Talk:Bill Clinton/Archive 6

This is an archive of past discussions about Bill Clinton. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

→

Action in Bosnia Omitted

The NATO bombings that Clinton lead in 1999 against the ethnic cleansing needs to be added. I'm not sure how to do it.

206.219.127.97 13:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Error in My Life

In his autobiography Bill Clinton wrote that Martin Van Buren was the first sitting Vice President to have been elected President. That is incorrect as John Adams and Thomas Jefferson were still Vice President when they were elected President. --The Shadow Treasurer 02:08, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

That doesn't seem like a factual error. Rather, Van Buren was the first sitting Vice President to be elected President after the passing of the 12th Amendment. This amendment created the Presidential ticket system we use today and fundamentally altered the basic fabric of what it means to be a sitting Vice President to be elected President. --Don Sowell 22:35, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Technically it is still an error. It would not be an error if he had mentioned the 12th Amendment which he didn't.--The Shadow Treasurer 06:04, 28 December 2006 (UTC) Read another error in the book. He wrote that Tomiichi Murayama was the first socialist Prime Minister of Japan. That is not correct as Murayama was really the first socialist Prime Minister in 46 years when he came into office in 1994. --The Shadow Treasurer 04:32, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

May I ask - why are we talking about errors in Bill Clinton's book on this talk page? Tvoz | talk 02:05, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Why not, this article is about Bill Clinton. Silly question.

The following may or may not be an error depending on one's viewpoint: He wrote that in 1996 he became the first Democrat to win a second term as President since FDR in 1936. Technically Harry S Truman and Lyndon B Johnson were elected to a second term in 1948 and 1964 respectively. In Truman's tenure it was close to two full terms as he served 94.4% of the term that FDR had been elected to. --The Shadow Treasurer 05:47, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Brilliant, yes. How about taking the discussion to the page that is actually about the book? This talk page is a place to discuss this article, not interesting facts about Bill Clinton. Tvoz | talk 05:54, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Bombing sudan

Wasnt it alleged that one of the sites bombed by America was a pharmaceutical company which produced 50% of sudans drugs and medecines? this should be included, no? (137.154.16.31 07:34, 3 October 2006 (UTC)) This should be included Ace ofgabriel 20:48, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

 no reason not to

see Operation Infinite Reach--csloat 09:14, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Semi-protection

I support Mets501's reprotection of the page today (log). I unprotected it a couple days ago because 1) it had been protected for over two weeks, and 2) before that two weeks the page had not needed protection for many months since a brief period back in February. It is disappointing that a page that has gone so long without protection so long suddenly requires semi-protection for an extended period. Since the vandalism on the page may be election related, my plan is to wait until a week after the election is over and see if the vandals have lost interest at that point. Others may want to try earlier, if you do, please watch the page. NoSeptember 12:57, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Requested semi-protection be reinstated; heavy and ongoing IP vandalism again. Tvoz | talk 08:28, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Is there some reason his losing his law license isn't mentioned?

~~That was a pretty major event in the wake of the Lewinsky scandal. I'm surprised that it's not mentioned here.~~ Nevermind. Jasper23 pointed out that it's in there. I just didn't catch it. Jinxmchue 13:31, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I swear I saw this in here recently but glancing back at a few older edits I can't find it. I thought that someone edited it a few days ago to reflect that his license was suspended (for 5 year, I think?). But this is a busy article, particularly in light of the recent interview, so it's easy to miss or overlook even major edits. Go ahead and add it to the article (supported by a verifiable reference, of course) as I agree that it's a significant enough event to warrant a brief mention. --ElKevbo 14:31, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I saw it too! mirageinred 21:53, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Its already in the article. You just need to search. Jasper23 22:46, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Ah, okay. I was searching for the word "license." I found it when I searched for "law" instead. Thanks! Jinxmchue 14:14, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Me, too. Man, that's embarassing to miss something right before my eyes... :) --ElKevbo 14:50, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

It is a really big article. Details are hard to find sometimes. There is also a category tag on the top of the page. Jasper23 16:40, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry, seeing as how the majority of Wikipedia editors and admins are unabashed liberals, that fact will eventually get deleted. Haizum 21:26, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Well arent you a bright ray of sunshine? Jasper23 23:46, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

China and Nuclear Weapons

I doubt that this is true, but I heard that Clinton sold China the technology that allowed them to create nuclear weapons. Like I said, I doubt that this is true, but has anyone else heard this? The Hybrid Lives 09:43, 10 October 2006 (UTC) Nope but considering he was born in 46 it's pretty unlikely!

China had nukes long before Bill Clinton was President. China did obtain some missile-guidance technology from the U.S. during the Clinton presidency, however. He was heavily criticized for allowing this to happen. user:Jsc1973

I did some research about six months ago and I found several academic sites that stated China aquired the technology for effective ICBM guidence systems through technology buys and esiponage during the Clinton Administration. Ill try to dig it up again. China of course had nuclear weapons before Clinton. Michorn 02:32, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

If verifiable, this sounds like something that should be included. blog post with some verifiability in the form of quotes of other sources biased site KevinPuj 01:16, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Operation Infinite Reach

Why is there no link to this incident or to the Al-Shifa Pharmaceutical factory in the Africa section? This is an important event in Clinton's career.

Otherwikiprojects Tags

Please combine them into that tag where the other corresponding wikiproject articles are related.100110100 04:14, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Article

GEEZ! This article is just as bad as the Hitler page! Come on! No article should exist in such size. It makes a mountian of reading and discouarages it altogether. Colonel Marksman 22:50, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

This article is the size of Hitler because no other prominent person in recent history has generated such rankor/fervor/hate/love. As such, the shear volume of material written about or refering to Clinton is inevitably going to generate a lot of debate and may become one of the reasons why Clinton goes down, historically, as one of America's most notable figures. I didn't vote for Slick either time, but I can see both sides of the partisan arguments. What astounds me is how much falsehood gets spread by both sides. William Jefferson Clinton may be the most misunderstood and miscast character I have ever encountered - and I LOVE history.

The one thing that makes any antagonist/protagonist viable is the appearance of a worthy opponent. Clinton's opponent for a dozen years or more is/was Richard Melon Scaife. Given Scaife's involvement with the CIA and the Bush family, it is very hard for me to understand why this Clinton nemesis isn't at least mentioned in the article. I have edited in some mention of Scaife & the Arkansas Project several times only to have it disappear afterwards. It makes one wonder about the tinfoil hat theory of "Men in the Shadows". i4 21:01, 23 October 2006 (UTC) IdioT.SavanT.i4

Economic Prosperity Statistics

We started discussing this but never reached a conclusion, so I'm copying it out to the active talk page.

Reading through the stats on President Clinton's economic record I found several things that I wondered about. Maybe someone can address these if needed.

Creation of more than 22.5 million jobs—the most jobs ever created under a single administration, and more than were created in the previous 12 years. Of the total new jobs, 20.7 million, or 92 percent, were in the private sector. Wouldn't one need to factor in 8 years of population growth here?

Economic gains spurred an increase in family incomes for all Americans. Since 1993, real median family income increased by $6,338, from $42,612 in 1993 to $48,950 in 1999 (in 1999 dollars). We'd need to discount inflation/standard of living for this to be meaningful, wouldn't we?

The surplus in fiscal year 2000 was $237 billion—the third consecutive surplus and the largest surplus ever. Well I'm sure it is. But that's like people saying Bush got more votes than any other president in history, while ignoring population growth. How does 2000 compare to other historical surpluses if discounted for inflation?

Also none of these stats are specifically sourced - I'm assuming that the references section at the bottom covers them? If not, we need to get sources for all this stuff.

Dubc0724 19:56, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm no expert, but it's possible that all the dollar amounts for 1999 on median family income (for example) were in 1993 dollars. If that's the case, it'll have already been adjusted for inflation.

Clinton walked out of his commitment to the Army Reserve

as a condition to being admitted to ROTC, Clinton signed up and was sworn in to the army reserve, but never showed up. Other than that, his draft dodging looks comarable to Dick Cheney's. Compare the two bios on Wiki.CorvetteZ51 13:07, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if he was actually sworn into the Army Reserves. Probably not as you would read more about it. ROTC cadets at that time in the first two years of college were not in the military, it was only in the last two years of the college program that they actually were in the Army Reserves.--TGC55 15:57, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

at the time, Clinton would have been a grad student. So a four year program seems unlikely. Besides that, I find it hard to believe that a deferment was given to a 'walk-on', ie a person with no obligations. I find it hard to believe that all the 'letter writing effort ' would be need to get Clinton into ROTC,if their were no obligations. Clinton could always 'just take two years-beginning ROTC', but that doesn't get you a deferment.CorvetteZ51 18:18, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

?DICK CHENEY got 5 Deferments!! I don't think he, Karl Rove, or Bush can talk about draft dodging.

Misleading wording

"After much debate, the Congress - which has sole power under the U.S. Constitution to regulate the armed forces - implemented the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy, stating that homosexual men and women may serve in the military as long as their sexuality is kept secret. By 1999, Clinton said he didn't "think any serious person could say" that the policy was not "out of whack".[3]"

Reading this, I was surprised, so I went to the article sourced. The wikipedia article suggests that Clinton said that the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy is out of whack, but that's not what the article says at all. The article states that Clinton says the way its implemented "now" (in 1999) is out of whack, not the policy, and that he was calling for it to be implemented the way it was intended to when the policy was created. So the source nearly says the exact opposite of what the wikipedia article is saying here. Someone can either fix it to be worded more accurately to the source, or dump the last sentence from the quote above all together, since its talking about Clinton's opinions 7 years ago about the way things were run 7 years ago, and I'm assuming at least the latter has changed since then, if not Clinton's opinions as well. This part is also written into the section about Clinton's first term, so referencing 1999 events and quotes there doesn't make much sense anyway (particularly when the quote is used in context and you see he's not talking about the policy itself).

Link to article sourced above - http://archives.cnn.com/1999/ALLPOLITICS/stories/12/11/clinton.gays.military/index.html - just reading the first two paragraphs shows how Clinton's quotes are taken out of context.

Funkadillo 12:53, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

If it's wrong then please fix it! --ElKevbo 17:14, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Guess I became a little gunshy after having good changes reverted for little to no reason recently. Funkadillo 22:12, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I went ahead and made an edit to the article, trying to make it more in line with the intent of the cited material. Let me know what you think of it! Stealthound 23:08, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Much better. Funkadillo 03:57, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

As well as being misleading the statement was false in that it stated that Congress has the sole power to regulate the armed forces, that is incorrect, Executive Orders may also be used to regulate the armed forces.Michorn 02:41, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Fox News Section POV?

It seems as though an anti-clinton bias resonates through the Fox News Chris Wallace Interview section. I remember a 9/11 commision member come on FOX News right have the interview and actually certify everything Clinton said.

I agree. As for the 9/11 commision guy i wasnt watching ive only seen excerpts.

Bin Ladin/Wikipedia Bias

I count 42 mentions of Bin Laden in this article. By contrast, the main article on Bush has a grand total of TWO mentions of Bin Laden. (In fact, the main article on Bush had ZERO mentions of Bin Laden until I recently raised this issue myself in the "Discussion" area). I find this incredible. If you read the 2 articles, you pretty much get the sense that the fact that Bin Laden remains a free man today is entirely due to Clinton. I've seen a lot of pro-GOP bias over the years on Wikpedia, but this issue sets a new low for this "reference" resource.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.86.120.67 (talk • contribs) 14:09, October 30, 2006

Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. --ElKevbo 19:35, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

IMHO this is entirely on-target. Clinton deserves all the mentions of Bin Laden he gets. He passed on catching him, allowing 9/11 to happen. I'm not saying Bush doesn't deserve any mentions, as it definitely happened during his tenure. Clinton gets the blame, though. --andrew leahey 21:19, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Typical NeoCon distorted view of history. Clinton gets all the blame for Bin Laden and 9/11 and Bush (of course) is totally blameless. Never mind the fact that Bush spent an astounding 42 percent of his time in office before 9/11 on vacation. Never mind that he rejected the Hart/Rudmann proposal for a Dept. of Homeland Security in Feb. 2001 (the establishment of which would have almost certainly prevented 9/11). Never mind the fact that Bush took zero action after he received the "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S." PDB on Aug. 6, 2001. NeoCons truly live in a fantasy world: a world in which Clinton conspired to murder Vince Foster and Kerry conspired with the U.S. Navy to receive a Silver Star and Bronze Star he didn't really deserve. I guess I don't blame NeoCons for worshipping their hero Bush and re-writing history to smear the Dems. However, I did expect better of Wikipedia, a site that (hilariously) claims to be an impartial reference source.

This is also an apples to oranges comparison - there are many more sub-articles on GWB (such as the Public Perception article, for which there is no corresponding Clinton article). A direct comparison may not be the best gauge of Wikipedia's 'bias'. Dubc0724 21:31, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

To define someones view, even when it is the truth, as 'typically NeoCon' is typically liberal. --andrew leahey 01:12, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

This is not a soapbox, the guy who started this needs to register and the guy who called someone a "neo-con" needs to sign his posts. Whether or not who is to blame anything significant should be added or kept Drew1369 20:29, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I love the Wikicrat roadblock that's been thrown up, "you need to create an account before..." What a joke. The guy made a startling observation and no one has been able to provide and cogent explaination or a solution. --Haizum 07:25, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Campaigning

Does anyone want to put into the article that Bill Clinton has been campaigning for the Democratic Senate candidates in states such as Tennessee, New Jersey, et. al. during the midterms in order to keep the article current? Bearly541 talk 01:27, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Presidency

This article seems to read very strangely to me. The section on his presidency (presumably the most important info about him) is nothing but a link to the main page on his presidency. This has the effect of making the whole article about almost everything except his presidency. Granted I wouldn't expect the Presidency section to in this article to be complete but I don't expect it to be empty. If anything I would expect it to see a summary that occupied at least, say, 20% of the article. The way this is organized makes it look like he was a joke as a president and it is only the other parts of his life that were interesting. --Mcorazao 05:48, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I think we do need a summary, with the link at the top of it, but it should not occupy 20% of the article. Supertigerman 17:41, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Colors/Decorations

I haven't visited presidents' pages in a while, but I remember a time in which there were colors red/blue at the top of the infoboxes. Why was this removed? I seem to remember that they enhanced the page. Supertigerman 17:41, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Gay Marriage/Matthew Sheppard

Should someone put his views on homosexuality? He "sed a tear over the death of Matthew Shapard." Then not long after aggresssively disaproevd of gay marriage (to the point of being red in the face). 06:43, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

His early life

The young Billy, as he was called, was raised by his mother and stepfather, assuming his last name "Clinton" throughout elementary school but not formally changing it until he was 14. Clinton grew up in a traditional, albeit blended, family; however, according to Clinton, his stepfather was a gambler and an alcoholic who regularly abused Clinton's mother and sometimes Clinton's half-brother Roger, Jr.

Does this mean that Clinton exaggerated his claims about his stepfather being an alcoholic? This paragraph makes him sound like a liar. Clarification? mirageinred 22:27, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

why no "Bill"?

Seeing as he has been using the name for most of his life and it is the name by which most people know him, why is it not more prominent? Hazydan 08:27, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

It's the name of the article, and appears some two dozen times in the article. How might it be made more prominent? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 14:27, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking of the opening paragraph, infofox title, that sort of thing, but in the end I guess it doesn't much matter. Hazydan 18:21, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Order of Precedence Entry

The article says that Bill Clinton came after George HW Bush but was succeeded by Condi Rice in the "Order Of Precedence". I don't get it. Didn't George W Bush follow Clinton in that list? 24.106.192.66 21:02, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

No, this has to do with the symbolic "Order of Precedence", not the order of holding the office of President. Someone already corrected it, though; Condoleezza Rice comes after Clinton, but between them are US Ambassadors.

Dealing with Bush's "No New Taxes" pledge

I think the portion that says that President Bush reneged about raising taxes needs to be changed. Techinically he did not create a new tax and according to a PBS program he did tell the truth. He raised an existing tax and did not create a new tax. The reason it hurt him was not because people felt that he lied, but rather they felt it was done in in the shadow of politics. In other words he did it behind the people's back. I don't know the word reneged seems to imply that he lied, but in fact he did not. It could use rewording in that area. I know it's a very small detail, but I think for the integrity of keeping wikipedia as academic as possible these small details are important.

(I moved this to its own area since someone added it to my Order Of Precedence section) 24.106.192.66 19:44, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

--> Bonus: Clinton promised not to raise taxes in the 1992 election and ended up doing so before his first year in office was out.

NO Discussion on any presidential accomplishments

The entire article on his presidency is Clinton's supposed scandals. This article has been hijacked by GOP morons--look at the discussions "losing law license, bombing Sudan" He oversaw the largest economic boom and consecutive years of growth in AMerican history. This article does a disservice to wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.254.193.190 (talk • contribs) 13:09, November 14, 2006

Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. --ElKevbo 05:10, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

In the matter of legislation, the Clinton era's lasting effect not worth writing about, at least not in Wiki, the only thing I can think of is Clinton's 'Bridge to the 21st Century', for what it's worth, there is no Wiki article about it. What little Clinton did, was composed of, meaningless-in-the-long-run personal issues, meaningless-in-the-long-run budget mud fights with Congress, M.I.T.L.R. Middle East going in circles,and a just-passing-time foriegn policy, MITLR chasing Newt Gingritch out of town. Honerable mention to, Waco standoff, Oklahoma City bombing, WTC bombing, again marginal involvement by Clinton,just happened on his watch.CorvetteZ51 11:32, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree, this article reads like a National Enquirer article. If this is how people want this article to look then fine, but it seems like any intelligent person will see that this article says almost nothing about this president's presidency, and will likely interpret the reason for this as a strong bias against. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Molybdenumtop (talk • contribs)

There's just nothing to write about. For example, his first two years as president, were kinda shakey. Then, Congress flips, and his hands were largely tied. National security, Bin-Laden was known, but became much more of an issue after Clinton left office. To inply otherwise, would be dishonestCorvetteZ51 13:38, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

CorvetteZ51, this is a ludicrous argument. Even people that hate Bush (43) are going to want to put in his article that he implemented Faith-Based Initiatives, No Child Left Behind, and so on, whether they agree or disagree with those programs. For example, many Republicans might support NAFTA. At least put that in there, as well as the things they'd want to CONDEMN about him. It's irrational to not put his actual policy accomplishments in there, whether you like them or hate them.

Digital Millennium Copyright Act

I have to agree. Clinton passed the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998, which was the first significant amendment to the U.S. Copyright Act since 1976. It finally brought federal intellectual property (IP) law up to date with technology and -- for the first time in American history -- allowed recording-artists and sound-recording copyright owners to receive royalties for all digital public performances of their work. (For decades the Copyright Act only guaranteed an exclusive right to public performance to songwriters and their music publishers). The DMCA also provided certain protections to ISPs from claims of copyright infringement. I would certainly say that that kind of landmark legislation counts as a major accomplishment worth mentioning in more detail. It changed the entire legal landscape of digital consumer technologies from sound-recordings on one end to computer-software on the other. --Rkrause 05:42, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Antisocial Personality Disorder

I am a new user, however, I thought this section should be added. At the very least, the possibility ought to be entertained with all of the behavior he shows.

Clinton simply shows a lot of behavior indicitive of a sociopath - cheating on his wife, sexual promiscouity (to the extremes), manipulation (on a personal level, that is - most politicians are manipulative in a different sense) and charm and charisma. These are merely the things we are certain of. However, there are also allegations of rape, and anger outbursts. (Fox News Channel incident, other alleged anger outbursts of an extreme nature while in Arkansas.)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Kane635 (talk • contribs) 00:06, November 22, 2006

Got any reliable, verifiable evidence or is this original research and speculation? --ElKevbo 05:08, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Hahaha. You are so funny. mirageinred 21:45, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Dr. Drew Pinsky, board-certified physician and Addiction Medicine specialist, has said that he believes Clinton to be a sexual compulsive (sex addict). If I decide to cite this information you probably won't be laughing anymore. --Haizum 07:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

It is possible to find one board -certified doctor to make any claim, especially in politics, which does not change the utter absurdity and hilarity of claiming "sex addiction" soley on the basis of an act of infidelity. It is one thing to condemn the infidelity, but to go further and make nonsense psycho-babble claims like that is just infantile.--Supersexyspacemonkey 17:00, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Agree with Supersexyspacemonkey. Also, I have read of and even spoken to several psychologists who say that George W. Bush shows evidence of narcissism to the extreme, alcoholism that still impacts behavior, deteriorating mental capacity, sociopathic behavior in his apparent disregard for human life (namely Iraqi) and quality of life (namely American). All of this much worse, not to mention more relevant to our lives, than a sex addiction. I suspect you wouldn't be doing much laughing if I cited some of this in his article. Right? Hazydan 00:30, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Is this a fallacy contest?

The first comment reads: "One doctor can be wrong, therefore all of them are wrong, specifically the one you mentioned. I am unable to properly rebut, therefore I will personally attack you."
The second comment reads: "This one person did something, but this other person did something, therefore the first person did not do anything because you don't want me to mention what the second person did. I also want to include Bush content in a Clinton article."

I just vanquished you both. Please direct fallacious comments elsewhere. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 05:59, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

(you didn't rebut anything I stated) --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 06:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Please stop baiting the editors on this page. Jasper23 06:09, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Please stop making false accusations of trolling whilst ignoring personal attacks and disruptive, fallacious comments. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 06:21, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I didn't accuse you of trolling, but you are baiting the other editors.Jasper23 06:38, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

See baiting. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 06:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Much to your dismay, Haizum, I'm still laughing. mirageinred 00:23, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

That's because you're easily amused. *peek-a-boo* --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 00:27, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Anal-Oral Contact

As part of a greater psychological profile of Clinton in support of recent discussion regarding his mental health, I think it is relevant to present the following:

Clinton engaged in anal-oral contact multiple times with Lewinsky according to the Starr Report as sourced here[1], here[2] and here[3]. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 23:27, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Appears to be a valid source that this happened according to Lewinsky (thomas.loc.gov seems to check out). I don't think this says anything about his mental health, although it does provide some more detail into his sexual tastes. --h2g2bob 01:01, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

It would in fact suggest sexual addiction via the degree of deviance despite the location (anal-oral contact in the Oval Office). --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 01:51, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Any kind of sexual "deviance" (if indeed that it be) is utterly trivial and, unless illegal, is entirely subjective, and is a completely, totally, and utterly irrelevant and inapropriate topic of conversation in a biographical article. This section is as relevant, as tasteful, and as useful to the reader as telling how many times the president wipes his rear after defecating, and with how many squares, or describing in detail the First Lady's hygenic practices involving her menstrual cycle. In other words, it might be factually correct or incorrect, but to discuss it for an article is disgusting, sensational, and perverse. Not only that, why did you not just include this info in the above section which already covers it? Because you got a thrill from using the title "Anal-oral" contact. Please grow up.--Supersexyspacemonkey 17:10, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I'll echo "supersexyspacemonkey"'s sentiments above--this sort of sensationalist nonsense is inappropriate for the primary article on a former president; as one user noted above, the article in its current form already gives undue weight to the Lewinsky scandal, while the entirety of Clinton's presidency is relegated to one paragraph (making it "read like a National Enquirer article" as another user noted--I will note that both the presidency and the scandal have subsidiary articles). I encountered this article for the first time recently, and was appalled by its lack of perspective. I'll see if I can clean it up a bit in a few days. Traumerei 18:03, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Addiction is when behaviors progress in the face of consequences. Repeatedly engaging in high-risk sexual activity in the Oval Office, one of the most closely guarded places in the country, screams sexual addiction. You can whine all you want about the article not showering Clinton with praise, but the fact that at the time the highest elected official in the United States was a sex addict is entirely notable. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 05:53, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Please stop baiting the editors on this page. Jasper23 06:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

False accusations of trolling are personal attacks. I've made a valid, and logical case for sexual addiction as part of a greater psychological profile. Step off of your pedestal please. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 06:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Lay off the agro juice. Jasper23 06:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Post Nominal letters use

Clinton has been created a Grand Companion of the Order of Logohu[4] which carries the post nominal letters GCL. Should the letters be added to his name at the top of the article of not. Hossen27 12:20, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

1996 Election

There seems to be no mention of the 1996 Presidential election, except for the China scandal. Bob Dole's name isn't even included. Jpers36 15:05, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Judicial Appointments

The people who have written and maintained this page are doing such a great job that I don't want to tamper with it, so might I suggest a list of judicial appointments? I will volunteer to do it if the suggestion meets general approval. --Ashley Rovira 20:35, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I think that would be a good addition to the Clinton Administration article, right under Supreme Court Appointments. Jasper23 21:00, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Jasper! I started the Circuit and District appointment lists on the Clinton Administration page. I am not having much luck finding District ones, but I found lots of Circuit appointments. Unfortunately, the District appointments don't get as much print, apparently. But I knew Tucker Melancon so it was a good place to start. --Ashley Rovira 01:35, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Rhodes Scholar?

The article isn't entirely clear about how Clinton was a Rhodes Scholar. He won the scholarship, and attended Oxford, but did he graduate? If he didn't graduate, is he still a Rhodes Scholar? I'm not even clear on how the scholarship works, despite consulting the Wikipedia and Oxford. I only bring it up because people have told me Clinton didn't finish. 70.66.9.162

Clinton attended Oxford for the first year as he was a Rhodes Scholar, but his time in the program was cut short due to his being drafted and being forced to come home, at which point he enrolled in Law School and joined the ROTC program at the University of Arkansas.

As I understand it he was not forced to come home but chose to do so. He was told that if he stayed at Oxford through his doctorate he would be considered for a faculty position but did not find this compelling. I cannot remember where I learned this unfortunately, but I am certain some searching could source it.

== Good Point == Mr Clinton DIDN'T finish the Rhodes program, a two year course of study in England. Notable graduates of the Rhodes program include Senator Russell Feingold (D-WI) and General (Ret) Wesley Clark, who DID graduate. Engineer1234 20:15, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Rhodes Scholar is a scholarship to attend Oxford. To be described as a Rhodes Scholar requires that you receive the scholarship. If you use the scholarship to graduate from Oxford, then I suppose you can call yourself an Oxford Alumnus, but that's not in the article. Orangemarlin 17:45, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Consistency

There can't be a summary of the entire Clinton presidency and then a couple of paragraphs on the controversies! It's not consistent; surely the Clinton policies deserve a paragraph summary if the controversies do...either the Clinton presidency part should be (concisely) expanded, or the controversy part should be further summarized...Scholarus 03:40, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I completely agree. Jasper23 04:08, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

See Clinton Administration for some policies, though does not include all of stuff like the George Bush article does. Carpet9 04:13, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Even if there is a separate article for the Clinton administration, it doesn't mean a single paragraph summary in the main article is sufficient. Take a look at the article for Ronald Reagan for how it's supposed to work. Every president article except this one has a very sizable portion devoted to the presidency. The long lists from Clinton Administration doesn't belong here, but a lot of the content should definitely be placed back in the main article. KeL 20:18, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

It appears someone deleted the entire administration section back on November 1, 2006 due to an alleged discussion on this talk page. If no one disagrees, I will readd the removed text. On second thought, I will readd it without waiting for consensus. Regards, --Jayzel 21:11, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for researching and restoring the deleted content. It appears that the content was deleted on Nov. 1 as you say, but it was done via a "minor" edit with no edit summary by User:Rougher07; unsurprisingly, that user has an infobox stating that he "supports G.W. Bush"; coupled with the stealthy nature of the edit, it was almost certainly partisan. I do believe that the section on the administration could use lots of improvement (some users have already noted the judicial nominations elsewhere). Possible subjects include his role in the largest deficit reduction plan in US history, the downsizing of the federal bureaucracy per the National Performance Review plan (making it, I believe, the smallest government since the Kennedy era), environmental initiatives, direct student loans and other educational programs, the Haiti issue, and many others. Traumerei 01:38, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Opps, you're right. I was looking one person down. It wasnRougher07 on November 2. If you feel other things should be mentioned in the article, go ahead and add them. That's what Wikipedia is here for. Just make sure anything controversial, anything with specific numbers, or any quotes are properly cited with a reputable reference. Regards, --Jayzel 02:16, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Fulbright Prize

I added the comment that Clinton won the 2005 Fulbright Prize awarded by the Fulbright Association in the "Honors and accolades" section. I would also like to add that I wish that a more politically balanced article on Clinton could appear here. The current article seems to me to be excessively dominated by right wing writers trying to score political points, with little regard for history. The same can be said about articles on other recent political figures. (And I don't mean to leave the left wing writers off the hook with regard to some of these.) It is this sort of thing that increasingly causes me to doubt the usefulness of the Wikipedia project with regard to recent history and political science. Jay Gregg 17:18, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

What specific recommendations do you have to improve the article? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 04:06, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I have just reread the article and wonder if it is the same article that I read last week! I hearby retract my statement above concerning unbalance in this article. Typically, I have not been contributing edits to articles that pretain to political science, restricting myself more to science (indeed, I have little time to contribute in that area). However, being a member of the Fulbright Association I did want to credit Clinton with what I believe to be a well deserved Fulbright Prize. Jay Gregg 17:25, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

NPOV Tag

Who put the NPOV tag up? You didn't specify what your claim is. Was it just the missing Presidential Administration info? If so it has been readded. Please remove the tag if that was the issue. If no one responds within a week, I will remove the tag myself. Regards, --Jayzel 02:18, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Is it fair to keep an NPOV tag up when not a single person has started or engaged in discussing the reasons for the NPOV tag? I'm removing it. Why wait a week. Orangemarlin 17:40, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Admiration for Communists in "My Life" (And More)

Non-article-related political discussion moved to User talk:66.170.192.250. --ElKevbo 21:50, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks :) Orangemarlin 22:17, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

So much for facts. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 05:47, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Siblings?

No mention of his siblings or links? Needs revision. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.206.165.61 (talk) 03:41, 15 January 2007 (UTC).

Irish connection

Bill Clinton's good work with regard to the Northern Irish Peace Process seems to be omitted. On a less positive note, there is no mention of his purported Irish ancestry. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bill Tegner (talk • contribs) 22:54, 20 January 2007 (UTC).

Protection

This article needs to be protected. It's on my watchlist, and I swear there are multiple vandalisms and reverts per each day. If I don't catch it several others do. Most of the vandals are unregistered users. So I suggest we protect this page from immature children vandals. Orangemarlin 18:13, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes I think so too - I count 20+ in the last couple of days - and I did request it late last night(see above: "Requested semi-protection be reinstated; heavy and ongoing IP vandalism again. Tvoz | talk 08:28, 23 January 2007 (UTC)") but it was inexplicably denied. I've asked another admin to review. Tvoz | talk 20:36, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Denied? It must not be that important. If you make another request and need support, leave a message on my talk page. Orangemarlin 22:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, it was approved, but who puts in the template? This is so complicated!!!! Orangemarlin 23:22, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

It's in already - the admin used sprotected2 which is the one I would have used too - it gives the little lock on the top of the page without having the more obtrusive banner. When IP or new accts try to edit they are blocked, and I think it says so on the edit screen itself. Tvoz | talk 23:29, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Cute little lock. It's so unobtrusive, I didn't even notice it. I like the big banners that say, "go away you immature trolls." Orangemarlin 00:05, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Chappaqua

Somewhere in the article there should be a mention of the clintons choosing to live in Chappaqua, New York, and it should also be mentioned that town is the 43rd wealthiest town in the country with more than 1,000 homes. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.118.112.119 (talk • contribs) 05:18, 24 January 2007 (UTC).

Perhaps their Chappaqua home should be mentioned - if it fits somewhere and is relevant - but that last part seems rather unnecessary and just a tad loaded to me Tvoz | talk 05:31, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

43rd wealthiest town???? Well, I live in the 122nd ranked city in number of Starbucks. I want that added to my page when I become a "notable" person. Anyways, I'm trying to figure out how that factoid was even slightly relevant. Orangemarlin 00:07, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry about it, IP is a blatant vandal on most articles he deals with.-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 05:10, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Position on guns

Should we add Clinton's contradictory position on guns? He supported the Brady Bill saying "This is too important an issue to be decided by strong-arm lobbying tactics in Washington,"[5] yet a massive shipment of Chinese guns and ammunition was approved for delivery into the United States by the administration four days before Wang Jun, the head of a major Chinese gun company, met Clinton at a White House fundraiser.[6][7]. --Jayzel 18:15, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

If you want to include every self-contradictory thing a politician has done, particularly relating to foreign policy, every politician's wikipedia article would be a gigabyte long. Plus, I think that what you are proposing here is essentially original research - taking two different articles, synthesizing them, and drawing a conclusion about a "self-contradictory" position he may or may not really have.--Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 23:57, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you DMZ. And how much you want to bet that Clinton didn't even know that the it was approved. The expectation that the President happens to know what is happening with each bureaucrat in the US Government is kind of ridiculous. Orangemarlin 00:04, 30 January 2007 (UTC)