ANSWERS: 35
  • Don't know... we should ask Monica... (sorry... I'm halfway through a bottle of cheap champagne)
  • He/BC was better with the media and inherited a good economy. He accomplished very little, for which I am grateful. The government which governs least, governs best! Feel free to list Bills personal accomplishments..............
  • Only time will tell.
  • You may be correct. The US is quite vulnerable right now. A confident charismatic president could either a) pull the country together or b)set the stage for a dictator that will break this nation beyond hope of recovery.
  • from a non American looking in, most definately!!
  • I feel that Clinton averaged about even with Bush 41 Both had their strengths and weaknesses. As for W, I feel that he is at best ineffective. Him and his administration have dropped the ball on SO many things that we would be better off with JFK... AFTER his assassination! Half a brain and 4 decades of decomposition and he'd probably still make better policy decisions.
  • Yes. Clinton was a much better President than ANY bush could hope to be.ALthough making it to the Whitehouse almost demands unethical standards from any candidate, I think Clinton, eve thoug surrounded my mysterious muders and unexplained deaths, was not out to rob and murder Americans to "avenge" the attempted assination of his dad. none of the Bushes should be allowed to run again, as their campaign practices are undoubtably questionable and underhanded.
  • Im from England - so looking from the outside. I dont remember having any issues with George Bush senior. I thought he was a good leader. I thought Clinton was great. He had Charisma but that doesnt make him a better leader then Bush Senior. I will let everyone else decide between those two. I find George Bush junior stance on global warming - just unbelievable and because of that I beleive he has contributed to immense damage to the world. His lack of political awareness in not getting UN backing to take on Iraq and the reasons he gave for gonig to war. (I dont disagree with the war itself - I am glad that Saddam has gone). I will give him credit for accepting that there is a mess and the US and us in the UK will have to stay around to clear it up. So :- Bush Senior Good Clinton Great Bush Junior - Grrrrr
  • Yes, and there's even a saying about this and Monica Lewinski: A bird in Bill's hand is worth more than two Bushes. Bush senior was perhaps unfortunate to come after Reagan, who presided over the end of the Soviet era, and so become the first truly peacetime president for a long while. He was quite restrained in the first Gulf conflict, and made the right choices. Bill Clinton oversaw an expanding economy and served his term very well, but Bush junior has removed a great deal of American goodwill from the world. This maybe doesn't bother you just now, but it is change in fortunes to have a country that appears imperialistic and greedy, instead of the friendly ally that was previously portrayed. I think Bush senior was alright, but his son is an embarassment.
  • She sure was, and she will be again soon hopefully.
  • The old Bush was ok but the current Bush screwed him up so Clinton would be better!
  • I can say with much gusto that Clinton is 10 times better than both Bushes.Clinton lies about Lewinski,no one was hurt.Bush lies about Iraq and over 3000 are dead.Who is worse.
  • Oh hell yes. I'm a Republican and that's a no-brainer even for me.
  • Since Clinton was elected when I was four years old, I don't really remember much about George Bush, but Clinton was definately a better president than George W. Bush. During Clinton's presidency is the only time in a few decades that our country wasn't in a deficit. Even though Clinton had an affair and lied about it, he was still a good president.
  • Not at all. He was a loser.
  • He was better at bombing aspirin factories, pardoning terrorists and degrading the oval office.
  • Yes, I pretty much believe so. Both, father and son presidency has been mediocre at the best. Think about it, even after they impeached Clinton, he still had a much better approval rating than both father and son Bush.
  • YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! What he did to the interns has nothing to do with what kind of president he was! I hate both Bushes. and the current deserves a swift kick so maybe he'll pull his head out of his ass. Sorry
  • Monica.., Your response?
  • No he wasn't. He failed just as miserably as the other two.
  • Everyone knows the answer to that. Of course he was. I hope Mrs. Clinton doesn't screw us over like Bush.
  • Bill Clinton was never the president. Hillary was the president, Bill just sat in the chair.
  • The only contribution I can remember from the Clinton days is he shrunk our Military way down and closed a bunch of bases.We are still fighting to get our Military numbers back up. I cannot remember any great accomplishments that happened when Clinton was President, He just kind of went with the flow.Oh yeah I almost forgot about NAFTA...someone should be shot for that.
  • absolutely! actually, almost any president is better than Dubya in my opinion. even Republicans are turning their backs on him and his shambles of an administration.
  • slightly
  • NO, since neither Bush was impeached liked CLinton, nor did they have such a lame foreign policy as to do nothing about anything, like Clinton. His idea of Foreign policy was what foreign objects he could stick in various places, like cigars!
  • No , he wad a loser from the begining.With janet rhind running around killing everything, His spouce messing up Health care ,Destroying our ability to gather intelligence.Travel gate Brady bill, & on & on .He fit his nick name Bubba.
  • Like it has already been said, a no-brainer. But,... It depends on what Bushes you're talking about.LOL
  • People vote for what the government can do for me. instead of what I can do for America, myself and my neighboor. Our founding fathers never intended for the government to get this big and have more control than the people do. People need to search for the fact, the truth. All people care about today is Themselves. Money, money, money. Want, want, want. This country is falling and people want to make it worse by voting for a socialist. Nine months prior to the 1996 presidential election, Bill Clinton's Council of Economic Advisers cheerfully reported that the "American economy has performed exceptionally well over the past 3 years." While that may not surprise you, you may however be surprised to learn that President George W. Bush's economic record is, in many ways, better than the record Clinton ran on for reelection. Compared with the "exceptional" years of 1993, 1994, and 1995, the first three years of George W. Bush's presidency featured: lower inflation lower unemployment faster productivity growth faster labor compensation growth (i.e., wages and benefits) 29.4 percent ($6.9 trillion) more economic output 45 percent ($960 billion) more exports; and an economic growth rate 81.2 percent as fast as that under Clinton Considering the circumstances under which the U.S. economy has labored for the past few years, President Bush's record is all the more impressive. When George W. Bush moved into the White House, the economy was on the verge of recession. The largest stock market bubble in U.S. history had recently burst, exports were declining, manufacturing employment had been falling for half a year, and people were finding it harder and harder to find work. And that was before 9/11, the war on terror, and the revelations of the corporate-governance scandals that grew out of the late 1990s. The tax cuts President Bush signed into law helped alleviate the impact of these economic shocks and kept millions of Americans working who would have otherwise lost their jobs. Consequently, the unemployment rate peaked in June 2003 at 6.3 percent, compared with peaks of 7.8 percent and 10.8 percent during the previous two recessions. With the U.S. economy on the upswing, President Bush's critics are finding it increasingly difficult to disparage his economic record. But that won't stop them. Fortunately, as Aldous Huxley observed, "Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored." So what are the facts? Most private-sector forecasters expect the U.S. economy will grow faster this year (on an average annual basis) than in any year since 1984. For the third consecutive year, the U.S. economy is poised to grow faster than most other industrialized economies. France, Germany, and Japan, for instance, are not expected to grow even half as fast as the United States. Since the Bush administration began, non-farm productivity has increased at a 4.1 percent annual rate — the fastest pace for the start of any presidency since Harry S. Truman occupied the White House. The U.S. remains the world's largest exporter. In fact, during the first three years of the Bush administration, the U.S. exported more in real terms than it did during the Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, and Ford administrations combined. More single-family homes were sold in 2003 than in any other year on record. And the homeownership rate is at a record-high of 68.5 percent — a full percentage point higher than during the fourth quarter of 2000. At 5.6 percent, the national unemployment rate is now lower than the average unemployment rate of the 1970s, 1980s, and the 1990s. According to the Labor Department's household survey — the survey used to calculate the monthly unemployment rate — more Americans are working now than ever before. The payroll survey is also showing improvement: 112,000 new jobs were created in January and 366,000 jobs have been added over the last five months. While President Bush's economic record is arguably better than the record Bill Clinton ran on in 1996, this truth is frequently obscured by unrelenting partisan criticism based more on fancy than fact. But the fact remains that the United States boasts the world's largest and most vibrant economy. It will stay that way so long as we are guided by a trust in what President Bush calls "the power and possibilities of freedom."
  • As Clinton and his programs were directly responsible for the current banking fiasco and mortgage debacle, I'd have to say -- no. And as someone mentioned before...Clinton gave us NAFTA. For that alone he should be tarred and feathered.
  • I would say yes (were I had received a lobotomy recently yo...).

Copyright 2020, Wired Ivy, LLC

Answerbag | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy