Talk:Bill Clinton

Post-presidency of Bill Clinton

This article is 128KB, which is more than a little on the long side. So I've copied the Post-Presidency section into Post-presidency of Bill Clinton. If you guys think it's OK, I'll summary-style that section. If not, propose deletion of the article --Purplebackpack89 (talk) 03:22, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the article is currently 55 kB (8857 words) readable prose size which is within the WP:SIZE guidelines of 60 kb and 10,000 words. That said, I'm sure a subarticle on Clinton's post-presidential career can be further expanded beyond what's in the main article now. However, I think a more standard title would be Post-presidential career of Bill Clinton. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:11, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

"William Jefferson" vs. "Bill"

It seems to me that this article should be titled "William Jefferson Clinton" instead of "Bill Clinton". Yes, President Clinton is usually referred to as "Bill Clinton" in day-to-day parlance and his books have the author name "Bill Clinton." However, he is also often introduced at speaking events as "President William Jefferson Clinton" and that's the name under which he was sworn into as the president. It just seems more proper for a reference work to file President Clinton under his legal/official name instead of his nickname. What do people think?

We refer to subjects by their common names. Best, faithless (^speak) 08:42, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

See also: Jimmy Carter, Jon Stewart, Ray Charles, and Lady Gaga.--Louiedog (talk) 15:41, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

MOS:BIO#Names "article title should generally be the name by which the subject is most commonly known". Like you said people commonly use "Bill". According to MOS:BIO#Names "subject's full name should be given in the lead paragraph" - the intro should be "William Jefferson Clinton (born ..." not "William Jefferson "Bill" Clinton (born ..." Hutcher (talk) 00:08, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Governor of Arkansas section

Why was the following item deleted, as it was well cited and explains the antipathy of Carter towards Clinton?

Clinton believed that Jimmy Carter cost him the gubernatorial election in 1980 and that “the peanut farmer was unfit for high office.“ tuco_bad 23:32, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

The subject is certainly pertinent to the article, and you gave a detailed citation from a respected historian, but I think that your phrasing was faulty. You first wrote unfit for high office without quotes, then you put the words in quotes without making clear the source (I assume that the words were Clinton's). I would suggest something similar to:

Clinton blamed his defeat on Ronald Reagan's landslide, and on Jimmy Carter, whom Clinton described as "unfit for high office."

Plazak (talk) 00:23, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks - I will rephrase Clinton's description of Carter. tuco_bad 02:29, 19 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cgersten (talk • contribs)

You are correct, Clinton blamed his defeat on Actor Ronald Reagan landslide victory of Carter. Northwestern guy (talk) 00:31, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually Clinton blamed his defeat on a variety of factors: the unpopular car tax, the Cuban issue thrust upon him by Carter's circumstances, and a long list of things that essentially amounted to the perception that he wasn't listening to the people that elected him.[My Life: pgs 280-287]--Louiedog (talk) 02:17, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd focus more on why Clinton actually did lose, not why he thought he lost. Politicians, like boxers and chess players, are notorious for concocting explanations for losses that involve something other than their own shortcomings. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:29, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, the whole sound bite about Carter isn't fit for office has little bearing on Clinton's loss and just seems like petty gossip. And nowhere in the book does Clinton blame his loss on Carter's loss. And as Wasted Time R points out, a politician commenting on loss is a rather unreliable narrator.--Louiedog (talk) 22:01, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Please read: Brinkley, Douglas The Unfinished Presidency: Jimmy Carter’s Journey Beyond the White House p.355. Clinton is quoted as blaming Carter for his loss. tuco_bad 23:28, 19 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cgersten (talk • contribs)

1992 New Hampshire finish

The 1st paragraph in the 1992 campaign section has 2 sentences which appear to contradict each other:

"He finished second to Tsongas in the New Hampshire primary...."

"He ended leading New Hampshire by a large percentage."

How could he finish 2nd and lead by a large percentage? LarryJeff (talk) 19:22, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Fixed it. Don't know what was meant.--Louiedog (talk) 19:35, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Items needing attention by somebody with edit rights

1. Link in reference 13 (news article about Clinton appointment as U.N. Special Envoy to Haiti) does not go to the correct article. I looked up other articles on the topic, but I can't edit the page. For example, you could substitute this one:

Bill Clinton to be UN Haiti envoy BBC News, May 19, 2009.75.61.67.234 (talk) 09:36, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Done and thanks. You should consider creating an account here on WP and then next time you could do the edit :) Bjmullan (talk) 09:53, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

You know, I did consider it, particularly when I was considering more significant edits to an article in my area of expertise. But when starting to read about account creation, I read the recommendation that you not use your real name in order to avoid possible harassment. I wanted to use my real name because I would like it to be visible when I make contributions involving more effort and professional expertise. But that warning gave me pause! My real name is actually quite unique and extremely easy to google, so if harassment is a real possibility, hostile people could find a lot more than just my wikipedia profile. But with the idea of an anonymous, fake-named profile, I found I lost interest in participating at that deeper level. There's effort involved just in learning the ropes around here. Being identifiable by name might make it worth it -- assuming I didn't have to worry about harassment. Your thoughts on the naming and harassment issue? 75.61.67.234 (talk) 19:46, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Never saw the warning and it wouldn't bother me anyway! If you have knowledge you should share it. Just pick a name it's no big deal, I saw one today "the cows want their milk back", and that made me laugh :) I'm sure you will enjoy it. Bjmullan (talk) 22:54, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

1993 world trade centre attacks

1993 world trade centre attacks should be repoted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.104.160.247 (talk) 04:01, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I will add that in99.8.105.153 (talk) 21:51, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments on deficit record and citations.

The only comment that address Clinton's budget record in the entire article is:

Based on Congressional accounting rules, at the end of his presidency Clinton reported a surplus of $559 billion

I find it a little odd that his performance on the budget is mentioned nowhere else beyond the introduction, and the comment itself is uncited. I have also been unable to find a reputable source which verifies this (specifically the amount cited of $559 billion).

Also, I have found that in general in wikipedia, and specifically in Bill Clinton's articles, there is people are conflating the terms "public debt" (debt held by the public) and "national debt" (public debt + intragovernmental holdings), which is an important distinction because his budget surplus is with regards to public debt rather than the national debt.

For now I would like to see a tag added to the claim, please. Apocryphal Libertarian (talk) 20:18, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Apocryphal's comments. The National Debt (Public Dept + Intergovernmental Holdings) went up every year during the Clinton administration. Please see the following link for that data:OMB Historical TablesIf debt went up, there can be no real surplus.Rlantzy2112 (talk) 17:50, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Confederate Ancestry

Like Truman and Carter, Clinton had ancestors that fought to the Confederate States of America. Check it out here:

http://www.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~mscivilw/bios.html

• BLYTHE, Thomas Jefferson - Great great grandfather of Pres. Bill Clinton (Clinton changed his name from Blythe). Born Aug. 12, 1829 in AL, the son of Andrew Blythe. He married Ester Elvira Baum in Marshall Co., MS Jan. 1, 1849. Thomas enlisted in Co. "F" 34th Miss. on Apr. 27, 1862 along with his two brothers, John Wesley and Newton Jasper Blythe. All three survived the war. Thomas drew a pension for his service. He died Aug. 6, 1907 and is buried in Lowry Cemetery in Tippah County. Click here for more information about him.

I move it be included in the article. It it noteworthy, as it the enduring association with Southern Democrats and the Confederacy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Martan32 (talk • contribs) 19:23, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

There are millions of people in TheUnited States and abroad, who have ancestors who fought for the confederacy. I don't see why its notable to mention it on this article. Yes he was the president, but it has nothing to do with his life at all.--Jojhutton (talk) 00:13, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Clinton's First Speech to Nation

Why is the fact of Clinton's first speech being removed from Clinton's presidential history? tuco_bad 00:33, 11 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cgersten (talk • contribs)

Thank you for bringing the subject to the talk page.

The first edit summary beyond mine says: rv: What you are offering is synthesis, which is taking a website that simply lists old campaign fliers and applying your own "what he said vs. what he did" analysis.

The personal juxtaposition of two facts, when that comparison is not made in a published secondary reliable source, is original research, which is against wikipedia core policy.--Louiedog (talk) 03:21, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Mr. Clinton came to power burdened by far more, and more specific, promises than any President in recent memory. He found it necessary to start breaking them even before he took office. He reversed himself on Haitian refugees, on a middle-class tax cut, and on cutting the deficit by half in his first term. These were not pledges buried in the small print of position papers. These were major commitments, made repeatedly and with scathing accompanying criticism of the Bush Administration.

National Review, August 23, 1993 by Brit Hume

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_n16_v45/ai_13294511/?tag=content;col1

Is this source acceptable, if not I have others? tuco_bad 03:48, 11 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cgersten (talk • contribs)

That's an interesting article but the tax cut renege was one specific example out of three, being used to advance a thesis on why Clinton never got a "honeymoon period". You may as well have lifted any fact out of context such as "he stopped in San Francisco to call for a worldwide jobs summit in the United State".

So, you've sourced the fact that the tax cut was promised but not delivered, but not why it's standalone notable. The source considers it notable only insofar as it shaped his changing relationship with the media. Brit Hume never intended to state this fact as a particularly notable part of his 1st address, as you're attempting to use here. Clinton said a lot of things in his 1st address; the highlighted quote is the only piece consensus has agreed sticks out particularly, though you are free to offer arguments for consideration otherwise.--Louiedog (talk) 04:18, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

You write: "Clinton said a lot of things in his 1st address"

However this speech was about the need to raise taxes - check it out!

BTW - From the Heritage Foundation:

By backtracking on tax-cut pledges even before the election, Barack Obama threatens to break Bill Clinton's speed record. It wasn't until a week before his first inauguration that Clinton openly reneged on his promise to cut taxes for the middle class."

http://www.heritage.org/press/commentary/ed103108c.cfm tuco_bad 13:18, 11 February 2010 (UTC) cgersten —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cgersten (talk • contribs)

Extreme right-wing (or left-wing, for the sake of argument) usually do not qualify as reliable sources. They can be quoted on simple facts about themselves, but their commentary on others is unsuitable for the Wikipedia. Tarc (talk) 14:15, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

How about this item from the New York Times – March 21, 1992?

“Although the bill passed with majorities too slight to override a veto, the issue will persist into the fall Presidential election campaign. Gov. Bill Clinton of Arkansas, the Democratic front-runner, has supported tax cuts for the middle class paid for by higher rates at the top.”

http://www.nytimes.com/1992/03/21/us/1992-campaign-economic-issues-tax-bill-passed-democrats-bush-vetos-it.html?pagewanted=1

There more items out there, you can do your own Google search.

Why not let the facts speak for themselves without censoring history? tuco_bad 15:28, 11 February 2010 (UTC) cgersten —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cgersten (talk • contribs)

The facts do speaks for themselves; this is an article about Bush and Congress, with a passing mention of Clinton. Again I will refer you to synthesis; you cannot take one source that talks about what someone said, another source that comments on what he did, and offer your own "a-ha!" conclusions. This was a major problem on several Obama-related articles as well recently; users looking for their own "gotcha" moments, or sourcing the gotchas to partisan sources. Tarc (talk) 18:48, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps user would be more amenable to a listing of exactly what it would take to change people's minds. What you need is a mainstream reliable source that states (a) "Clinton raised taxes against his campaign promise, and (b) presents it in such a way that this fact is a notable aspect of Clinton's early Presidency.--Louiedog (talk) 18:59, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

How about?

New York Times - February 17, 1993

"In selling his economic plan, President Clinton is gambling that voters never took seriously his campaign promise to lower the tax burden of the middle class and will respond favorably to an aggressive pitch based on equal measures of hope, fear and class revenge.

After months of polling and research, Mr. Clinton's top political advisers say they are convinced that middle-class voters will support higher taxes."

http://www.nytimes.com/1993/02/18/us/clinton-s-economic-plan-campaign-gambling-that-tax-cut-promise-was-not-taken.html?scp=1&sq=clinton%20raise%20taxes%20february%201993&st=cse tuco_bad 21:38, 11 February 2010 (UTC) cgersten —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cgersten (talk • contribs)

CNN Breaking News

He's just been taken to a New York hospital. Does anyone know what it is? Because so far the net says nothing, only the TV news. 24.189.90.68 (talk) 21:42, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

ABC News reported he has been taken to Columbia Hospital for heart problems possibly relating somehow to a stint. He was on a gurney when he was admitted. 24.120.127.162 (talk) 21:43, 11 February 2010 (UTC)