Talk:Bill Clinton

CLINTON SCHOOL OF PUBLIC SERVICE - Why is it not mentioned at all?

I am new to wikipedia and not sure how this page can be updated, but I think there should be a session about President Clinton's school of public service (www.clintonschool.uasys.edu) on President Clinton's wikipedia page. I would be happy to write the session if I know it will be added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.92.160.69 (talk) 15:05, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

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 Clinton 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)

I believe he left without a degreePonileExpress (talk) 18:55, 14 September 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)

See a description of the arms at http://groups.google.com/group/rec.heraldry/msg/956f0d4d15dbaab2 Spark240 (talk) 01:33, 10 September 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)

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)

Why is there no mention of Monica Lewinsky in the opening paragraph? The Monica Lewinsky scandal was far and away the most high profile even in ALL of Clinton's presidency. I understand that Wikipedia has a liberal bias, but this is insane. Monica Lewinsky definitely deserves a mention in the opening paragraph. (CaptainNicodemus (talk) 10:19, 23 January 2009 (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)

This link has changed to link #61. I can't seem to find the broken link http://www.library.cornell.edu/colldev/mideast/libera.htm elsewhere on www.library.cornell.edu. I have found a functioning link, though, at http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=55205, "Statement on Signing the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998". Please correct link #61 by using this, or any other functioning link. DanniDK (talk) 15:47, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

2008 DNC speech

Many media outlets have remarked that Bill's speech seemed to ease any tensions or perceptions of tension between Obama and the Clintons. Let's include some mention of this? [2] --68.56.17.70 (talk) 10:55, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Already did.--Loodog (talk) 17:37, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Introduction

The current introduction reads:

William Jefferson Blythe III (born on August 19, 1946), later William Jefferson "Bill" Clinton served as the ...

It should probably be simply whittled down to "William Jefferson Clinton (born August 19, 1946) served as the ..." (or "William Jefferson "Bill" Clinton" or even "William Jefferson Clinton, born William Jefferson Blythe III") with the fact that he had a diffrent birth name kept in the appropriate early life sections.

This would match the name he has used in his entire professional life and the one he's "notable" for. This would also bring some symmetry with the pages of Leslie Lynch King, Hiram Grant, David D. Eisenhower, etc.--Tim Thomason 17:33, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Good point. I've changed it.--Loodog (talk) 17:43, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Can someone put his date of birth back in? Angelamaher (talk) 15:25, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Done.--Loodog (talk) 00:39, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

FA: help standarize refs?

If someone would help me standardize the refs into {{cite web}} templates, I think Bill here would merit an FA nomination.--Loodog (talk) 20:10, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Going through the refs in the careful way that is being done, should help towards that goal. Naturally, the citation needed tags and any dubious references would need to be addressed first. DrKiernan (talk) 18:00, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Bill Clinton's continued affairs and liasions with young ladies

This should really get a mention - this guy also used state troopers to pick up women. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.55.144.50 (talk) 20:51, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Got a source for that claim? Otherwise it violates WP:BLP.--Loodog (talk) 21:48, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Talk pages are also subject to BLP. I have removed a name from this section title. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 03:59, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

What about his relationship with Belinda Stronach? It is newsworthy because she is a politician. Here is one source:

www.thefirstpost.co.uk/2622,features,bill-and-belindas-excellent-adventure,2

Or his extracurricular activities on overseas trips? Or on Air Force 1 - ask anyone in USAF? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.174.9.7 (talk) 21:01, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

The original author of this section of the talk pages entitled this section "Bill Clinton's continued affairs and liasions with young ladies, like Belinda Stronach"

That does NOT violate WP:BLP as John Vandenberg stated. Specifically the section of WP:BLP which states such information is perfectly acceptable is WP:WELLKNOWN which states the following:

If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article

Vanity Fair magazine fulfills all of these requirements and published an article in the July, 2008 issue alleging Bill Clinton had affairs with both Belinda Stronach and Gina Gershon. User5802 (talk) 23:15, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion, Vanity Fair is not a reliable source for alleging sexual misconduct - are there any other sources for this? If there are a few, then we can discuss whether this is worth mentioning; I am very wary of WP:UNDUE at this stage. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 23:34, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I will have to search for more sources. Regardless, the names of Belinda Stronach and Gina Gershon should be in this discussion. The allegations appear to be notable even if they can be proven to be false. User5802 (talk) 02:27, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Reference link #85 is broken

Broken link: http://www.ropercenter.uconn.edu/cgi-bin/hsrun.exe/Roperweb/PresJob/PresJob.htx;start=HS_fullresults?pr=Clinton Functioning link: http://webapps.ropercenter.uconn.edu/CFIDE/roper/presidential/webroot/presidential_rating_detail.cfm?allRate=True&presidentName=Clinton. Please someone fix it. DanniDK (talk) 15:47, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Bill Clinton to campaign with Obama

For the first time Barack Obama will campaign side-by-side with former President Bill Clinton in Central Florida. The two will rally with supporters at Osceola Heritage Park in Kissimmee Wednesday night to continue the early voting. http://blogs.reuters.com/trail08/2008/10/25/bill-clinton-to-campaign-with-obama/

Bill Clinton has already made several speeches across the U.S. for the Obama campaign.

Carroll Quigley

Not a single mention of Professor Carroll Quigley in this entire article about Bill Clinton? That is a bit suspicious. He was Clinton's mentor, and Clinton gives much praise and respect to him as one of the most influential people in his life. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.121.13.77 (talk • contribs)

Editor, please sign your posts with four tildas like so: ~~~~

As for adding Carroll Quigley to the article, it's not necessary for you to discuss noncontroversial changes to article on the talk page first. Be Bold and add what you think will improve the article, including your sources. Only if the content becomes debated does talk page discussion become necessary. Cheers.--Loodog (talk) 17:38, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Add this great Clinton college days photo...

What do you think about adding this classic Clintons photo:

http://www.liebtag.org/assets/2008/2/7/bill-hillary-clinton-hippie.jpg

Thanks, Chad Chadcole74 (talk) 16:18, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

If we were to create a page entitled Non-Free, Out-of-Focus Images of Bill Clinton, sure. Tarc (talk) 22:42, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

That is awesome.--Loodog (talk) 01:45, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Governor of Arkansas - not Good Article level

According to the article, Clinton was elected Governor of Arkansas in 1978 then defeated in 1980, and then went to work for a law firm. Then we read he does various things of a political and government nature but in what roll? By going to the bottom of the page I can discover under external links that he was re-elected in 1983 but no mention of this or subsequent elections in the article. This needs to be fixed, the article is not currently at Good Article level currently. Any offers? Sorry I'm an Aussie, with no access to sources. --Michael Johnson (talk) 10:20, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

He was not the first TWO-TERM democrat to be reelected since FDR

Truman, and LBJ were re elected democrats after FDR —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lbzguy4u69 (talk • contribs) 01:26, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Neither Truman nor LBJ were re-elected although both served, what is in essence, two terms.

Truman assumed the Presidency when FDR died. Truman ran for President in 1948 and choose not to run for re-election in 1952. Johnson assumed the Presidency when JFK died. LBJ ran fro President in 1964 and choose not to run for re-election in the 1968 elections.

So while both were President for longer than 4 years, each only ran for President once with no re-election. Each was elected but not re-elected. Throckmorton Guildersleeve (talk) 21:21, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Official Portrait

I suggest adding Simmie Knox artist name next to the picture of the official portrait.

GA Reassessment

Result: Delist - no improvement to article, no argument against delisting Michael Johnson (talk) 02:45, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Fails Good Article criteria 3.a in that it fails to address the main aspects of the topic. I have raised this on the talk page without result. The section on Clinton’s terms as Governor of Arkansas is woefully inadequate. Clinton spent 12 years as Governor (I think – it is hard to follow from the article) and while the first term, and his subsequent loss is reasonably well covered, the following terms are only brushed over. His first re-election is hidden in a passage which discusses his employment by a law firm; subsequent elections are not mentioned at all. We have a very broad brush review of achievements, surely ten years as Governor deserves a greater analysis? I’m particularly interested to find out more about his re-election in 1982 (was it 1982 – the article doesn’t say). How did a man who was apparently unpopular with both his own party and the electorate at large recover so quickly to make such a spectacular return? As a comparison his 10 years as Governor of Arkansas gets 10 lines in the article, while his “sexual misconduct allegations”, essentially voyeuristic and tabloid in nature, gets 18 lines. --Michael Johnson (talk) 00:03, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Whether we like it or not, the sexual misconduct business had more impact on him and the world than his 10 year stint as Governor of Arkansas. The details of his governership are going to end up pushed into a sub-article at some point. I have created Arkansas gubernatorial election, 1983 as a blank slate to start to collate the details you seek. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 01:38, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Missing the point. Not saying his sexual activities should not be mentioned given the publicity they received at the time. However they are just footnotes to history, and really should be written in a way that shows the effect or otherwise they had on his political career. His terms as Governor were significant in their own right and in terms of Clinton's rise as a national figure and eventual ascension to the Presidency. Even if they did end up with daughter articles, they would still need substantial summaries in this article. But not even that exists yet. --Michael Johnson (talk) 00:31, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Don't refs need to be standardized for a GA? I see a lot of lazy refs here.--Loodog (talk) 05:02, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes they do. Happyme22 (talk) 19:21, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Attempted Capture of Osama bin Laden section's main claims cite a single editorial and seem awfully biased. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.251.230.194 (talk) 07:59, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Closing soon

I'm intending to close this discussion within 48 hours, and currently I intend to delist the article. The reason is as I have discussed above, the article fails to cover the subject adequately. If I can explain further, look at why Clinton is notable. Obviously the President of the United States is a notable subject. But what if Clinton had fallen under the proverbial bus in 1992, would he still be notable? The answer, as a Governor of Arkansas is of course yes. So let's imagine he did die in 1992, and we delete any reference to events after that date. Is the article still a Good Article? The answer is a resounding no. The inadequacies cannot be justified by a lack of information. Clinton's career as Governor would have been well covered by the media at the time, and subsequently would have formed a substantial part of any decent biography of Clinton. So if anybody wants to have a go at rectifying the situation, you have this weekend. --Michael Johnson (talk) 23:45, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Exit approval rating

I have a little problem with this as the first sentence in the the third lead paragraph: "Clinton left office with an approval rating at 65%, the highest end of office rating of any President since World War II." Here's why: According to the citation[3], Clinton received a 65% approval rating. According to this[4] Ronald Reagan received a 64% approval rating. One percentage point is well within the margin of error and should not constitute an immediate conclusion that Clinton trumps all others when really it was a mere 1%.

It's fine and dandy to say that Clinton received a high approval rating when he left office, because he did, but it is misleading and an overstatment to say that it was the highest approval rating since the end of WWII. Happyme22 (talk) 03:31, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Clinton "lying"

A user has now twice added material saying Bill Clinton was impeached for lying about the Lewinsky affair.

1. He was impeached for perjury, obstruction of justice, and abuse of power, NOT just one of those things
2. Lying is not an impeachable offense, or even a crime. Perjury is. So the charge would be for perjury, a very specific kind of lying.
3. Though it's obvious he was lying about the affair for any common use of the word, he was found innocent on perjury counts, meaning a court of law found that he had not been lying, for some definition of the word lying. Were we to contradict that, we'd be committing interpretation of a legal action, AKA original research

--Loodog (talk) 23:45, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree completely with Loodog. faithless (^speak) 23:54, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree he was not impeached FOR perjury but he was impeached AFTER he lied about the sex scandal. One of the most notable events of this man's life is his extramarital affair and sexual scandal involving Monica Lewinksy which lead to his impeachment. The opening paragraph of this article seems to be ignoring such events in favor of a non neutral point of view. User5802 (talk) 00:46, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

It is a notable event. It is not the notable event on an 8-year presidential tenure, except for in certain ideological circles. Tarc (talk) 01:01, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Poll: The Bill Clinton article should not include any mention of him lying about his sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky

Let's get a poll going on this matter. Some users are fiercely arguing that Bill Clinton did not lie and that it should not be included in the article on Bill Clinton. User5802 (talk) 01:11, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Whether you like Clinton or not, ignoring the lying/perjury issue makes about as much sense as leaving Watergate out of the article on Richard Nixon. "I did not have sex with that woman, Miss Lewinski." (I am doing this from memory here, don't jump on me if a misplace a word) is Clinton's most-remembered quote, much as "I am not a crook." is Nixon's. Plazak (talk) 01:16, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Of course it should be included, but not with that leading POV language. WP:NPOV dictates that such statements need to include a word like "allegedly", "claimed", "believed", "purported", etc... See my point 3 above.--Loodog (talk) 02:06, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I think this article and the majority of the articles including information on the sexual acts that Bill Clinton performed with Monica Lewinsky and his statements about those acts cause a more non neutral point of view than stating that he lied. Here are some recurring trends I have seen:

1.) The name of Belinda Stronach was erased from this discussion area, thus blocking any further discussion on the matter

2.) Weasel words are constantly used to make it sound as though Clinton may not have done anything wrong, or to rewrite history.

3.) The opening paragraph of this article drowns out any mention of his impeachment by including as much information on the impeachment as is included on the William J. Clinton foundation, his wife, his age when coming into presidency, and his high approval rating when he left office.

4.) Even where statements are made indicating 'possible' indiscretions it seems the article wants to qualify those actions with "but [he] subsequently was acquitted" or "After his impeachment proceedings in 1998 and 1999, Clinton's rating reached its highest point at 73% approval."

Perhaps the senate found him not legally guilty but there needs to be something in this article that says he screwed up. There's no happy go lucky way to do this. Bill Clinton, the president of the United Sates was getting oral sex while in office, behind his wife's back, from his 22 year old intern, left semen stains on her dress, stuck a cigar in her vagina and said he didn't have any sexual relations with her to the face of every American.

Take a look at the Gennifer Flowers and Monica Lewinsky articles. Do you think these women will ever be remembered for anything else? "Gennifer Flowers is a woman who claims to have had a relationship with former U.S. President Bill Clinton."... "Bill Clinton admitted to having had an 'inappropriate relationship' with Monica Lewinsky."

"Claims" and an "inappropriate relationship?" What IS that? He admitted to having sex with Flowers and DNA from his semen was found on Lewinsky's dress! Are we just going to collectively agree to tiptoe around reality? Or is wikipedia a higher level informational tool where the facts and bitter truth come out, regardless of how offensive it may be to politicians or degrading for a society to accept. User5802 (talk) 03:11, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Respectively:

No one is denying that good ol' Bill did any of that, but what exactly would you like to add? And respectively

1) I don't know anything about Belinda Stronach's removal.

2) Those aren't weasel words. These are common journalistic neutrality words and appear in ANY biographical article for contested facts about ANYone in ANY periodical or news organization. I fail to see why this article should be an exception.

3) He has done other things in his 60-odd year life in public service than get his dick sucked a half dozen times.

4) He was acquitted. That was the result. If he had been convicted, that would have been included. Why would we remove the result of time-consuming high-profile legal action?

But we're getting off-topic. What would you specifically like to change in this article?--Loodog (talk) 03:44, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

The article should state that he lied. The article should make it clear that the American public was lied to and that Bill Clinton engaged in sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky. User5802 (talk) 01:26, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Taking that in three parts: (1) lying, (2) lying to the American public, and (3) having a sexual relationship with Monica.

(1) and (2): Insofar as lying in a court of law (perjury), we cannot say that he did because the official court case says he didn't, or rather "reasonable doubt" that he did. Therein lies the distinction between colloquial common speech (of course he lied in court) and delicately phrased journalism (alleged perjury).

That being said, I would go for the inclusion of a statement like, "The majority (x%) of the American public believes Clinton lied/mislead about the affair." would be fine with a good neutral source to verify it. This statement is pretty obviously true, so you shouldn't have any trouble finding a source.

(3) The "Lewinsky scandal" section says "Clinton's sexual relationship with a 22-year-old White House intern named Monica Lewinsky resulted in the Lewinsky scandal." so your point (3) is already addressed.

Best.--Loodog (talk) 02:01, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore, some people are acting like the article makes no mention of Lewinsky, which it obviously (and rightly) does. As Loodog has stated, Clinton was tried for perjury, not lying, and was not convicted. Believe what you want, but inserting all this "he lied" stuff would be akin to going to the O.J. Simpson article and saying, "he was found innocent, but you know he did it." Clinton was charged with perjury (among other things) and acquitted. We don't need anyone's personal take on the matter. Just the facts, ma'am. faithless (^speak) 02:26, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Even though he was acquitted by the United States Senate, the fact that he committed perjury and obstructed justice have, in fact, been proven in a court of law. He was sanctioned, and declared in contempt of court, for committing those crimes. Since this was civil contempt, the penalties were fines, instead of jail time (jail penalties were indeed an option, but he was still the President at that time, which was likely one reason that the judge decided against it). Clinton was ordered to pay over $90,000.00, as a result of this contempt citation.

Furthermore, after he left office, there was the possibility that he would be charged in criminal civilian court, as our Constitution allows, for federal officials who have been impeached (whether or not they were convicted by the U.S. Senate). He avoided being charged however, after entering into a negotiated agreement, in which he would admit to lying under oath, to avoid a criminal trial (and possible imprisonment). He refused to give up his law license, however, as a condition of these negotiations. However, the federal court that found him in contempt referred the matter to the Arkansas Supreme Court for possible disbarment. The U.S. Supreme Court was about to formally disbar him; he resigned from the Supreme Court bar before they could do so, however.

If Clinton was not guilty of perjury and obstruction of justice, he could have fought, or appealed, the federal court contempt citation. But he was, in fact, guilty, and later himself admitted to lying under oath. He is the only president ever to have been found in contempt of court, and the only president who has admitted to lying under oath.

Even the strong supporters of President Clinton and his party have acknowledged that he committed perjury and obstructed justice. This matter was resolved, as of the 2001 plea negotiation, which is legally binding.

To omit these facts from this article is absurd... Furthermore, this article must be included in the American perjurors category. Pacificus (talk) 08:50, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Perjury is a crime. To be a perjurer you have to be convicted of it. No conviction = no perjurer. Anything else is original resarch and, bordering on POV pushing. --Michael Johnson (talk) 11:46, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Citing a federal court ruling, and an admission by the accused (in a legally-binding negotiation with prosecutors) is "original resarch" [sic]? This is public information. Not even Bill Clinton is still denying that he lied under oath. Pacificus (talk) 22:21, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Still does not add up to a conviction for perjury, whatever way you want to present it. We are no more entitled to describe Clinton as a perjurer than we are to describe O.J. Simpson as a murderer. Stick to the facts. If Clinton admitted to lying under oath, then say just that, properly sourced of course. But he was not convicted of perjury. --Michael Johnson (talk) 23:31, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

That's a cute, if somewhat distorted, recounting of the events at hand Pacificus, but it does not change the fact that Bill Clinton was never convicted of the charge of perjury. Therefore, such categorization or wording simply will not be appearing in this article. Really do not see why more time needs to be wasted discussing this. Tarc (talk) 15:02, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Perjury is indeed a crime, but since this was a civil case, and since the case's defendant was President of the United States at the time, the contempt citation's penalty was monetary, rather than involving jail time. The subsequent plea negotiation, including an admission by the accused, is sufficient for inclusion in that category. Considering that both of those actions are legally binding, and that in the latter, Clinton admitted (in order to avoid a criminal trial), to lying under oath, I agree that we should not waste any more time discussing this.

Again, I think we'd all be fine with public opinion of these things. E.g. 67% of polled believe Clinton admitted to lying under oath in response to one of his quotes.[5] Clinton admitted to misleading people, pollees said this satisfied them 52-44. 60-37 said he should have explicitly apologized.[6] If we can find a particularly poignant polling question, I see no reason to not include it. If you want an outright declaration of wrongs and perjury, reports of public opinion is the closest you're going to get without violating WP:V, WP:BLP, and WP:NPOV.--Loodog (talk) 15:44, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I concur. Let's stick what we can cite. Loodog is right on. Happyme22 (talk) 00:22, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Sexual misconduct allegations section

I added: Throughout his career, Clinton has been subject to various allegations of sexual misconduct, which have in turn instilled in his public image associations of sexual unscrupulousness and provided fodder for comedians. Clinton has only admitted to his extramarital sexual relationships with Lewinsky and Flowers.

and was reverted for OR. Here's my problem with the current state of that section: it completely ignores why sexual misconduct is a part of his public image. It's been a running gag for the last 15 years that Bill Clinton is a reckless womanizer. Whether this is caricature or not, it is an image he's acquired, which has given comedians endless fodder for satire. Leno still scores off Clinton this way. In terms of sourcing, it's easy to find articles that will attest to the perceived womanizing so why not include something that it, for better or for worse, an aspect of people's image of him?--Loodog (talk) 00:18, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Did you happen to actually look at the types of sites that that google search returned? worldnetdaily? kissmyass.com? Unreliable, partisan claptrap about Bill Clinton being "known as a womanizer" has no place in the article, and there is no shortage of Wikipedia acronyms (BLP, NPOV, RS) to rest this position upon. Tarc (talk) 00:51, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

My point was it can be sourced. It's a running joke we don't seem to acknowledge in this article.--Loodog (talk) 01:34, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Really, read WP:RS. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 04:38, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Really, read WP:DICK.

1. The BBC has a list of women alleging sex acts with him, saying "allegations about Bill Clinton's private life continue to dog his administration."
2. Capitol Hill Blue talks about woman who claimed sexual assault, which the Wall Street Journal and Washington Post wrote about, before claiming a long history of such incidents with Clinton.
3. Ford worried Clinton was a sex addict according to a new book out.
4. The BBC has an image of Clinton with faces of three of the scandal women around him with the caption, "Paula Jones, Monica Lewinsky and Gennifer Flowers - all cloud President Clinton's reputation".

It's hardly a violation of BLP to include mention of obvious and sourced reputation.--Loodog (talk) 05:11, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Loodog. This information should be included. I'm glad my initial discussion on lying has stirred up some change in this article. User5802 (talk) 07:46, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Neither of your "changes" will be appearing unfortunately, as they would be serious violations of what has been spelled out above. There is significant coverage of Clinton's sexual peccadilloes in this article. Adding this tabloid-ish flourish is pointless and unacceptable per Wikipeidia policies. Tarc (talk) 15:25, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually they are in the article, you are wrong. User5802 (talk) 19:59, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

(::sigh::)This has nothing to do with your earlier suggestions. I have no intention of changing wording of actual events, that's been settled enough simply on the basis of scholarly neutrality the same way the press writes it.

Wrong. It has everything to do with my suggestion. User5802 (talk) 19:59, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay, fine. I was too timid to speak up before against the majority but your unabashed example of honesty and courage inspired me to follow my visceral conceits and boldly press on against the injustice of status quo and conformity.--Loodog (talk) 21:02, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

My goal here is to convey the perception of Clinton, because, even if Clinton only ever did anything with Monica and Flowers and the rest of the women were attention-craving lying whores, they remain a large part of his image. Every comedian in the US or England has pulled something out of it, and the sources I showed above demonstrate that this is the perception.--Loodog (talk) 15:32, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

If that is your goal, then perhaps you should reconsider your membership. The Wikipedia is not here to wax polemic on what you or a token right-wing minority may feel about the perception of Bill Clinton or any other public figure. We're here to provide a encyclopedia that reflects what others, of a reliably sourced nature, report, while keeping in lines with other policies such as verifiability, BLP, and so on. Yes, the source above talk about his alleged history with various women. The article already covers much of that. But trying to tie that all together into a grand description of a history of lurid womanizing is not at all reflecting what that list of articles is actually saying. Distilling the gist of several reliable sources into one's own opinion is another reason for this to be reverted and discarded. Perhaps you'd be happier at the Conservapedia or writing your own blog, as this tabloid gibberish has no place here. Tarc (talk) 15:43, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the good faith, but I'm actually more of Clinton supporter, which makes you a presumptuous cock.

As for only some obscure right-wingers believing the guys philandered, damnest thing, "You can't trust him, he's got weak morals and ethics – and he's done a heck of a good job.", this article must be run by right-wingers. This article says 68% of people think Clinton will be remembered for personal scandals. What I want to do is add a sentence to this sexual misconduct section saying those two facts are true because of sex scandals and that comedians have a goldmine with it and suddenly I'm advocating "tabloid gibberish" of a right-wing minority that should be on Conservapedia? The BBC is some obscure fringe conservative publication?? Are you even reading what I'm writing?--Loodog (talk) 15:55, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe my cock has any part in this discussion, but I'm tickled pink to know that its on your mind. What you are advocating is not really what those links were saying, and even if they were, the inclusion would still be rather dubious. WP:ASF; :Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves" is something you may wish to brush up on as well. As much as you may think that it is, Bill Clinton's sexual antics are not the defining characteristic of his career, any more than George Bush's former alcoholism is of his. Tarc (talk) 16:32, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, except that we're already admitting that it was a large part by inclusion of those public opinion polls above. Unless, you're suggesting we remove those too. If they're reporting about such a minor facet of his presidency.--Loodog (talk) 16:38, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

The problem here is that being a womaniser is not notable. If you or I were a womaniser, we would not be elegable for a Wikipedia article based on that fact alone. Clinton may be a womaniser, but of itself that is no more important to the article than his favourite colour. Where it is important is how it affected his career, and in particular his presidency. So for instance to write that revelations of a relationship with woman X affected his ability to pass legislation Y is encyclopaedic, to just include a list of accusations of sexual relations is tabloid. Likewise public opinion polls, in themselves they a just political ephemera, it is the effect they may have had on his presidency that is important. And by the way this does nothing to improve important parts of this article, for instance the awful treatment of his career as Governor of Arkansas. --Michael Johnson (talk) 21:52, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

((::Waves white flag of apparent inability to communicate his points::)--Loodog (talk) 21:55, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Loodog, why are you once again trying to reinsert the same material [7] and [8] that was previously rejected handily by several editors? Did you think that simply lying low for a month would somehow be more successful? Tarc (talk) 23:29, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

No, but thanks for assuming good faith. I assumed things here were settled. This is sourced and not "fringe media".--Loodog (talk) 23:31, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Images with some women?

Would some images of Bill with different women be appropriate for this article? User5802 (talk) 07:57, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

The Time magazine cover seems appropriate to put either in the Lewinsky scandal section or the Public image - sexual misconduct section.--Loodog (talk) 15:19, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

No, it would not be appropriate at all. And even if it were, neither image would qualify for use due to strict WP:NONFREE guidelines. Magazine covers can generally only be used to illustrate an article of the magazine itself. The latter pic would be copyrighted by whatever new/media organization originally took it. Tarc (talk) 15:28, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

If there were a free image of Monica, appearing in a situation that has obvious context to Clinton's scandal or impeachment, it would seem appropriate to me.--Loodog (talk) 15:34, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Impeachment

I don't really understand something here. He was not really impeached, he was voted to be impeached and it had to have been a 2/3 vote of yes for the impeachment to happan. They got more people to vote "for" the impeachment However they did not get the required 2/3 votes "for" the impeachment. He also finished his 2nd term. Does this really constitute as an impeachment?--68.39.96.223 (talk) 04:10, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

The impeachment was the trial itself, which certainly did happen. They got enough vote to pass the resolution. Both charges were defeated and so his impeachment did not result in being removed from office.--Loodog (talk) 04:16, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

No mention of the draft!?

Can it really be that this article makes no mention of Clinton and the draft and the ROTC business and all that? In some spot checking, I didn't see an older version of the article that covered this either. This is a standard topic to treat in biographies of political figures who came of age in the Vietnam War. The Joe Biden, Rudy Giuliani, and Dick Cheney articles each devote a paragraph to it, for example. And the Clinton case is more notable and generated more controversy (during his 1992 presidential run) than any of these. The Maraniss biography is a good source; this Snopes entry also gives a rundown of it. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:39, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Sounds fine. I'd suggest the "Education" be made a sub-section of "Early Life", with a "Draft Status" section created on the same footing. Tarc (talk) 15:16, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Why still listed as GA?

Per Talk:Bill Clinton/GA1, this article was supposed to have been delisted as GA (which I agree with, for all the reasons stated and more), yet it's still showing as GA above. What action wasn't taken? Wasted Time R (talk) 16:42, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I'd have changed the status, but I don't think I have permission to do so since I'm not an administrator. --Andrewlp1991 (talk) 04:57, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Don't Ask Don't Tell

The article is sweepingly simplistic in its assessment of the opposition to homosexuals in the military.

• and from the right (who opposed any effort to allow homosexuals to serve).

It wasn't only "the right" that was opposed to allow homosexuals "to serve" The issue was to serve openly, and it was the majority of the military AND the majority of Americans who were opposed, that's why Clinton paid a price for the attempt. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.175.66.95 (talk) 08:44, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

1992 election section

I think the section about the 92 election needs more. It fails to mention him actually announcing his run, or selecting Gore as his running mate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.175.36.16 (talk) 23:48, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Newt Gingrich

I really think the whole Clinton-Gingrich fued should be talked about in the article. Newt Gingrich isn't mentioned once in the section about Clinton's presidency. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.175.36.16 (talk) 00:02, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Hillary Clinton ceased to be a Senator when she became Secretary of State

The header should be fixed. Furthermore, it should be noted that, save a 17-day period in January 2001, President Clinton's wife was not a Senator while he was President.DougOfDoom ^talk 23:29, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Father

John D Gartner makes a convincing case in "In Search of Bill Clinton" that William Blythe might not have been Clinton's father. The time line from his return from WWII and Clinton's birth do not match up. It might be worth mentioning that there are disputes over his biological father. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.89.7.242 (talk) 05:52, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

If this represents a mainstream enough view, it should be in the article briefly, but beware of undue weight. If this is a fringe view, mentioning it at all may be giving disproportionate time to something.--Loodog (talk) 15:11, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Bill Clinton Achievements

Under President Clinton's leadership, almost 6 million new jobs were created in the first two years of his Administration -- an average of 250,000 new jobs every month.

In 1994, the economy had the lowest combination of unemployment and inflation in 25 years.

As part of the 1993 Economic Plan, President Clinton cut taxes on 15 million low-income families and made tax cuts available to 90 percent of small businesses, while raising taxes on just 1.2 percent of the wealthiest taxpayers.

President Clinton signed into law the largest deficit reduction plan in history, resulting in over $600 billion in deficit reduction. The deficit is going down for 3 years in a row for the first time since Harry Truman was president.

The President signed into law the Brady Bill, which imposes a five-day waiting period on handgun purchases so that background checks can be done to help keep handguns away from criminals.

The President's Crime Bill will put 100,000 new police officers on the street. More than 1,200 communities have already received grants to hire 27,000 additional officers.

The Crime Bill also punishes criminals by expanding the number of offenses eligible for the death penalty and implementing the "three-strikes-and-you're-out" provision.

And, the Bill banned the manufacture of 19 specific types of deadly assault weapons, while simultaneously protecting hunters' rights by exempting over 650 hunting rifles.

President Clinton signed the Family and Medical Leave Act. The law, which covers over 42 million Americans, offers workers up to 12 weeks of unpaid, job-guaranteed leave for child birth, adoption, or personal or family illness.

President Clinton expanded the Earned Income Tax Credit to cut the taxes of 15 million working families with incomes of $27,000 or less.

President Clinton granted waivers to 25 states -- half the nation -- providing for comprehensive welfare reform demonstrations.

President Clinton ordered the U.S. Justice Department to conduct the first-ever crackdown on deadbeat parents who refuse to accept financial responsibility for their own children.

Signed an Executive Order cracking down on federal employees who owe child support.

Cutting Bureaucracy President Clinton has already cut the federal bureaucracy by more than 100,000 positions. Under the recommendations of the National Performance Review, the federal bureaucracy will be reduced by 272,000 -- its lowest level since the Kennedy Administration.

And, he reduced the White House staff by 25 percent.

Under the President's Direct Student Loan program, students can borrow money directly from the government at a lower interest rate and with many flexible repayment options, including the option to repay with a percentage of their after-graduation salary. Taxpayers will save at least $4.3 billion over five years.

In 1994, over 20,000 AmeriCorps members tutored students, immunized children, reclaimed urban parks, and patrolled neighborhoods. In return, they earned $4,725 per year of service towards college tuition or job training.

President Clinton signed into law Goals 2000, a national standard of excellence for our public schools. Already, 41 states and territories have received federal grants to raise academic standards and improve schools.

President Clinton's Safe and Drug Free Schools and Community Act and the Safe Schools Act provide funding to schools to fight violence and drug abuse. Schools can use up to 25 percent of their funds to purchase metal detectors, develop safe zones, and hire school security personnel.

The President's School-to-Work program provides venture capital to spark a nationwide system for moving America's young people from high school to a job with a future. In 1994, all states received planning funds for their school-to-work program.

Charter School legislation signed by President Clinton encourages states and localities to set up public school choice.

Under President Clinton, the EPA launched its "Common Sense Initiative" to make health protection cheaper and smarter by focusing on results rather than one-size-fits-all regulations.

The President's Northwest Forest Plan is putting communities in the Northwest back to work, while conserving ancient forests.

After decades of conflict, the Clinton Administration negotiated a consensus plan to protect California's most valuable natural resource -- its water. The San Francisco and Delta estuary supplies dr inking water to two-thirds of the state's people, provides irrigation for 45 percent of the nation's fruits and vegetables, and sustains 300 aquatic species

President Clinton hosted the signing of the Israeli-Palestinian Declaration of Principles in September, 1993, and the signing of the Israeli-Jordan Washington Principles in July, 1994 -- historic agreements between the leaders of Israel and her Arab neighbors to settle differences by peaceful means.

To enhance European security and stability, the Clinton Administration proposed the Partnership for Peace program, offering former Soviet republics and Central/East European states closer ties with NATO. Already, 22 nations have signed on, since NATO's adoption of the program in January, 1994.

As of May, 1994, nuclear missiles in Russia and the United States are no longer targeted against any country. And, as a result of other Clinton Administration efforts, the Ukraine is ahead of schedule in reaching the goal of transferring 1,500 nuclear warheads to Russia for dismantlement.

This needs to be discussed. Neverfades (talk) 10:14, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Um... I don't see any of this in the article.(?) I take it you mean that these are all true statements that should be mentioned then? I agree much of this can be included, but keep in mind we want a relatively neutral depiction of the man, with appropriate weight on what's mentioned. We also can't include every possible detail. If you can filter through these accomplishments into what you believe is the most notable, we could easily include those.--Loodog (talk) 15:19, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Bad link

Reference #75 viz. "Bill Clinton Disbarment to End" is bad. --72.70.24.131 (talk) 13:02, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Dss2mtm (talk) 06:08, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Suggested changes to article- inclusion of Rwandan genocide and other editing

After reading the article, I have some suggestions for it's editing. I have not made these changes but would like some opinions-

1/ The subsection of 'legislative agenda' is only given under the first term and not the second. For balance of presentation it might be useful to have this as a subheading to the 'second term'.

2/ The Rwandan genocide is not mentioned or linked to anywhere in the article. I think the article should include this given the significance of the event itself as a foreign policy concern of the US and UN at the time, the enduring controversy since, and president Clinton's own remarks of apology and visit to Rwanda.

3/ The subsection 'Military and foreign events' is only given under the second term of the presidency and not the first. I think this subsection could also be mirrored under the first term for balance of presentation and to clarify notable military and foreign events during this time, ie: i/ the Rwandan genocide as mentioned (1994)and ii/ Operation Gothic Serpent in Somalia (1993).

Also, the Iraq Intervention Act is described under 'Military and foreign events' but the title of the Act not specifically mentioned. This might be better shown under its own subheading (as is another Act above it) or subheaded under 'legislative agenda' (point 1). I think it is more a legislative event than a 'military or foreign event' per se.

4/ Redirections to main articles could be given for the US/NATO campaign in Bosnia and Camp David Summit as these are only summarised.Dss2mtm (talk) 06:08, 1 February 2009 (UTC)