. 132. Bjartewe (talk) 17:31, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

The foot notes are in a new section entitled electoral history. None of the links worked for me also. Perhaps the site is currently not working. I do not know who added it the section though; perhaps they can shed light on this? LordHarris 20:35, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Reference 7 leads to Congressional Democrat David Obey's article written for the CBO. As such it is a partisan article. Also no mention of the Social Security trust fund being used to balance the Federal buget during Clinton's (and every other president's) administration. IE no balanced federal bugets have occured. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Watertoo (talk • contribs) 02:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Religion

Is Clinton a Baptist? I was just told that he's a Methodist. Also, I noticed that his wife is a Methodist. Emperor001 (talk) 18:47, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Clinton is a Southern Baptist. 72.51.165.224 (talk) 00:27, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

This and his Jesuit education are probably befitting of a biography.Ep9206 (talk) 00:24, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} Related to this is the controversy regarding Clinton's illicit reception of the Roman Catholic Eucharist in South Africa. It coincides with accusations that he and his administration have had a reputation for unrepentant actions towards common decency and for controversial efforts to justify those actions. Similar actions can be ascribed to Hillary Clinton, a Methodist and to Ronald and Nancy Reagan (who did similar in South Africa in June 1983 at the memorial Mass for longtime aide, Joseph R. Holmes). Over and beyond the scope of the administration's attempts of justification for illicit reception of the Eucharist is that the Clintons have been publicly admonished regarding their support for abortion rights. That categorizes them as persistent in serious public sin and further ineligible for communion with the Roman Catholic Church. That the popular media did not give much attention to this does not detract from its being a major affront to that not so small and insignificant entity known as the Roman Catholic Church.Ep9206 (talk) 00:24, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

On the one hand, this page is only semiprotected; any user more than four days old can edit it. Please take care to resolve any disagreements about content through discussion. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:13, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Early career

I have taken the liberty to remove the "This section does not cite any references or sources." in the early career, part cause it actually has plenty of references in truth. Why do so many conservative yanks hate Billy boy? Europe thinks he is quality. Bill makes people feel sympathetic to the USA, this is truth. - Yorkshirian (talk) 10:40, 18 January 2008 (UTC) Many countries today are swiching leaders for more sympathesity in a world and this is truth that he or she would make it good as a superpower of nice.TNGmania —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.113.25.2 (talk) 09:29, 23 January 2008 (UTC) Clinton isn't a Christian... He's a bastard who just thinks that by going to church he can get more public, and make it look better for his career. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.242.17.105 (talk) 14:43, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Not only does Europe think he is quality, Vietnam thinks very highly of him, right up in the top three with Ho Chi Minh and Adolf Hitler. In Vietnam, such association is a great compliment. More populous than any nation in Europe is Indonesia where memory of the IMF's actions and the 1997 Asian Financial Crisis. It is at odds with a United States that was synonymous with the Clinton administration which encouraged the strong linking of the baht to the US Dollar. If the US Dollar got stronger, it was much to the expense of the crashing Asian economies that now look forward to disconnecting themselves from the US Dollar. However, Clinton's association with Suharto can not be cleanly differentiated from any other US administration outside of Suharto's reign from the 1940's to 1998.Ep9206 (talk) 00:36, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Environmental Record

I noticed that the article touts his environmental achievements after leaving the Oval Office, yet not one mention is made of the fact that it was Willy, not W, who decided not to sumbit Kyoto to the Senate for ratification. Might this not manifest a pro-Clinton bias? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.155.54.107 (talk) 04:30, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Environmental issues are curiously absent in this article. It can be noted that average fuel economies for vehicles in the United States deteriorated significantly during this administration after sixteen years of continuous concerted improvements. Also to be noted are efforts (obstruction, failure or lack of effort) of the administration to popularize environmental stewardship while Sport Utility Vehicles and minivans became popular. At the same time, much of the United States' corporate green technological capability collapsed in mismanagement like Kenetech and US Windpower. Some of the administration's main global involvements in the energy arena are corruption-laden via Enron like in Indonesia, India and Russia with executive approvals and active support.Ep9206 (talk) 23:58, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Endorsement of the Church of Scientology

I added this section but User:Orangemarlin quickly reverted it claiming undue weight and not a reliable source. This is pure whitewash. I reverted back.--Fahrenheit451 (talk) 00:33, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

According to a quotation from a Church of Scientology published book, President Bill Clinton said this of Scientology in a 1996 letter, "You have worked with energy and dedication to provide solutions to the many problems that government alone cannot fix. With your active involvement, you have brought help and hope to the countless people in need..... Your work is going a long way towards healing and renewing your community, inspiring all who seek to improve our world."

It appears that User:Orangemarlin and User:Cagey Millipede are tag team reverting to whitewash the Bill Clinton article.--Fahrenheit451 (talk) 00:53, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

This is a form letter commonly sent out by politicians - if every group that received this type of letter was included in the article it would be a long list of so called endorsements. If Clinton really liked Scientology then you should be able to find plenty of info from other sources too. Hardyplants (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 01:39, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

No evidence of a form letter. Please prove that it is. Your revert is a whitewash.--Fahrenheit451 (talk) 04:38, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Definitely a form letter. Almost identical letter to another constituent here. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Not definitely. You are lying to yourself. Prove that it is.--Fahrenheit451 (talk) 04:39, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm lying to myself? I just gave you a link to an almost identical letter to a completely different individual having nothing to do with scientology. The letter reads like a form letter and we have an example of another use. That's more than enough evidence than we need. Given what the letter reads like and the existence of an almost identical letter to another group, the burden of proof should be clear. Oh, and by the way, saying things like "you are lying to yourself" might not construed as the most civil remark. JoshuaZ (talk) 04:54, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes you are. That Tom Smith is a member of scientology and was evidently involved with whatever project Clinton commended. Oh, and by the way, saying things like "Definitely a form letter" without evidence indicates careless reasoning.--Fahrenheit451 (talk) 05:01, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

You are being tendentious; the letter reads like a form letter and we have a nearly identical letter to someone else. That's strong evidence of it being a form letter (and when someone advises you that something you are saying might violate Wikipedia policy, it isn't the best idea to continue with that line of commentary). JoshuaZ (talk) 05:05, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I think you are being tendentious. We have no evidence that it is a form letter. You did not read what I stated. Tom Smith is a member of the cofs and was involved in the same project that Clinton commended. I am not violating any wikipedia policy, thank you, but I do wonder if you are.--Fahrenheit451 (talk) 05:16, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Your evidence that Smith is involved with the COFS is what exactly? Certainly not his his website which doesn't have the word scientology in it at all or the word scientologist. The general search of "Tom Smith" +scientologist returns many hits but no evidence that any of them refer to this Tom Smith (indeed, the only really at all connected seems to be a Tom Smith who was labeled a Suppresive Person). JoshuaZ (talk) 05:26, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

First of all, when we discuss this Tom Smith, we are not discussing an edit. That being said: I knew him personally. He was a member of the cofs, a guitar player and builder, looked the same as the guy in the photo, and was involved in their literacy crusade project. No, he is not the same guy who was labeled. --Fahrenheit451 (talk) 05:50, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

By the way, this is what he has done in the cofs:[2]--Fahrenheit451 (talk) 05:57, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

You can't invent a controversy just from pulling a quote from a Scientology publication. You must document that there is in fact a controversy, that reliable sources have taken note of such a controversy, and that this letter is more significant than the thousands of letters fired off from the White House to constituents. Your characterization of the letter as an "endorsement" is also original research unless substantiated by a reliable source. Gamaliel (talk) 05:35, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Wow, this is ridiculous. Can't we just ignore/revert/block? john k (talk) 05:51, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Wow, if you think it is ridiculous, John, why don't you just ignore it and go somewhere else?--Fahrenheit451 (talk) 05:59, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I am no paragon of civility, but even I know when one has exceeded even my loose standards. However, you have moved over into personal attacks. Stating that I am tag teaming with someone whom I've never seen is beyond me. But please find us some reliable sources, and we'll ignore your uncivility and personal attacks. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 06:18, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Please state your standards then. Otherwise, it just seems like you are spouting rhetoric. On the subject of personal attacks, I don't think you know what you are talking about.--Fahrenheit451 (talk) 23:57, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Fahrenheit451 - I think you are misunderstanding my point, most polictions and especially Presidents send out hundreds or thousands of these types of letters, why should the one sent to Scientology be here and not the others? If it belongs any were it should go into the page on Scientology but not here. Hardyplants (talk) 06:48, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Just because politicians send out form letters is not evidence that this one is. I don't even think that conclusion would qualify as an inference. It is a speculation. In either case, that is Original Research and has no place on Wikipedia.--Fahrenheit451 (talk) 23:59, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Can you produce a full copy of the letter? So we can see to whom the letter was addressed too. Hardyplants (talk) 05:36, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

No, sorry, but I only have the citations mentioned in the edit. I suppose a copy could be obtained under the Freedom of Information Act.--Fahrenheit451 (talk) 02:29, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

People, just stop it. Fahrenheit451 is a troll. Ignore him. Revert stupid edits he makes. He's just wasting everybody's time. john k (talk) 17:08, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

John Kenney, you have just violated WP:NPA and you as an admin should know better. --Fahrenheit451 (talk) 02:28, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

And the obvious issue here is undue weight - mentioning some letter that Clinton wrote, that has gotten no media attention, and no attention from his biographers, and what not, clearly represents undue weight. john k (talk) 17:10, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I have been informed that it is a personal attack to call someone a troll if they are trying to make good faith edits. Indeed, this is fair enough. It is possible that, rather than trolling, purposefully putting in information that he knows is 100% certain to be removed, Fahrenheit 451 is instead a crank who is obsessed with touting Bill Clinton's supposed connections to scientology and really cannot understand why this cannot be included in his article. I apologize for the confusion. john k (talk) 04:51, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

And that is another instance of your violation of WP:NPA. You don't learn, do you, John Kenney?--Fahrenheit451 (talk) 05:32, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Farenheit451, one point of data does not make a line. One letter, form letter or not, does not constitute a pattern of endorsement. If you can pull up other sources that indicate a steady and repeated contribution to, support of, or endorsement of Scientology that is statistically sigificant from his endorsement and support of other organizations, then we'll re-open the question. It is not a matter of whether it is true or not, it's a matter of whether it can be supported. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.99.200.125 (talk) 01:25, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Kazakhstan visit

The New York Times published this [3] article on the visit of Clinton to Kazakhstan. I believe it's reputable enough to add it to the "Controversy" section (either here, or on his wife's page). However, the subject is sensitive, so I'll let someone else do the inclusion. Dpotop (talk) 11:25, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

2008 Election Surrogate Controversy

Two minor mistakes that compromise the professionalism of this section: 1) Line third from bottom - spelling mistake that says "overwhelming" instead of "overwhelmingly" 2) Final sentence seemed stuck on at the end: "Obama has been known to use his campaign to invoke a type of "Race-Baiting" campaign against Hillary Clinton even before the South Carolina Primaries." Vague and not supported by a reference. Seems irrelevant to me.

Can someone please fix these problems in the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flewintohttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bill_Clinton&action=editpylon (talk • contribs) 17:18, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Deficit

Here's why I'm against putting this information into the lead. First off, the topic of the USA Today article isn't "Clinton lied about surplus, it was actually a deficit." It is about how Congressional accounting rules don't take into account certain factors, and starts off by talking about how the 2005 deficit (under Bush) is actually much higher than reported. True, Clinton is also mentioned, but the article is about government accounting calculations generally, and the way the sentence was originally phrased it made it sound like the article was exclusively about Clinton and his accounting report.

Second, I'm against "he said X but in actuality Y" going into a lead for poliical figures. If it were allowed, Wikipedia leads for politicians would be rife with edit warring. For those who think I'm biased, I also fought to keep it out of the George W. Bush article. There were so many back and forth edits over Iraq in the lead, with one editor routinely inserting "even though there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq." [Bold in original]. Something which, by the way, is a lot more citable than the "Clinton deficit." But we kept it and other things out because the article, as User:AuburnPilot pointed out at the time, is "George W. Bush" not "George W. Bush and why he's a liar." Controversies about Iraq were relegated to the appropriate sections of the article.

Similarly, the Clinton pages have been repeatedly targeted by people who clearly don't like him. It's fine to not like him, politically or otherwise. I'm not saying Clinton, Bush, or anyone else in politics are the most honest people in the world. But the Clinton lead already mentions the two biggest shortcomings of his presidency (healthcare reform failure, impeachment). This is "Bill Clinton" and not "Bill Clinton and why he's a liar." There are controversy sections and sections on the economy for inserting this info. The lead now clarifies "why" the surplus was reported as it was, under the reporting rules also used by Bush (again, read the article). The source belongs more in a section about Congressional accounting or American budget deficits in general. It is not exclusively about Clinton, but by all means, add it to the article in the appropriate section, though for some reason I doubt it will make it's way into the other articles I have mentioned. SpiderMMB (talk) 20:36, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

i have no objection to it not being in the lede, per your rationale above. however, it does seem notable enough to be in the body, since it's become a matter popular legend that clinton/gore left the country with a budget surplus, which is just that - a legend, not a fact. Anastrophe (talk) 00:07, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

If the reporting of Clinton's surplus is going to be in the lede, than this information should follow. Otherwise, remove the information about Clinton's surplus from the lede. Either way, the USA Today article deserves a mention somewhere. As the above editor stated, it's become a matter of popular legend - so why is it being mentioned in the lede as fact, when this article disputes that? --Erroneuz1 (talk) 10:11, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll reiterate that many people also think WMD in Iraq was a "poplar legend," and they tried to insert it into the George W. Bush lead. It was kept out, and I was one of the people who kept it out. But if you look at the article, under the section labeled "Iraq," you'll see that all the criticism and the controversy over the war is voiced there, where it belongs.

I also have to stress, what I'm really against here is one-sideness. The lead already is rife with Clinton criticism -- health care reform failure, impeachment, and Obama (which frankly will not be lead-worthy once the primary is over, but which I didn't remove as it's current). This article is not the place for general criticism of Bill Clinton. It also needs to mention high points of his presidency (economy), and neutral aspects (centrist). I know there are some people here who think there was nothing good about Clinton's presidency. You know what? There are also people who think there was nothing good about George W. Bush's presidency. It doesn't matter! This is not supposed to be a blog where you act like a pundit espousing your beliefs. It's supposed to be an encyclopedia, and as such it needs to be as "fair and balanced" as possible. The USA Today article is about the accounting rules generally, not Bill Clinton. It begins by saying that that in '05 (under Bush) a deficit of $360 billion was reported, but when audited, it was really $760 billion! Yet no one is advocating that we insert that information into the George W. Bush article! Using Congressional accounting rules, Clinton did have a surplus, and that is what the article now says. SpiderMMB (talk) 18:58, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

So since the controversy over W is mentioned in part of his article, then the USA Today article should be mentioned in part of this one. This has nothing to do with punditry, according to the article there was a deficit, and yes that deficit continued under Bush. Sure using Congressional rules there was a surplus, but why can't it be demonstrated according to other rules there was not? I'll advocate we cite the article in Bush's article as well. --Erroneuz1 (talk) 09:34, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps petitioning your respective congressmen to seek change in accounting practices based on your arguments would be a better use of time than arguing it here, and setting your own accounting rules by editing biographies of living presidents. If you hate Clinton, odds are you like Reagan, Bush, or Bush the Sequel. Changing congressional accounting standards will alter their legacies as well, probably for the worse in some cases as one commenter above pointed out. I think the argument, and even the USA Today article, is over-analytical and based on narrow semantics. Anyone can morph a rose into poison ivy if they spend enough time analyzing, comparing, and making broad connections... asking "what-ifs," and citing kind-of-sort-of related textbook procedures. As an aside, also remember that looking exclusively at federal deficit and surplus is a very piss-poor method for judging a bad or good economy. ;) 72.213.129.138 (talk) 01:14, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

what about congress?

i'd like to see a bit more about clinton's realtionship congress, the gains and losses of congressional seats, contract with america etc. it's important context. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.253.239.161 (talk) 13:03, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Too much criticism in intro

It seems to me that there is too much criticism in the intro section, which also seems to ramble on and on.... kind of like President Clinton himself sometimes... Just kidding there. Borock (talk) 17:11, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Er, precisely what are you reffering to? The lead seems pretty balanced to me. Happyme22 (talk) 23:11, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I am totally in favor of Americans criticising their leaders. However the intro here reads like criticism was loaded in. Borock (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 00:35, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. (ApJ (talk) 15:01, 7 February 2008 (UTC))

LOL! So say the two Republicans! Glad you guys are here. Now roll up your sleeves and get to work - pretend that this was the Reagan article. ;) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 06:42, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

There is also too much defense of him in the intro. Shouldn't that be just the basic info on who he is and why he is important? It seems to me that the question about if he was a good president (or good hubby to Hillary) should go towards the end of article? Borock (talk) 01:27, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

General Comment: I don't think that the intro is any place at all for partisan or prejudiced criticism or defense. The intro should supported be by nothing more than mainstream perception and fact. Accomplishments and criticisms should be detailed in different sections. I understand that the way it is, or the way it was, may be okay by Wikipedia standards, but if you are going by contemporary stylistic practices for summarizing someone's biography, the intro fails miserably even the way it is now. Anything beyond when he was born, high points of his life, and documented/historic items of notability, perhaps a bit of summarization for the key sections below, and what he is doing now... belongs elsewhere. 72.213.129.138 (talk) 00:45, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Gay and Lesbian Pride Month

According to various news sources, President Clinton proclaimed June "Gay and Lesbian Pride Month", yet I haven't seen anything about this on Wikipedia, under this article or the ones on LGBT History month, June, Category:June observances, or LGBT. TigressofIndia (talk) 02:57, 13 February 2008 (UTC) de it. You mama doesn't edit here - do it yourself. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 05:31, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Disbarrment

I haven't seen anything that says Clinton was disbarred in Arkansas, despite that this article says that. Suspension is not the same thing as being disbarred. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.213.242.58 (talk) 19:14, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

The following contributor 209.237.92.231 apparently erased the comment above by 76.213.242.58 while making an edit. I have pasted it back in.

Please do not remove the comments of others. Thank you. Jonneroo (talk) 03:50, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

In the info box on the right side of the page it says that he is a lawyer- but he was disbarred- therefore no longer a lawyer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.237.92.231 (talk) 02:12, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Third term

I had a know-it-all professor that said Bill Clinton could run for presidet for a third term. Is this true? Could Clinton be eligible to run again? My professor said that granted one can only serve two presidencial terms consecutively, however there is no rule stating that one is limited only to two terms. In other words, a third term could be possible. 98.194.144.39 (talk) 19:24, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Your professor should rescind his doctorate, as "No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice..." is pretty clear-cut. See: Twenty-second Amendment to the United States Constitution. Tarc (talk) 20:20, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Hec I'd vote fro him again haha :^) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.96.172.5 (talk) 16:44, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

American spoken word artists

I removed the category Category:American spoken word artists from this article. Categories are to be applied only where they define the person in question (see WP:CAT) and not to be applied for trivial aspects of someone's life (see WP:OCAT). In particular, this category should only apply to people who are defined as spoken word artists; not to people who have trivially engaged in spoken word at some point in their career, or to people who are simply "artists" as in highly skilled in oratory. --Lquilter (talk) 15:26, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

How does traveling the lecture circuit post-presidency NOT make Bill Clinton an American spoken word artist? He – like most previous presidents – gets paid (sometimes unpaid) to speak at businesses, universities, organizations, fundraisers in a professional capacity. I would question your interpretation of the word define, as you seem to be working under the assumption that he must be defined solely, or by the majority of his life's work, as an orator. Even excluding his presidency, Clinton has a professional speaking career which would be envied by orators who actually do it full-time, for a living... and I think the same could be said for Bush or Carter. If the category of "spoken word artists" is reserved for those that do it as an artform, such as poetry, I am definitely in favor of adding Clinton at least to a Public Speakers category, if there is one. 72.213.129.138 (talk) 06:36, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

2008 election surrogate controversy? Too Much?

I'm not trying to be biased one way or the other on this, but it seems to me that we're talking a bit too much about the attacks against Obama here. In reality, the public outcry from Pres. Clinton's criticisms was not overly-present before the South Carolina race, and has not been overly-present since. And, in comparison to elections of the past, these jabs have not been any worse than political attacks we've seen in other races.

Obviously, it should be mentioned. It just seems like we're making a full-length feature out of what should be a simple footnote. We don't need to mention by name half-notable congressmen such as Reps. Clyburn & Emmanuel and their opinions about the thing... if we were to mention every Obama supporter that criticized Bill Clinton for the Obama remarks, we would need a separate article.

I guess I just look at this section in comparison with the sexual misconduct and death penalty controversies above it. Both were vastly more controversial than the recent Obama attacks, yet both sections are less than half the length. There is a such thing as "too much information," and I wonder if people will be skipping over this section of the article 2 or 3 years from now thinking "Who cares?" I realize this may be kind-of relevant now, but I question how relevant it will all be in the future. I believe if someone wants contemporary political opinions from congressmen or pundits, or detailed current analysis, they'll probably be looking through the CNN or MSNBC archives, or other news/current events sites... not here. :) Just my opinion. 72.213.129.138 (talk) 00:03, 4 March 2008 (UTC) - - - See Wikipedia:Recentism

Net Worth?

I've been seeing this 'Net Worth' estimate appearing on other politician's pages in the 'statistics' column (George W. Bush, John McCain) is this supposed to a be a universal thing applied to all political figures? Because apparently it is found on politician's pages even if they aren't businessmen. Is it to be applied for Bill Clinton? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.75.187.196 (talk) 06:38, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

First lady?

How would it be handled if Hillary would be came a president.85.220.105.10 (talk) 23:08, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

• Not sure. I seem to remember Bill Clinton saying on Letterman that he should be called the "first laddie", should Hillary take the presidency. Aside from the unofficial title, though, there's no special way to handle being the spouse of a president. – ClockworkSoul 18:17, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Did Nothing for the Economy or the Surplus

Shouldn't it be noted Clinton did nothing to get that surplus? He was president during the bursting of the dot com bubble. He also cut from defense and military spending and severely weakened our National Security. He also gave up several attempts to capture bin Laden.PokeHomsar (talk) 09:10, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia, not a discussion board. I'd suggest a review of WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:RS and WP:TALK. Happy editing. Dlabtot (talk) 04:30, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Section titles vary between Bush and Clinton articles. Unbiased?

In this article the section is titled 'Public Approval' while the same section in the Bush article is titled 'Criticism and Public Perception'. How can this article be considered unbiased. When I compare it with the Bush article I see an entirely different approach. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.197.149.26 (talk) 07:13, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Edits

This Article keeps getting vandalized and most of you sit back and do nothing. What's going on???????????? Dwilso 06:06, 3 April 2008 (UTC)