Talk:Bill Clinton

Two Presidents for the Price of One

Further concern arose when Bill Clinton announced that voters would be getting two presidents "for the price of one".

Bill did not say two presidents. He merely said "two for the price of one".

Correct it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.2.24.205 (talk) 22:18, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

DMCA paragraph woefully out of place

I would question the necessity of a paragraph outlining the DMCA in this article, but would even more seriously question why it is under the heading regarding Bill Clinton's impeachment trial.75.177.137.225 (talk) 04:58, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I would say more (but, I would also move it to "Legislation and programs") as President Clinton’s greatest legacy (besides being the administration to persecute Phil Zimmerman for creating the PGP encryption program and Clinton's role in creating the 1994 North American Free Trade Agreement) may come from three poorly implemented intellectual property laws (key in the Information Age): the Intelligence Authorization Act (IAA) through his Executive Order 12949 in 1995, the Economic Espionage Act (EEA) he signed into law in 1996, as well as the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMC) he signed in 1998. The IAA expanded what the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) may consider concerning surveillance and physical search orders. The EEA has largely replaced individual state policies, including the Uniform Trade Secrets Act (UTSA), and the Restatement of Torts as the basis for U.S. trade secret laws. Lastly, the DMC sets new rules for downloading, sharing, or simply viewing copyrighted material online. Clinton also initiated $2 Billion in governmental funding for telephone companies to rewire their networks in order to provide transparent phone and Internet wiretapping by the FBI.

The following text should NOT be included on the Clinton page but is only provided as evidence for the long-term impact of this particular legislation.

It was discovered that the federal government had been engaged in widespread domestic surveillance for several decades (since Watergate). Clinton’s IAA up held the FBI and the National Security Agency (NSA) practice of often disregarding court orders normally required in criminal investigations and authorized the charging of US citizens without even being allowed to review the evidence against them by classifying all records. In 1996, the FISC approved 839 such applications, while all other federal judges combined approved only 538 requests. Many constitutional scholars and civil liberty advocates felt the overly broad powers of the FISC statute and court authority were in direct violation of the Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and general warrants while explicitly circumventing guarantees expressed in the First, Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Amendments to the Constitution. Likewise, many considered the EEA to be the worst ever U.S. law. Since the law actually violates a number of international trade treaties, enforcement focus has sadly been directed towards domestic thefts. Even having a list of unhappy employees who might be vulnerable to recruitment could now get one jailed for up to 15 years and fined up to $10 million. A judge could also now slap an injunction on an ex-employee simply for knowing too much. Finally, The DMC is often characterized as a law that can only be enforced arbitrarily and capriciously. Congressman Rick Boucher harshly criticized the DMC at a Consumer Electronics Association (CEA) conference mentioning that the law threatened first amendment free speech and the right of fair use.

A court newly forged in the creation of the 1994 North American Free Trade Agreement joins the growing list of powerful courts that few Americans have ever heard of. NAFTA judges were allowed to interpret, for instance, the Mexican constitution when awarding an American company, Metalclad Corp, almost $17 million dollars for being refused a permit to open a toxic waste dump in San Luis Potosi, Mexico. The new court circumvents normal federal, state, and municipal regulatory powers and provides foreign companies with excessive protection from regulations. A Canadian chemical company, Methanex Corp, was also able to bypass all U.S. courts to challenge California’s ban on the gasoline additive MTBE based on vague notions of international law that would not have been held up in U.S. courts.

In March 1994, FBI Director Louis Freeh authored a revised Digital Telephony proposal (that included 180 cases in which court authorized FBI wiretaps had been at least partially subverted). Clinton then signed the proposal into law as the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA) on October 25, 1994 in order to force telecommunications carries to upgrade their network to the J-STD-025 interface specified in section 103 by October 25, 1998 (later delayed by the FCC to June 30, 2000). The FBI later reported that it needed approximately 30,000 simultaneous land wiretaps and 103,190 simultaneous cellular calls. The government later complained, however, about the $10,000 to $50,000 per tap cost (AT&T Wireless producing the highest bills) that had to be footed each year by taxpayers. Freeh had promised Congress that CALEA would not expand law enforcement’s wiretapping abilities and CALEA states that “call-identifying information shall not include any information that may disclose the physical location of the subscriber.” Freeh, though, later insisted on exact cellular locations within half a second, roving wiretaps (including phones of neighbors and local payphones) without direct court involvement, and taps based only on subpoenas. A consortium of advocacy groups including the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the Electronic Privacy Information Center, and the American Civil Liberties Union wrote in a letter to Congress in 1998, “It is our belief that CALEA has created an unworkable, impractical, and potentially unconstitutional surveillance scheme that threatens the privacy of citizens and the security of our nation’s telecommunications infrastructure.”

P.S. I also think it would be great to include the irony of Clinton's enthusiasm for providing a death penalty (under Death penalty) option for drug kingpins when even the application for a top-secret clearance had to be modified for his entering administration to allow access for the individuals in his cabinet that came with him from Arkansas who had past felony drug convictions. TucsonJim50

Attempts to insert the Clinton + Rev. Wright image

Let's not kid each other here with the "its just a picture showing Bill Clinton, what's POV about that?" nonsense. Rev. Wright is a hugely controversial figure tied to Barack Obama, who just happens to be running in a very bitterly-contested primary with Bill Clinton's wife, Hillary. Inserting a Wright + Clinton here is an attempt to mitigate that Wright + Obama controversy. If there is truly a need to expand the gallery section of this article, then there's no reason to insist on this image in particular. Tarc (talk) 11:22, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
As an added thought, I will pose this; let's say someone added an image of Bill and Monica Lewinsky to the gallery. Could anyone say with a straight face that that is "just an image of the Prez and an intern" ? There's subtext to placing an image of Clinton and Wright in this article. Tarc (talk) 12:56, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with your reasoning. I have to ask though do we even need a gallery? As all the photographs in the gallery are actually on wikicommons and there is a link to wikicommons Bill Clinton LordHarris 15:08, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

(ec)No offense, but you seem rather paranoid about this. I'm a fan of Bill Clinton, and would never draw that conclusion. How does this picture at all mitigate the Obama-Wright 'controversy?' As for Lewinsky, I'd love it if we could get a picture of her with Clinton - the encyclopedic value in such an image is huge. faithless (^speak) 15:16, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

"encyclopedic value" of a Lewinsky image in the gallery? Well, no offense either, but I don't see how your response can be taken even remotely seriously. Tarc (talk) 15:20, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Like it or not, the Lewinsky scandal was a major part of Clinton's presidency (unfortunate, but true). The encyclopedic value is obvious, just as a picture of Obama and Wright would be, or a picture of the current President with Osama bin Laden would be. I have made a genuine effort to remain civil here - disagree if you will, but "I don't see how your response can be taken even remotely seriously" and an edit summary saying "what the fuck" in a roundabout way isn't constructive. faithless (^speak) 15:32, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Your ignoring of the patently obvious isn't constructive at all either. Both images we're talking about above can and would portray a POV above and beyond the image itself. Yes the Lewinsky scandal is a major part of Clinton's history, why are you eve brining that strawman up? It it mentioned prominently in the article and has an article of its own, no one here is saying that it shouldn't. But placing an image of her in an otherwise innocuous image gallery would be crossing the line. You know that, and I know that. If you truly desire to expand the image gallery, then there should be no problem finding other public domain, non-charged images to use instead of this. Insisting on this one and this one alone without sufficient explanation as to why it is important gives credence to the "has an agenda" accusation. Tarc (talk) 17:23, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

You're the one who brought up Lewinsky; I'm not advocating adding such an image to this article, but to say that such an image has no encyclopedic value is laughable. Actually, I concur with the above sentiment that the gallery should be scrapped - it serves no real purpose, considering there is a link to Commons in the article. Either way, I'm not going to waste any more time on such a ridiculous argument. On a side note - as this was such a trivial matter, and as we both appear to be fans of Bill Clinton, I imagine this could have been settled very easily and harmoniously. Coming out with guns blazing and a condescending/insulting attitude doesn't do anyone any good. I implore you to take this into consideration in the future. faithless (^speak) 19:26, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I make no apologizes for being flabbergasted that someone can sit here and suggest that image's inclusion had no other context other than "hey, here's Bill Clinton with some guy". Tarc (talk) 19:48, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

First black president?

An AP article today by Sonya Ross [1] mentions Toni Morrison recently "clarified the first-black-president title she'd bestowed on Clinton," but it doesn't stay what the clarification was or where it appeared. Anyone know? Шизомби (talk) 21:34, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Factual Error

I noticed a factual eror in the ariticle. It says that Bill Blinton was president from 1993-2001. But how could that be true if George W. Bush was elected in 2000. So if what i say is correct, could someone please correct it. I'm having trouble figuring out how. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mataaron83 (talk • contribs) 18:42, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Presidents are Elected in november the year before the current presents term ends. President Bush was elected in 2000 but became President in 2001. So therefore President Clinton"s term ended in 2001.Jpc100 (talk) 02:05, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

List of posthumously-born notable people

I've just created List of posthumously-born notable people. Not sure where to mention it in Clinton's article. Any suggestions? -- JackofOz (talk) 03:31, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

That he was born after the death of his father is already touched upon in Bill Clinton#Early life. Tarc (talk) 12:59, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Environmental Stuff

There is information on Clinton's environmental policies and actions scattered all around wikipedia, but it barely gets a mention here on the official Clinton page. Someone oughta compile that information and add it to the page. Some of this information can be found in the Environmental policy of the United States article, there's a little on U.S. National Monuments article, a little here Roadless area conservation. Obviously it's not great for wikipedia to reference itself, but it's a starting point. Shafferl (talk) 20:14, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Degree

Under education it says that he studied 'Government' at Oxford. I doubt this as no such degree exists. He is also included in the list of famous PPE students at Oxford, here. This sounds much more likely, but could people verify it.Billsmith453 (talk) 11:37, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Further Reading

See most recent Clinton book (March 2008)- 'Clinton, In This Sign +' (+ = cross); esp about early , earliest ancestors of wife Sen Hillary Clinton; see further, this 9 book series about ancestors of all 43 US Presidents (including Bill Clinton) and 08 candidates - McCain, Obama, Clinton & Romney.

• Clinton In This Sign +
• all 43 US Presidents & ? you
• Obama McCain Clinton Romney - 08 Candidates
• The Clinton Diaries —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fredpetrovsky (talk • contribs) 05:33, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

/s/ gm,ps - 76.202.165.95 (talk) 08:55, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Coat of Arms

Per the article at Chief Herald of Ireland, Bill Clinton was granted an Award of Arms from the Republic of Ireland. I have contacted Fergus Gillespie, the Chief Herald of Ireland, to gain some more information. Should any be forthcoming I shall add it to the article. PrinceOfCanada (talk) 04:15, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

didn't graduate from oxford university?

okay, this is strange. i had always heard rumors that clinton did not get a degree from oxford, which is highly unusual considering he had a rhodes scholarship, which would have paid his full tuition. it is quite unusual for a rhodes scholar not to finish. also, there seems to be no explanation on the web that i could find. i was wondering if anyone had more information on this? googling this only finds sources saying he attended oxford, but no reasons why he left. ??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theserialcomma (talk • contribs) 08:02, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

In Clinton&redirect=no&oldid=229168253 the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

• "First In His Class" :
  • First In His Class : A Biography Of Bill Clinton, David Maraniss, Random House, 1996, ISBN 978-0684818900
  • David Maraniss, First in His Class: A Biography of Bill Clinton (New York: Random House, 1996; ISBN 978-0684818900).
• "The Survivor" :
  • The Survivor: Bill Clinton in the White House, John F. Harris , 2005, ISBN 0-375-50847-3
  • The Survivor: Bill Clinton in the White House, John F. Harris , 2005, ISBN 0-375-50847-3
• "The Natural" :
  • The Natural: The Misunderstood Presidency of Bill Clinton, Joe Klein, 2003, ISBN 0-7679-1412-0
  • Joe Klein, The Natural: The Misunderstood Presidency of Bill Clinton (2003; ISBN 0-7679-1412-0).
• "The Choie" :
  • Bob Woodward, The Choice: How Clinton Won (1996; ISBN 0-684-81308-4).
  • The choice: how Clinton won, Bob Woodward, 1996, ISBN 0-684-81308-4

DumZiBoT (talk) 12:31, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Used State Police to Pick Up Women

Why is this not included in the sexual misconduct section? This was ignored at first, then later confirmed after Lewinsky and Paula Jones came out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.61.172.53 (talk • contribs)

What about his relationship with the Canadian Belinda Stronach?

I wouldn't be surprised if he had one with her and Kim Campbell. Maybe a 3 some.

Opening Paragraph a mess

This page is still trying to put way too much inessential information into the opening paragraph. Since he's so controversial, I recommend the opener only give his name, birth date and the fact that he was the 42nd president serving from X to Y. All else should be dumped to later opening paragraphs.

Is it really necessary to say he's the third youngest president? And why then go on to actually list the younger presidents in Clinton's opening paragraph (other than to obtusely connect this page to the presidential age chart link). Neither TR nor JFK's pages even mention their age in their opening paragraphs.

Can you name me another President whose wife is mentioned in the very first paragraph? Why not put Hillary at the end of the full opener as is often done with other memorable First Ladies?

"He is one of only two U.S. Presidents to have been impeached." When you follow the link to "impeached," it takes you straight to the "Impeachment of Bill Clinton" page. But when you follow Andrew Johnson's impeachment link, it takes you instead to the much more politically neutral "Impeachment in the Unite States" page. Is this consistent?122.26.62.73 (talk) 06:28, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

"Can you name me another President whose wife is mentioned in the very first paragraph? " Name me another president whose wife ran for president herself.--Loodog (talk) 02:00, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

CNN poll and George W Bush

I removed the reference to CNN endorsing George W Bush because I thought it was irrelevant. If anyone can point to the CNN poll (regarding Clinton's popularity and legacy) itself being flawed or biased in some way, that would be great, but I don't see how CNN endorsing Bush is worthy of inclusion for any reason, other than to deliberately call into question the results of the poll with no supporting evidence. -- plushpuffin (talk) 16:38, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I CERTAINLY REMEMBER THE 2000 ELECTIONS, AND THE ARTICLE I HAVE POSTED DEFENDS MY CLAIM. RESPECT GOOD FAITH, AND REALIZE YOUR, AND NOBODY ELSE'S, OPINIONS AREN'T ALWAYS FACTUAL.Kevin j (talk) 16:28, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Sally Perdue affair and date discrepancies

I removed the line "Sally Perdue's claims were discredited [because she said the alleged affair occurred during her divorce in 1983, when she actually started divorce proceedings years later]" I think this statement is an unwarranted judgment and definitely POV. Just because she got the dates wrong doesn't mean there was no affair; for example, she could have gone through marital difficulties in 1983, up to but not including the actual filing of divorce papers. Her faulty memory for dates does not, by itself, invalidate her claim. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Plushpuffin (talk • contribs) 16:44, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

User, YOU ARE MISTAKEN. THE CAPITAL HILL BLUE IS A VERY RELIABLE RESOURCE AND IT DOES DEFEND MY CLAIM. STOP THE VANDALISM, OR I WILL SUGGEST YOU GET BLOCKED.Kevin j (talk) 16:28, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

In Case Anybody Gets the Idea About Capitol Hill Blue's Motto, There's Something You Need To Know

The mainstream media statement is only an advertisement I'm afraid. It's no different than Fox New's "fair and balanced" or CNN's "most trusted name in news" mottos. You also did not read the article clearly, because it backs my claims. Capitol Hill Blue is a very reliable resource that presents good debating on various things.Kevin j (talk) 16:41, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Category:Homophobia

I have removed the recently-added category tag Category:Homophobia. Declining to fully support LGBT rights doesn't necessarily make a politician homophobic, merely pragmatic and electable. If you have a good reason to re-add it, please explain yourself here first. -- plushpuffin (talk) 02:45, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Reference link #60 no longer exists or is broken

60: The Iraq Liberation Act, Statement by the President, Office of the Press Secretary For Immediate Release, October 31, 1998 Brian Pearson (talk) 23:54, 23 August 2008 (UTC)