Am I the only one who remembers that Bill Clinton only appeared to be a great Pres because the internet took off?

oh did he appear to be a great president?

Kosovo, Bin Laden, Murder Inc., etc…

His closet makes GWB’s look clean.

I’m confused by why you think the internet made Bill Clinton look better? Most people, from celebs to politicians, look worse the more access the general public has to information.

Your grammar makes it difficult for me to understand whether or not this is a question or a statement.

Your viewpoint is unique in that I’ve never heard that correlation made-especially with reference to Dan Quayle-seriously, do you remember Quayle?

To quote Jerry Maguire: “Help me help you!”

I don’t remember the Internet helping the image or perception of Clinton being a success; if anything the internet exposed him as a conniving adulterer-that’s what I remember, FWIW.

I think he means that the internet boom of the late 1990s was responsible for growth in the US economy, yet Bill Clinton received credit for this growth, and is therefore remembered as a great president.

@sferik: thanks for the clarification-that helped.

I thought Al Gore invented the Internet!? (LOL)

@sndfreq damn you beat me to it with the al gore comment.

I cannot let the Al Gore thing pass.

http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.asp

He never claimed to have invented the internet. He did, however, take some credit for being a very early supporter of internet development, and a Congressional champion of the technology, credit that Vint Cerf, “father of the internet,” has said was deserved.

For more on the exaggerated claims of Al Gore’s exaggerations, see here:
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2000/0004.parry.html

@michael-thanks for the clarification-it’s always more fun to poke fun though…

I have heard this. Don’t know if it’s valid, but I think when I heard it, it was used as a defense of GW. That is, the internet bubble popped around the time he took office, so the economy tanked.

Yeah, I don’t think anyone thinks that Clinton was a “great” President. I think that, against the backdrop of the past 7 years, anyone would look like a fricken genius. People are even talking like Regan was great, fer christsake. Clearly there hasn’t been a good leader in the White House for a very, very long time. Anyway, the economy is only one indication of the effectiveness of the President (and one that he has little real control over anyway). I think the main reason that Clinton is considered to have done a pretty good job is because he was a good diplomat (for the most part) and that is (or at least should be) considered the main role of the President. GWB, of course, doesn’t even know what “diplomacy” means.

@maverick How diplomatic was Kosovo?

@vanguardian, I think that the “for the most part” qualifier covered that. I think that “against the backdrop of the past 7 years, anyone would look like a fricken genius” covers whatever smart-aleck response you come up with next.

Easy there killer…Look who’s the clever and witty one now. I was asking a simple question that you couldn’t answer, so you got aggressive. No reason to get nasty.

Just in case you care…How about a couple little Serbian “Fun Facts” I found for you…

Clinton awards Halliburton no-bid contract in Yugoslavia – good…
Bush awards Halliburton no-bid contract in Iraq – bad…

Clinton imposes regime change in Serbia – good…
Bush imposes regime change in Iraq – bad…

Clinton bombs Christian Serbs on behalf of Muslim Albanian terrorists – good…
Bush liberates 25 million from a genocidal dictator – bad…

Clinton bombs Chinese embassy – good….
Bush bombs terrorist camps – bad….

Clinton commits felonies while in office – good…
Bush lands on aircraft carrier in jumpsuit – bad…

Stock market crashes in 2000 under Clinton – good…
Recession under Bush – bad…

Clinton refuses to take custody of Bin Laden – good…
World Trade Centers fall under Bush – Bad…

Clinton calls for regime change in Iraq – good…
Bush imposes regime change in Iraq – bad…

Terrorist training in Afghanistan under Clinton – good…
Bush destroys training camps in Afghanistan – bad…

No mass graves found in Serbia – good…
No WMD found Iraq – bad…

Milosevic in Custody – good…
Saddam in custody – bad…

Just relax, its just a Q&A site…but my guess is, your response will be a tad more animated this time.

@vanguardian, to say that list has been rose-coloured to favor Bush is a tremendous understatement. But I’m not going to get dragged into a petty Clinton vs. Bush war of fake misdeeds and false accolades. Make no mistake, I think that Bush and Clinton were both horrible Presidents as well as the other Bush before this crappy one, and of course, Regan. Like I said in my original message, there haven’t been any good Presidents in the US for a very, very long time. Out of a whole string of sh*t Presidents though, Clinton was easily the best. That’s not the same as saying he was good though, so save your lies and false justifications for your pointless fights with Clinton supporters. I’m not one.

I’m glad the question at least started the talk. No one has to endorse Bush to point to the fact that the only reason Bill Clinton appeared to have any success was because he was in office when the internet blew up, thus any idiot would have appeared to be a GREAT president. People are looking more seriously at electing a Democrat because of the nostalgia of our nice bank accounts when a democrat was in office. How do we jumpstart our economy? Bring back our tech jobs, put incentives for VC’s to invest in U.S. .com start-ups again, and limit our trade with 3rd world countries that save the corp giants money which only increase margins for them. The small to medium sized companies are the ones that brought so much to our economy during the internet boom. The first president that promises to bring back the tech jobs that are now over seas and promises to take measurments to get start up IPO’s growing will win the election as there are people, such as myself, who was making $130,000 a year that if I had stayed in that job I’d be making $50,000 at the most. Am I the only one who remembers just what the internet economy did for the entire nation and world economies? Put McCain as President and a Bill Gates, Michael Dell, etc….. as Vice President with a Internet Re-growth platform and I know hundreds of friends that would endorse that ticket. A commader and technology Capitalist would be a sure victory. Clinton was in the right place at the right time (ask Monicas dress and chin…lol) to be labled a “Great President.”

Any President can indirectly affect the economy relatively quickly by the effect that President has on consumer confidence. This is an indirect effect because it has little to do with the actual effect of legislation passed during that administration (which really has more to do with Congress than the President) but is based on the public’s PERCEPTION of the economic climate. Conceivably, a President could have relatively poor legislation enacted during their term, so long as Americans THOUGHT the economy was good. Clinton and Reagan were both effective in this regard because, despite their huge differences in actual policy, both made Americans feel good about the economy. Bush, on the other hand, regardless of the value of Congress’ legislation, is unlikely to have a positive effect on consumer confidence due to the constant media and popular bombardment of anti-Bush sentiment (he’s an idiot, etc.) which can’t help but have a negative effect on general American sentiment and eventually, consumer confidence.

As far as the direct effects an administration can have on the economy, there is an inevitable lag between the proposal of the legislation (while the indirect effect on consumer confidence kicks in much quicker), the enactment of the legislation, the implementation of the legislation, and then finally the effect of the legislation to be felt in the economy as a whole. These direct effects can take years to affect the economy. If a President takes office and the economy takes a swing shortly thereafter either up or down, it has far more to do with a perhaps false consumer perception than the actual effect of that President’s policy. Thus, one President frequently gets credit or blame for the policies of the prior President.

The current economic slowdown has a lot to do with changes made to residential mortgage financing made during Clinton’s administration, and the bankruptcy system reforms during Bush’s administration, than much of what is happening right now. It has taken a few years for these effects to really take hold, and it will probably be another few years until recovery.

And Maverick is still indulging in personal attack rather than supporting ideas with logic. Only the target has changed, not the tactic. Interesting that Maverick accuses vanguardian of lies, when vanguardian’s post contains far more provably true fact than anything Maverick has said here. Uncivil discourse is not helpful. Pointless fights? I think we can all see who is fighting pointlessly.

against the backdrop of the past 7 years, anyone would look like a fricken genius

against the backdrop of this conversation anyone would look like a fricken genius.

I have no idea what the question is really about so I am guessing that, “Yes”, you are the only one, and you are probably the only one who remembers a lot of things that did not happen.