July 1, 2004
The Time magazine two weeks ago dealt with Clinton and his new book out, My Life. There was an extensive interview with him among other things, and I left feeling that he wasn't as bad as I remembered. I bring this up because of this Op-Ed piece in the NY Times. He basically says that conservatives will generally look back and see that Clinton really wasn't that bad, and like in the current administration, a lot of issues were out of his control. As I said, I've come to somewhat agree with this. Though I certainly still see some flaws in his character and behavior, one of the best things he did in my opinion was the welfare reform act.
Posted by charr at 9:40 AM
He contributed to moral decay. Hell, he celebrated it and served it up on a silver platter. His character or lack thereof will last longer and have greater ramifications on society than any legislative good he did.He'll be remembered because of the snake oil charmer that he was and the impressive snowjob he pulled on the masses. In other words, we'll celebrate him because we hate to think we're ever wrong.
You have the advantage of age/understanding more than I during this time. I remember bits and pieces, and I remember in the '96 election really not wanting him to win (I was in the middle of my mission), but I didn't have a clear grasp of everything he did. What I do know is that he didn't have a very high moral character in my opinion.
When president, I despised him like most conservatives, but now, I don't think he was as bad as I thought (everything's relative :) )