Talk:Bill Clinton

Inconsistencies in the budget deficit/surplus chart

Troy Rollison sucks penis If that chart is to be believed, we had 4 years of Ford budgets, followed by 3 years of Carter, 9 years of Reagan, 3 years of Bush Sr., and 9 years of Clinton. That's not right.William Jockusch (talk) 05:33, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I think the graph is showing positive values, i.e. the red bars, as deficits and negative values, the blue bars, as surpluses, so by that interpretation it shows all deficits apart from Clinton last four fiscal years, 1998-2001 inclusive. --Jatkins ^{(talk - contribs)} 08:59, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Sure, but why do we have 9 years of Clinton and Reagan, instead of 8? Why 3 years of Carter and Bush Sr., instead of 4?William Jockusch (talk) 12:47, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Unless somebody fixes the chart, I think it should be removed as it is inaccurate. Comments?William Jockusch (talk) 17:41, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Fixed it. --Pass3456 (talk) 20:22, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Much better, thanks!William Jockusch (talk) 15:30, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the hint. --Pass3456 (talk) 19:39, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Religion

The category and info box say he is Baptist. Are there any sources for this? The reason I ask is because he attended Catholic school and his wife's article states that she is United Methodist. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 20:51, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 23 May 2012 to change the 2nd term

In the second term passage, it states that Clinton was the 2nd president impeached, after Andrew Johnson. This must be corrected since Richard Nixon was impeached in the 70s due to the Watergate scandal. This is common knowledge, and MUST be fixed.

Boisebound78 (talk) 15:03, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Not done. Read the Nixon article, it clearly indicates he resigned before he could be impeached. Hot Stop 15:15, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Public Image

I think the public image section on this page is almost exactly the same as the lower section on the page Public Image of Bill Clinton. I think we should make this section drastically smaller or add what the other page says to this article for that page is not that long. Jibajabba (talk) 12:07, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Importance of impeachment.

Seeing Tarc's violent reaction, I realize this probably won't be easy, but if Wikipedia truly wants to be an unbiased encyclopedia his impeachment needs to be in the opening paragraph. If the Nixon article opened with mention of his young age becoming VP but no mention of his resignation, it would be wrong.

The opening paragraph for Bill Clinton reports his young age (third youngest), him being the first baby-boomer president, but no mention of him being the second president impeached. No seriously unbiased editor can say that his impeachment should not be in the opening paragraph. Rodchen (talk) 00:23, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't belong in the first part of the lead, it is not a defining moment of an 8-year presidency. 3rd paragraph is enough. Tarc (talk) 01:18, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I didn't see any evidence of any "violent" reaction by Tarc. I don't agree with Tarc that it wasn't a defining moment, but as long as its in the lead, its fine. First paragraph is usually for identifying statistics of a president. Subsequent information can go into other paragraphs.--JOJ ^Hutton 01:58, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

You can see the history to see the violent reaction. And Clinton being 46 and the third youngest man to become president was a defining moment??? Him being the first baby boomer president was a defining moment? Of course it should be included in the opening paragraph. If Nixon's opening paragraph discussed China, war in Vietnam and Russian relations but nothing of watergate or his resignation, wouldn't that seem strange to you???? Rodchen (talk) 10:07, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I have no problem with where it is now, but if it is moved to the lead it would need a substantial rewrite for context. Hot Stop 14:43, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Apples and oranges regarding Watergate and Nixon, I think you need to chekc your bias at the door before furthering this conversation. For Clinton, the 'baby boomer' aspect is quite significant, yes, as it stood in stark contrast to most of the presidents of the 20th century who campaigned on their military service. Tarc (talk) 16:17, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

One hundred years from now people will remember Clinton as being the second president who was impeached, just like most Andrew Johnson is basically remembered for only 2 things: succeeding Lincoln and his impeachment. I will try to rewrite the opening lead. I had wanted to avoid ruffling too many feathers, but if a rewrite is needed I will give it a try. Rodchen (talk) 04:21, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

It is fine just the way it is at present, with the impeachment bit further down but still in the lead. That way it isn't propped up with more importance than it actually is, not is it burying an important, though not defining, aspect of Clinton's presidency. Spare us your WP:CRYSTALBALL-gazing about presumed importance and find something better to do. Tarc (talk) 12:39, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Impeachment is a fairly major event in anyones life, especially of a president. Given that there have only been 2 of 43 is pretty substantial. Looking at Andrew Johnsons opening paragraph and Richard Nixons, its clear that they also mention the impeachment/resignation as well. If was added to the first paragraph, it wouldn't be without precedent.--JOJ ^Hutton 12:43, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Please remove 'wheelchair bound' from this page

The caption for the image that shows President Clinton meeting with a Hurricane Katrina evacuee should not use the phrase 'wheelchair bound'. This is a highly inappropriate and incorrect way to refer to someone who uses a wheelchair.

For reference : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_disability-related_terms_with_negative_connotations

The correct term is wheelchair user; please correct this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.212.108.44 (talk) 03:18, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

It is now removed in the wikimedia caption. However, the caption still shows the same on the Bill clinton site. I don't know if it needs to be edited separately or if it will refresh the new wikimedia caption on its own, b/c it looks like editing is blocked on this article? zammy (talk) 02:24, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

We do not cater to political correctness. "Wheelchair bound" is not an unreasonable term. Tarc (talk) 02:39, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be an acceptable compromise to edit this to "wheelchair user"? In my last edit, I deleted the entire phrase about the wheelchair because it was unnecessary, but if someone insists on keeping the word "wheelchair" there, what possible harm could come from editing the phrase to be less biased and offensive? I am not for needlessly catering to PC objections, but I don't see any reason to revert edits that remove potentially offensive language and do not remove any useful information. I still say take everything about wheelchair out of the caption, but I am willing to compromise. What do others think? zammy (talk) 22:43, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

As I was trying to write a "compromised" caption, I saw that the compromise would result in some awkward wording: "wheel chair user Hurricane Katrina evacuee" So I simply reverted the revert of my edit. The caption is on the long side, and an attentive observer can see the hand on the wheelchair, so describing the woman as wheelchair-bound is superfluous, sort of like adding in the caption that Obama is holding his jacket as though it were a kitty-cat. zammy (talk) 23:29, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

We do not cater to political correctness. This will be stated as many times as you need to hear it. Tarc (talk) 02:06, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't see this back-and-forth before I made my edit. I see no problem with "wheelchair-bound" in general, but the fact is in this case all we know is that the woman is seated in a wheelchair, not if she is confined to it. So, not for PC reasons but because we have little information, I changed it to "who is in a wheelchair". If the photo was of someone known to be wheelchair-bound, like Stephen Hawking, I would certainly use the "wheelchair-bound" phrase because, as Tarc said, we don't cater to political correctness, for PC sake. I also was bothered by the Obama part of the caption - again, didn;t see this before I edited it - not because of any allusion to a kitten (which I don't get anyway) but because the line was worded in a way that it was unclear if he was holding his own jacket or Clinton's, and anyway, who cares about the damn jacket? And, he is not in the background, he's right there behind Bill. So, I changed it. I hope this will put an end to this. Tvoz/talk 22:47, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Nixon WAS Impeached

Nixon WAS in fact impeached on August 7, 1973. Here is a link to read about it. Nixon resigned before the impeachment could be referred for trial, but in 1973 the Judiciary Committee had been given authority to act for the full House, and consequently Nixon WAS impeached. Read about it here.It is therefore appropriate to state that Clinton was the THIRD President to face impeachment. Impeachment is the indictment of the House of Representatives. A seperate element is then trial by the Senate. Nixon resigned before the Senate received the House referral, but the House Judiciary committee under Rep. Sam Ervin was empowered to act on behalf of the whole House (sitting as a committee of the whole) to pass impeachment resolutions. Four of these were voted and passed. Please read the link offered. Nixon was impeached, but no trial was necessary as he resigned after the impeachment articles passed the House. http://www.historyplace.com/unitedstates/impeachments/nixon.htm The Moody Blue (Talk) 23:15, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

The House Judiciary Committee approved the 3 articles of impeachment, but Nixon resigned before the full House could consider the matter. Since it is the full House of Representatives that is empowered to impeach, and not a committee, Nixon was not impeached. It is true that the House accepted the committee's findings by motion after Nixon's resignation, but since there was no formal vote nor a referral to the Senate for trial, there was no actual impeachment. This is basic civics here, not terribly complicated to understand; I attribute your misunderstanding to the filing of the American educational system. -- Signed for Tarc

Wording of Impeachment section

Current wording is:

In a lame-duck session of Congress after the 1998 elections, the House voted to impeach Clinton, based on the results of the Lewinsky scandal.[27] This made Clinton only the second U.S. president to be impeached (the first being Andrew Johnson).

In an effort at compromise between some editors, I proposed the addition of some mention of Richard Nixon in the text that has paragraphs around it. Nixon was not impeached, however, he was recommended for impeachment by the House Judiciary Committee, per the Washington Post, "The first such impeachment recommendation in more than a century". I'm not set on a specific wording, but considering the gravity of the charge of impeachment, the rarity of it even being seriously considered for a president, and the fact that we make the comparison of Clinton to Andrew Johnson, it seems relevant to mention Nixon in this context. -- Avanu (talk) 04:31, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

This article isn't about Richard Nixon. Why make mention of him if he wasn't impeached?--JOJ ^Hutton 04:37, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Because it is rare for a president to even have been considered for impeachment. Our sources tell us that Nixon was definitely headed for impeachment and if he hadn't resigned, he would have been impeached. By mentioning Nixon's close call, you also curtail those who assume wrongly that Nixon *was* impeached, like the debate above, and educate our readers. -- Avanu (talk) 04:59, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

In addition, Nixon's impeachment course was not simply political rhetoric, it was a near inescapable reality.

From the New York Times (Aug. 8, 1974), "His chances of being acquitted were almost hopeless. Senator Barry, Goldwater, the Arizona conservative who was the Republican Presidential candidate in 1964, told him that he had no more than 15 votes in the Senate, far short of the 34 he needed to be sure of escaping conviction. Members of his own staff, including Gen. Alexander M. Haig Jr., the White House chief of staff, strongly recommended that he step down in the national interest."

He wouldn't have resigned if he thought he could beat it.

From Nixon's resignation speech: "Throughout the long and difficult period of Watergate, I have felt it was my duty to persevere -- to make every possible effort to complete the term of office to which you elected me. In the past few days, however, it has become evident to me that I no longer have a strong enough political base in the Congress to justify continuing that effort."

So you ask, "Why make mention of him if he wasn't impeached?" In all but official action, he was. And for that reason, and the reasons I mention above, he should be mentioned in the article alongside Clinton and Johnson. -- Avanu (talk) 05:31, 16 September 2012 (UTC)