Talk:Bill Clinton

Bill Clinton received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Archive
Archive 2

Photos

I agree we shouldn't whitewash history, which is what you are attempting to do with this Clinton article. The photos are relevant and you have not contested this. You agree that similar pictures should be included on Bush's page, so why not on this page right now? Talk before changing the page.

--Nyr14 00:25, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

I have talked, however, you have not listened. Biography pages of Presidents are not here for images of wars and conflicts that happened during their time. Each war or conflict has their own page, just as Kosovo does, and that is where it belongs. The only way those images stay are if images of dead bodies from Iraq are on the George W. Bush page. Clearly you are a partisan who is trying to demonize Clinton all over again, but it isn't going to work. The Kosovo war was necessary and well orchestrated with no American casulties. Please add your input on this war on the Kosovo page, not the Clinton biography page. ChrisDJackson 02:37, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

We are not talking about other president's pages but the Clinton page. President pages are here to inform people about Presidents both good and bad. The good was that Clinton stopped the forced migration and helped many refugees (shown in the picture currently up). However, there were a lot of refugees that never got that chance because of him. Both of these points should be made.

Your first claim for removing the image was that it was not relevant. It is a picture of the Kosovo War in a section about the Kosovo War.

To follow your logic we should remove the Oslo Accords picture because there is a seperate page for it. There is a seperate page for the Charlemagne Award. Your picture should be removed because there is a sepearte page about the Kosovo War. The impeachment picture is also on Impeachment of Bill Clinton. Hillary's confirmation didn't happen until after his presidency and so that picture should be removed and people should just go to the 2000 senate election page.

Furthermore, I'm not a partisan at all. You're the one that has a biography page about how much you love the Democratic Party.

--Nyr14 02:53, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

The point Chris is making is that your pictures showed a war, and the current set show Bill Clinton in various locations. Yes, this page is about Bill Clinton and what happened during his presidency, but first and foremost it is about Bill Clinton - that's the heading, isn't it? So by all means, make mention of Kosovo - and the article does that - but refer everything to Clinton. That's what these pictures do. It's an article about what happened while Clinton was president, but moreso about his involvement in these events. Showing a picture of bodies on a road does nothing but send a message to the reader that Clinton had some sort of direct connection with these deaths, and you cannot claim that without proof, but showing him at a refugee camp says, "Yes, he did have an involvement in a war, and here's the proof!" Harro5 (talk · contribs) 03:00, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

They were bombs that Clinton ordered to be dropped. That's his involvement. The section of the article discusses specifically the NATO bombing campaign which was ordered by Clinton. The pictures are specifically from an accidental bombing which Clinton took the blame for. I'll refer you to an article titled "Civilian Deaths Inevitable In Warfare, Clinton Says" from the page A11 of New York Times on April 16, 1999:

"What we believe happened is that the pilot thought it was a military convoy and that there were apparently civilians in the convoy who were killed. That is regrettable; it is also inevitable," the President said. Despite such "errors," he vowed to continue the bombing campaign until President Slobodan Milosevic of Yugoslavia stopped terrorizing and killing Albanians and driving them from their homes.

Therefore showing the picture of the bombing's effect is extremely relevant.

--Nyr14 03:18, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

You are clearly a hack who is out to re-write history. By trying to insert photos of dead bodies into a bio page of President Clinton, you are trying to say he killed those people. It just isn't right and it won't fly here. ChrisDJackson 03:24, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

He took the blame for killing those people. [1] "Well, first of all, what we believe happened is that the pilot thought it was a military convoy and that there were apparently civilians in the convoy who were killed."

84 of them were killed. thats about 1/6 of the deaths that Milosevic ended up being charged with.

--Nyr14 03:29, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

Everytime I readd the pictures they are taken down with no explanation. Can whomever put the neutrality dispute up please tell why?

--Nyr14 01:31, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

I added the NPOV header up on this section because there obviously is a dispute happening. Look how many comments you and ChrisDJackson have made back and forth, and the amount of reverts. If this isn't a NPOV dispute, I don't know what is. Frankly, I think it is appauling that you feel you can justify putting pictures of bodies on a President's page. Wikipedia is used by people as young as grade school students for research - in fact, Google's third result for 'Bill Clinton' is his Wiki page, and you feel it necessary to add pictures of war and death to it. Please explain that. Harro5 (talk · contribs) 07:48, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

I suppose it could be considered an NPOV dispute. The picture up right now is extremely misleading; if a grade school student, or anyone for that matter, saw only that picture then they would go away with this notion that Bill Clinton was this great guy (and he did, in fact, help a lot of people that had been forcefully migrated). In order to be balanced, however, we should also show pictures of what some critics think of "bad". Hence, the pictures. Bill Clinton took responsibility for the attack and this information should be better known to others.

--Nyr14 10:56, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

My thoughts:

Personally, I would favor having no images at all in this section, or else a picture of protesters marching against the Kosovo War or something like that. Pictures should directly illustrate the subject of the subsection here, to avoid POV problems. The subject here is criticism of foreign policy, so we should show somebody criticizing his foreign policy. A picture of Pat Buchanan denouncing NAFTA might be most appropriate.

In addition, this whole thing is a POV mess--and not just the subject in question. Specifically, I'd like to get a citation on the 103d Congress initiating the independent counsel investigations. As such ,I've removed that allegation until a citation can be provided (the allegation was in the lead section ,if you're interested). I've also removed the pic of Clinton holding a child from the foreign policy criticisms section .Meelar (talk) 19:46, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

Would anyone have objections to discussing the specific incident? What about a link to the picture?

--Nyr14 21:08, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

New Photo

I really like the new photo, thanks very much Chris!--Sina 23:26, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No problem. However, someone is trying to remove it. I am about sure it is from the White House at the very end of his tenure, but cannot confirm it now. I found it on other sites, including at Cornell University. Hopefully it will stay though. ChrisDJackson 21:27, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Succession box, Attorney General

He served as Arkansas AG, this should be included in the succession box. Link for data: http://www.ag.state.ar.us/index_low.htm (Jim Guy Tucker: 1973-1977 Bill Clinton: 1977-1979 Steve Clark: 1979-1990) NoSeptember 11:42, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Spin Doctors

Political Consultants such as Paul Begala and James Carville are referred to as "[Political Party] Spin Doctors" as exemplified in the Hillary Clinton page's reference to, "Republican spin doctor Arthur Finkelstein".

I am glad to be of service in applying the same standard here. plain_regular_ham 14:48, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Trivia Section

"Lots of people get parodied" in no way justifies omission of information. Sorry. Lots of people have birthplaces. Must we never mention them? plain_regular_ham 19:36, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I stand by my edit summaries. "Person X has been parodied for personal characteristics Y and Z" is a generic statement which could be applied to any public figure and is not worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. Gamaliel 17:27, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I find your reasoning troubling as I have been working against your a link to what you insist is a link to a Karl Rove 'biography'...

"Portly, balding, malicious, simpering, he looks like a cross between Sesame Street's Mr. Hooper and the Third Reich's Heinrich Himmler. And he acts like a cross between Heinrich Himmler and Henry Kissinger. Whom he also looks like. And not in a good way. Oh yeah, he's a man who compromised national security, putting lives of American agents in danger. Wait, I forgot a word there. What was it? Oh, I remember! Allegedly." (from rotten.com)

I have been trying to learn from your exemplary adherence to NPOV and standards. It is difficult because there seems to be more than one standard. Am I missing something? plain_regular_ham 19:47, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If there is a rotten.com biography page on Bill Clinton, I support its inclusion in this article. That's a consistent standard. Comparing two unlike things in a snide way and saying that I'm inconsistent is not a coherent nor a civil argument. Gamaliel 21:41, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Take it easy Gamaliel. Next time I will be less creative and simply say that you are demonstrating a double-standard. So, "he looks like a cross between Sesame Street's Mr. Hooper and the Third Reich's Heinrich Himmler" is acceptable but mention of common parody subjects for a figure is not? I'm sorry Gamaliel. I am really not on board with your reasoning. plain_regular_ham 00:25, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There is no "double standard" as these are two entirely different things. Gamaliel 00:30, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please go on. plain_regular_ham 00:41, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Rove quote does not appear anywhere on Wikipedia. It is on another website merely linked to from here. If anything like that quote was added to this article or the Rove article I would support its removal. If anyone added a sentence to the Rove article that said "Rove is frequently parodied for X and Y" I would support its removal. Gamaliel 02:47, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Standard for Links

If you say so Gamaliel. You are the admin. I will say that inclusion of links such as the one from rotten.com, and attempting to portray them as legitimate, speak poorly of the validity of Wikipedia. Is there any standard for links? plain_regular_ham 20:01, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it not "legitimate"? I don't see why we should limit ourselves to mainstream news and information sources. Gamaliel 23:31, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose answer to the FAQ, "Q. Why do you do it?", bears consideration:

"A. Our staff loves to upset people, it keeps our stools regular. Since the site has actually acquired a life of its own, it really is out of our hands. Well, that's true until we switch to an adult contemporary music format. "

Not to mention the direct links to Pornopolis.com and fetishmaximus.com. Should this really be looked upon as more legitimate than perhaps an "editorial" source? Perhaps the Rove link should be called, "Critical Editorial/Biography" if it is included at all. plain_regular_ham 14:51, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Noted rotten.com link on Hillary Clinton page and updated description as above. Let me know your thoughts here or there Gamaliel. plain_regular_ham 14:54, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Though I generally prefer not to categorize links so the reader can make up his/her own mind, I think this is a reasonable compromise. Gamaliel 18:24, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of "Criticisms of Foreign Policy" section

The first two citations in this section are misquotes. "Defense Secretary William Cohen, claiming that genocide had occurred in Kosovo..." Nowhere in the cited article does Cohen claim genocide. His assertions in this article are far too qualified to attribute a claim of "genocide" to him from this article.

The very next sentence attributes the claim of genocide to Clinton himself, but the speech cited never mentions genocide at all. The closest he comes in this speech is paragraph 13:

"Though his ethnic cleansing is not the same as the ethnic extermination of the Holocaust, the two are related -- both vicious, premeditated, systematic oppression fueled by religious and ethnic hatred. This campaign to drive the Kosovars from their land and to, indeed, embrace their very identity is an affront to humanity and an attack not only on a people, but on the dignity of all people."

The only reference by Clinton to genocide re: Kosovo I could find was actually about Bosnia some years previous. In his speech on 24 March 1999:

"We learned some of the same lessons in Bosnia just a few years ago. The world did not act early enough to stop that war, either. And let's not forget what happened -- innocent people herded into concentration camps, children gunned down by snipers on their way to school, soccer fields and parks turned into cemeteries; a quarter of a million people killed, not because of anything they have done, but because of who they were. Two million Bosnians became refugees. This was genocide in the heart of Europe -- not in 1945, but in 1995."

In Bosnia, Milosevic did preside over an actual genocide (estimated 200,000 deaths). For some reason that fact is ignored in this section.

Given the misquotes, the first two paragraphs in this section are bizarre. There were only 5900 US troops involved in a very successful NATO effort where no US troops were killed, yet takes seriously unnamed sources that accuse Clinton of "leading the United States to war with Kosovo under the false pretense of genocide".

So, unless some better cites for Cohen and Clinton are found, the whole part about Kosovo should be deleted. The opening sentence, "Some critics have accused..." is a weaseler and indicates a weak statement. "Some critics" make every accusation imaginable, so it is not NPOV to give them space without subjecting them to the same rigorous standards as any other source. Naysayer 5:52, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

I'll give it another week or so before removing the aforementioned paragraphs. Not sure if there's any worthwhile criticism about Kosovo that I should replace it with, other than the "wag the dog" stuff, which I find ludicrous, but at least slightly more reasoned and moderate than what's in this section now. Naysayer 05:39, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The Clinton administration claimed that both genocide and ethnic cleansing were taking place. I did not include a reference to the claim of genocide because that was (I thought) common knowledge. The New York Times reported on March 30, 1999 in an article written by Francis X Clines titled "NATO Hunting for Serb Forces; U.S. Reports Signs of 'Genocide'" appearing on page A1 that:

"NATO bombers hunted for Serbian troops in embattled Kosovo today and the Administration said evidence of 'genocide' by Serbian forces was growing to include 'abhorrent and criminal action' on a vast scale. The language was the State Department's strongest yet in denouncing Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic."

CNN wrote:

"Accusing Serbia of 'ethnic cleansing' in Kosovo similar to the genocide of Jews in World War II, an impassioned President Clinton sought Tuesday to rally public support for his decision to send U.S. forces into combat against Yugoslavia, a prospect that seemed increasingly likely with the breakdown of a diplomatic peace effort." [2]

William Cohen gave a speech in which he said:

"The appalling accounts of mass killing in Kosovo and the pictures of refugees fleeing Serb oppression for their lives makes it clear that this is a fight for justice over genocide" [3]

Clinton (responding to some of those critics calling him a war criminal) said:

"NATO did not commit war crimes. NATO stopped war crimes. NATO stopped deliberate, systematic efforts at ethnic cleansing and genocide." [4]

However, NATO, stopping those war crimes, killed more civilians than Milosevic did.

You wrote "In Bosnia, Milosevic did preside over an actual genocide (estimated 200,000 deaths). For some reason that fact is ignored in this section."

The section is about Clinton's foreign policy. Clinton did not intervene in Bosnia. That is why the fact is "ignored" in this section.

Some critics include Thomas E. Woods, Joseph Farah, among others.

And, by the way, you're right that we didn't lose any soldiers in the Kosovo conflict; we lost two. [5] And if by "sucessful" you mean that we stopped "genocide" that wasn't going on and simultaneously killed thousands of innocent civilians, then the Kosovo operation was extremely sucessful.

--Nyr14 05:02, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for providing the appropriate sources. You did in fact cite sources originally, albeit inappropriate ones. They should be fixed if they haven't been already.

"Ethnic cleansing", a broader term than genocide, was the more commonly used, and the misquoted sources made me wonder whether there was some inflated claims of the admin using the latter term.

The argument that Clinton is a war criminal because the deaths in Kosovo did not meet the standards of "genocide" is an unusual variation of the "post hoc" fallacy: a Denial of Causation or Connection. We already know that there was genocide in Bosnia committed by the Serbs under Milosevic. Now the argument is that Clinton becomes a war criminal by successfully stopping another genocide by the same group, under the same leader, against essentially the same victim group. If Clinton had been less successful at stopping the Serbs, then the Serbs would have killed more Kosovars, and Clinton would be "justified" in intervening because of his lack of military success. Here's your source on the nature of Clinton's "crimes":

"Yet, there is just no evidence to support Clinton's conclusion (about genocide). Where are the bodies? So far, examination of the most likely dumping grounds has produced only 2,108. That's hardly genocide. It's tragic. But how does it justify an international bombing campaign that may well have resulted in far more civilian deaths in Serbia?" (emphasis added)[6]

The question is, "Do such bizarre, illogical criticisms have a place in an encyclopedic article?" I would say no, but am willing to compromise. But first, a correction. Clinton did in fact intervene to stop the genocide in Bosnia:

"On August 30, 1995, effective military intervention finally began as the U.S. led a massive NATO bombing campaign in response to the killings at Srebrenica, targeting Serbian artillery positions throughout Bosnia. The bombardment continued into October. Serb forces also lost ground to Bosnian Muslims who had received arms shipments from the Islamic world. As a result, half of Bosnia was eventually retaken by Muslim-Croat troops.

Faced with the heavy NATO bombardment and a string of ground losses to the Muslim-Croat alliance, Serb leader Milosevic was now ready to talk peace." [7]

So not mentioning Bosnia seems especially suspicious, since it reasonably explains the intervention in Kosovo.

The compromise: that this section include criticisms 1) of Clinton's delay in interceding in Bosnia and 2) criticisms that he interceded in Bosnia at all, and only then 3) the criticisms that he interceded in Kosovo. OR we can scrap all extremist, partisan rhetoric of "some critics" (iow, remove the offending paragraphs) and create a decent article. However, such a solution puts the article at risk for becoming a morass of competing rants from extremist sources, of which there are a neverending supply.

PS Citing worldnetdaily as a source? Thanks for the laugh. Naysayer 19:44, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

William Jefferson Blythe III or IV?!

Wow, I never thought a solid fact as Clinton's birthname can have conflict, but:

His own autobiography, My Life, states:

"My mother named me William Jefferson Blythe III after my father, William Jefferson Blythe Jr., one of nine children of a poor farmer in Sherman, Texas, who died when my father was seventeen." [8]

clintonlibrary.gov supports this as well:

"Bill Clinton was born William Jefferson Blythe III on August 19, 1946, in Hope, Arkansas, three months after his father died in an automobile accident." [9]

Meanwhile, whitehouse.gov is adamant that it is IV (the Fourth):

"President Clinton was born William Jefferson Blythe IV on August 19, 1946, in Hope, Arkansas, three months after his father died in a traffic accident." [10]

However, an old version from whitehouse.gov also states "Bill Clinton was born William Jefferson Blythe III" [11] [AR]

As is Britannica:

"byname of William Jefferson Clinton , original name William Jefferson Blythe IV 42nd president of the United States (1993–2001), who oversaw the country's longest peacetime economic expansion." [12]

And Encarta:

"Bill Clinton was born on August 19, 1946, in Hope, Arkansas. His given name was William Jefferson Blythe IV. He never knew his father, William Jefferson Blythe III, a traveling salesman who died in a car accident several months before Bill was born." [13]

Other less reliable sources records this differently as well.

historycentral.com:

"Bill Clinton was born William Jefferson Blythe IV in Hope, Arkansas on August 19, 1946." [14]

famouspeople.com:

"Bill Clinton was born William Jefferson Blythe the 3rd in Hope, Arkansas in 1946." [15]

Googlefight reports 945 for III, and 2220 for IV.

Znode 07:28, 2005 Jun 4 (UTC)

Suggestion: we stick with one version for now (I'd personally go with III), and somebody writes a mail to Clinton (or rather, his office), asking for clarification. As long as we don't have an answer from them, we add a comment into the article text (HTML comment, invisible to readers) that says that this bit is under dispute, and the current version should remain until we have better evidence, and direct people to the talk page. As soon as we have the answer, that should not be a matter of controvercy any more, although it might be wise to keep a note in the article text. -- AlexR 10:24, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I will write something to Clinton's office and ask for clarification, I look forward to recieve any reply, but I believe those sources like Britanica and Encarta are not wiki and has lots of these errors, I believe his autobiography is much acceptable.--Sina 11:04, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Wrote firstgov.gov, Hillary Clinton, and Clinton Foundation. Hopefully at least one can give an authoritative answer. -- Znode 12:12, 2005 Jun 4 (UTC)

Clinton Foundation wrote back saying I need to write Clinton Library directly. Done so. -- Znode 00:27, 2005 Jun 8 (UTC)

Authoritative answer received from Archivist of the Clinton Library, Jimmie Purvis to "go with the version in 'My Life' as being the definitive answer". Thus, III is definitive.

Obvious bias

Bigdavediode here -- I have corrected a factual error at the end of the article. Bill Clinton was not disbarred from the US Supreme Court Bar as stated. That was false. You can see that he was suspended, and rather than contest it he resigned from the bar here: [16]

Additionally I have noticed a couple of other errors of fact that need to be changed. One is regarding the White House budgets in 1995. I will return to fix these later.

'He was elected twice with the highest percentage of the popular vote among his opponents (but never with a general majority). Characteristics of the period he presided as President included an economic boom not paralleled since the "Roaring 20s", the most successful war in terms of American causalities during the Kosovo Conflict, inheriting the largest American budget deficit in history from his predecessor President George H. W. Bush and turning it into the largest surplus by the end of his office.'

I'm sorry, but this is a total joke. Nice job not even adjusting deficits for inflation, much less size of the economy and population growth.

As for largest surplus, the national debt didn't even go down.

The growth rate during Clinton's first term was 2.7 percent, half a percent below the 3.2 percent growth rate under Reagan and a full percentage point below the 3.8 percent growth rate during the 1983-89 expansion.

I don't have the numbers for his second term, but the NASDAQ lost half its value during Clinton's last 9 months in office.

Since there are only four years left that could be considered so wonderful, and one of which saw massive losses in the stock market, characterizing the period he presided over as "not paralleled since the 'Roaring 20s'" is a little, um, out there. (WikiAce)

Encarta Encyclopedia seems to have a different story than yours. [17] Care to bring forth citations of your research? 67.41.186.237 23:39, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Is 'Obvious bias' a warning for what directly follows? Could you cite sources for your claims? I researched the above claims and they appear to to be either off-point manipulations, or totally wrong.

Average economic growth rate was 2.8% under Reagan/Bush and 4.0% under Clinton. [18]

"As for largest surplus, the national debt didn't even go down."

And the Red Sox won the World Series, but the cost of hot dogs at the game stayed the same. They must be cursed! Or else that's a nonsequitur. The national debt was reduced from 1998-2000 (the only time it's been reduced since 1960), as opposed to quadrupling during the Reagan admin. [19]

As for encarta, nothing there contradicts this article. This is the gist of their section on Clinton's economy:

"In the end, Clinton’s most significant achievement as president was eliminating the federal budget deficit. When he left office, the nation was running a surplus instead of a deficit. Clinton claimed the lower interest rates that came from reducing the deficit and the low inflation produced by free trade amounted to a tax cut of hundreds of billions of dollars for Americans. His economic policies helped produce the longest period of sustained economic growth in the nation’s history."

I could go on, but... burden of proof... and all that. It's not very NPOV to select specific periods of time within an admin for the purpose of citing statistics that are not true on the whole. Naysayer 16:55, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

http://www.bea.gov/bea/dn/gdpchg.xls

The best real growth rate under Clinton was 4.5%. We had 4.4% growth in 2004.

Clinton growth rate is 4.1% counting 1993-2000. That does not even touch the 4.9% growth of 1961-1968. So this biggest boom since the 1920s stuff is completely unfounded.

Real debt doubled under Reagan, it did not quadruple. Again, nice job not adjusting for inflation.

NASDAQ Mar-2000 (all-time high): 5,132.52 NASDAQ Jan-2001 (Clinton leaves office): 2,770.42

NASDAQ lost half its value. If you're going to mention a boom (which I agree the LATE '90s were, but by no means the biggest since the 1920s), you should also mention the crash.

The "largest deficit" stuff is a Perot-esque lie. It doesn't adjust for inflation and size of the economy. The real way to measure deficits is as a percentage of GDP.

Back to the surplus talk... This is from the Bureau of the public debt; since we're not adjusting for inflation, what year did it go down?

http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdhisto4.htm Date Amount

09/30/2000 $5,674,178,209,886.86

09/30/1999 5,656,270,901,615.43

09/30/1998 5,526,193,008,897.62

09/30/1997 5,413,146,011,397.34

09/30/1996 5,224,810,939,135.73

09/29/1995 4,973,982,900,709.39

09/30/1994 4,692,749,910,013.32

09/30/1993 4,411,488,883,139.38

09/30/1992 4,064,620,655,521.66

Answer: it didn't.

WikiAce 17:27, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I am confused. What part of the introduction is incorrect? There is nothing that states the national debt came down. Budget surplus and national debt are two seperate economic factors. 67.41.186.237 17:45, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

My point is that it uses nominal numbers, which is extremely misleading. This is the same kind of crap the GOP used during the campaign to say that Kerry voted for the largest tax increase in American history: the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993. Even just adjusting for inflation will show you that's not true in this case, but the best measure would be size of the economy, or percentage of GDP.

Also, growth in the late '90s was nothing compared to the growth in the mid-60s, so "largest boom since the Roaring 20s" should be scrapped. Really, unless you can identify that a large majority of economic indicators were greater in real terms in the '90s than in the '80s, '60s, and '50s, you should not try to compare it, as that is open for economists to debate, but rather just identify it as an economic boom in his second term.

Something like "an economic boom in his second term" and "a budget surplus for the first time since the '60s" (rather than LARGEST surplus, which is ridiculous) would be much better descriptions. WikiAce 18:52, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

WikiAce, rather than compare apples and oranges, I suggest you write an part about national debt. Good luck with the 'adjustment for inflation' thing. What inflation rate will you use to adjust a budget surplus? The 2.5% of the Clinton admin or the 4.7% of the previous administration? [20] It would have to take into account the inflation rate previous to Clinton's taking office, but how much previous? Besides, the whole concept is confounded; the budget surplus or deficit and other economic factors influenced by the executive office are highly correlated to the inflation rate.

Ironically, your comment about a 'bust' in the nasdaq following the boom would EXACTLY parallel the 1920s. But I think that level of comparison would fall apart upon closer inspection. Naysayer 19:09, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The 'adjustment for inflation' 'thing' is the most fundamental concept to any economic analysis. http://minneapolisfed.org/Research/data/us/calc/index.cfm

The "largest deficit" is in nominal numbers. The "largest surplus" is in nominal numbers. Really, even adjusting for inflation is not enough, because of population growth; far more relevant is percentage of GDP. The 'unparalleled' economic boom is just an opinion. Far better to say 'massive stock market rally' and 'sizeable real GDP growth.'

An example of comparing apples to oranges would be saying the early '90s budget deficits were greater than the World War II deficits, which is of course, I'm sure you're aware, absurd. WikiAce 19:55, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This is a huge can of worms. You're suggesting using the Consumer Price Index as the sole indicator of value in comparing gov’t projected surpluses in dollar amounts across decades. There are myriad problems with this. For one, it insists that projected surpluses be translated into real dollars, or (I'm assuming) be rendered meaningless. But that's a false choice scenario.

The change in a given period of time in the number of apples bought for a dollar is different from the change in the same given period of time in the number of oranges bought for a dollar. (Let's not even get into fruit imported from your local banana republic!) You may be able to overlook that for a consumer, but governments are different. Gov't spending is not directly affected by consumer prices, unless the money is given back in the form of refunds, since gov'ts don't usually "buy" things in the sense that consumers do. But even if government spending were comparable to consumer spending, that does not mean that a budget surplus would be so comparable. For example, GDP may in fact increase as a result of a budget surplus, thereby reducing the ratio because of its own success. So the surplus as percent of the GDP is confounded.

Also, if you’re going to go through with the adjustment to a budget surplus, then you also have to add the adjusted value of the deficit inherited from the previous administration, both adjusted for inflation. But now we’re talking relative numbers since neither number was produced in a vacuum… So what inflation rate do we use? IOW, the amount ‘in the hole’ added to the height of the hill. This would mitigate the size of the Reagan/Bush I deficits, but increase the Clinton surplus and Bush II deficit.

Anyway, this all seems like a huge digression (even adjusted for inflation) just to tweak one word ("largest") that is not literally untrue. I don't think your claim of “obvious bias” is supported by your argument… even if it was not “the largest American budget deficit in history”. Naysayer 22:25, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Don't forgot all of the corruption by WorldCom, Global Crossing and Enron to help rip the economy apart that thankfully Bush stabalized in his term by bringing them to justice. If it wasn't for Bush, even if the ecomnomy rocketed in the 90's, it wouln't even exist now at all. Plus most of those numbers were misleading because allot of these companies lied about their finances to boost their staock market revenue. That just goes to show the 90's was based off of greed and selfishness because people were more concered about living off of the stock market then admitting the corruption and they turned a blind eye to it.

"Vandalism"

I have been accused of vandalism and have been threatened with banishment over the following edit:

(the changes pertained to Legacy and Economy)

Is any deviance from established liberal orthodoxy "vandalism"? If so, then I won't ever bother to stick around. You all can have your jolly old time free of any dissenting points of view. --Gdr1998 03:21, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Your bad-faith reverting of your old edits as 24.125.72.210 under your new user name designed to push your agenda are vandalism because you continue.--The Grza 03:27, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

Signing up for a user name exhibits "bad faith"? The bad faith is that you're making baseless accusations of vandalism. Edit away my changes til your face turns blue, but knock it off with the vandalism charges. --Gdr1998

Signing up for a user name is not bad faith; reverting the overwhelmingly POV statements you made after several users have removed them without so much a peep to justify your edits on the talk page is bad-faith editing, and continuing to revert is vandalism. --The Grza 03:39, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

My content was removed without so much as a peep of explanation either. In fact, the vandalism charge was sent to the IP address. That's why I created an account - to respond to the specious charge. --Gdr1998

The vandalism comment made on your IP page referred to your vandalism of the William Tecumseh Sherman page. We're discussing this page. Also, I don't think this has much to do with Bill Clinton anymore. Any problem with moving this to my user talk page?--The Grza 03:53, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

I did not vandalize Sherman. I wanted to see what happened with an edit (my first edit ever), and then quickly put it back as it was. Here's before and after: [21]

The fact is, I was accused of vandalism on Clinton, because I pointed out that the prosperity quickly came to an end with the collapse of the stock market, just like in the 1920s. I've seen people say pretty nasty things about Clinton, but the bubble stock market on his watch is pretty much a fact that is beyond any dispute. --Gdr1998

If you'll notice the message left on the IP talk page, it is a template specifically designed for people like you and a special link to show you to the Sandbox so you can test as much as you like without screwing up actual pages. You did not, as you say, simply point out that the economy resembled the 1920's (It didn't by the way, economics is a little more complicated then Economy Goes Up, Economy Comes Down) and the crash of 1929 (clearly comparable to the Internet and manufacturing bubbles bursting). You put silly qualifier quotes around "prosperity" and inserted a nonsense description that had nothing to do with the article. Again, and I'm not sure you're understanding this, so I'll write it one more time, although you could just as easily move your eyeballs up and read it again because I don't know if I could be any clearer, but here goes; the vandalism I was describing was when you reverted back to these POV edits in order to enforce your opinionm, edits removed by three other users. --The Grza 04:29, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

Archive 2

I archived all conversations that seemed to be finished. I wasn't involved in any of them, so any parties involved in those discussions please check to make sure I didn't move anything unresolved.--The Grza 03:39, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

Eveything to do with Paula Jones ONLY

There are allot of misleading statements out there stating that the 'affair' was the most importent aspect of the impeachment which should be more covered up. The impeachment was the mishandling of the Paula Jones trial. If people dwell on other things then that it becomes misleading to stear away from the truth.

I don't understand your point.--The Grza 17:37, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)