Posted by President Bill Clinton will make his first appearance at a Democratic Party event since leaving office in 2001 when he comes to Birmingham, April 20, for the state party’s Jefferson-Jackson Celebration.
Details from the release:
“The Alabama Democratic Party is deeply honored and appreciative to President Clinton for giving us this opportunity to celebrate together, raise funds, and build our party infrastructure in order to help build a better Alabama,” Turnham said. “When President Clinton left office we were at relative peace in the world, our economy was strong and budget surpluses were projected for the next decade. Yet President Clinton’s work as a private citizen since leaving office is equally impressive as his Clinton Foundation has helped millions suffering in the HIV/AIDS epidemic through afforable drug availability in places like sub-Saharan-Africa. He also has joined with former President George H.W. Bush in raising funds worldwide to assist the tsunami-stricken people of Asia,” Turnham noted.
Other particulars are available online.
Random observation: Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan, the only presidents to complete two terms in my lifetime, have an interesting similarity to me in that were popular when they left office, remained so with avid supporters, yet also have fierce and fervent detractors.
Legislative Dispatch
Purple Dot Connection
2010 Big List
2010 Senate Elections
2010 House Elections
Press Releases
The similarity is superficial between Reagan and Clinton. Reagan will be remembered as one of the greatest presidents in American History because he dared to dream big and actually suceeded in achieving his dream – remember, in 1980 Ronald Reagan may very well have been the only leader in the Free World who truly believed that the Iron Curtain could fall and the Soviet Empire could cease to exist – ALL WITHIN A DECADE.
Cinton has no such accomplishments. Not even close. Not even remotely in the ballpark. End of discussion.
I suspected that we would hear from avid supporters and fierce detractors, I just didn’t know that we would get both in one comment and so quickly!
Both Presidents have many accomplishments to be proud of. Others may enjoy hashing those out.
I merely made the observation (that has stuck with me many years) that while the two were very popular (leaving office with the highest approval ratings of any post-WW II presidents, Clinton’s even higher than Reagan’s), they also had fervent and fierce detractors.
Thank you for helping to support my observation.
Name a single accomplishment of William Jefferson Clinton remotely comparable to the successful defeat of global communism.
I knew you couldn’t.
Hi friend,
What are you arguing about and who are you arguing with? Are you being argumentative because you are trying to refute something I have said? If so, what are you refuting?
Thank you,
Danny
:)
Here is my succinct point: Clintonistas routinely attempt to pass of Bill Clinton as a “success” in the White House because he managed to “remain popular.” Here’s a clue: Paris Hilton is popular, and for the exact same reason as Bill Clinton. Bill Clinton is a CELEBRITY. Ronald Reagan was an accomplished WORLD LEADER. The confusion in what is truly meritorious achioevement and what is reality TV is a defining characteristic of the 21st century in America.
I never cease to be amazed as the Right’s almost pathological efforts to deify Reagan. The truth
is that he presided over one of the most corrupt administrations ever to hold power. By the end of
his presidency, 138 Reagan administration officials had been convicted, indicted, or had been the subject of official investigations for official misconduct and/or criminal violations. Reagan’s ignorance and contempt for environmental regulation led to the appointment at EPA of dishonest and incompetent people who coddled polluters instead of controlling them. Dozens of Regan’s appointees were forced to resign in disgrace, after criminal and congressional investigations, and several went to prison. Other scandals included the savings and loan scandal and the looting of HUD, where
Regan’s Secretary Sam Pierce became the first cabinet official to take the Fifth Amendment since
the Teapot Dome scandal. Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger faced federal felony charges stemming from his role in the sale of weapons to Iran to finance secret, illegal aid to the Nicaragua Contras, until he was pardoned at the 11th hour by President George H.W. Bush.
Indeed, Reagan’s fanatical support of right-wing governments in Central America was one of the defining foreign policies of his administration, and the fact that death squads associated with
those governments have murdered tens of thousands of civilians certainly must be included in any calculation of Reagan’s successes and failures.
As far as the claim that Reagan “won the Cold War” and brought down the Soviet Union, there is considerable room for debate on that particular myth. George F. Kennan, former US ambassador to
the Soviet Union, and father of the theory of “containment” expressed the view shared by many historians: “The suggestion that any United States administration had the power to influence decisively the course of a tremendous domestic political upheaval in another great country on
another side of the globe is simply childish.” Kennan and others contend that Reagan’s extreme militarization of American policy strengthened hard-liners in the Soviet Union. “Thus the general effect of Cold War extremism was to delay rather than hasten the great change that overtook the
Soviet Union.”
Finally, despite claims to the contrary, Reagan was not nearly as popular with the public as the Reaganistas would want us to believe. His 52 percent average approval rating for his presidency places him sixth out of the past ten presidents, behind Kennedy (70 percent), Eisenhower (66 percent), George H.W. Bush (61 percent), Clinton (55 percent), and Johnson (55 percent). His popularity frequently dipped below 50 percent during his first term, plummeted to 46 percent during the Iran-Contra scandal, and never exceeded 68 percent.
Danny, I’m just as confused as you are. I can’t figure out for the life of me who this person is arguing with or what they’re arguing with. But if they want an argument, I can argue with at least one point.
As far as the “iron curtain” is concerned… If I’m not mistaken communism is still alive and kicking in the East. The USSR pretty much kicked its own fanny. Reagan just happened to be president at the time, so he gave a few speeches. Where’s the accomplishment in that?
That is not to say that Reagan had no accomplishments as a president. I can also think of Iran-Contra, cozying up to Saddam Hussein, and Osama’s early millitary training come to mind, though.
And yes, I can think of one particular Clinton accomplishment… Two words. Budget surplus.
The point… Nobody’s perfect and Clinton wasn’t all that bad. They just both inspired some very passionate emotions, good and bad.
Hell, at this point, I’d take either Reagan or Clinton over the moron we’ve got now, who will undoubtedly be judged among the very worst presidents this country has ever suffered through.
Washigton won the Revolution. Lincoln saved the Union. Reagan won the Cold war. The first two are the verdicts of history and the third is well on its way to being carved in stone as well.
Too bad, Reagan-bashers. The Gipper has beaten you again and never stopped smiling while doing it. That must really chafe you.
By the way, what accomplishment will Clinton hang his hat on?
The Gipper has beaten who? Me? At what?
“Again?” He beat me again? When? When did he beat me before?
I don’t really think of myself as a Reagan-basher, but you used the plural, so maybe you were addressing me.
I have to say that you are really having some kind of argument, but I can’t figure out who it is with or what it is about.
And no, I don’t feel chafed at all, but if it helps you in some way to imagine that I am, then feel free.
As for Clinton’s accomplishments, you can Google “Clinton accomplishments” and easily find some that any president would be proud to claim.
I highly suspect we may be dealing with a robot of some sort… That’s the only explaination I can think of. It’s like they just saw the words “Clinton” and “Reagan” and then started randomly posting stuff without even paying attention to or addressing anything else that was posted. Troll at best. Robot at worst.
Herbert Hoover had budget surpluses every year and FDR ran deficits. So I guess by your reasoning that makes Hoover the better president.
The judgement of hiostory will be that Reagan is in the front rank of presidents. He compares most closely to FDR, who also had a vision that he completed even though his myriad of opponents tended to focus in on the small flaws rather than the grand successes. Clinton will be relegated to the dustbin of popular overrated presidents such as JFK (yes, that IS the current historical opinion of Kennedy).