Your categories are quite broad, but they do serve a purpose, and I do agree that Clinton is at least the most trash President. I don't think he was by any stretch the first (LBJ springs quickly to mind) but that's no matter.
I of course differ with your interpretation of Clinton's flaws and the reactions to him. I believe that his flaws are incredibly dangerous and harmful and have led to his being the worst presidency at least of the 20th century, and that the negative reactions to him are wholly justified while the positive ones misguided. He does have an agenda, but it's not an agenda in the sense that, say, Reagan or Carter had agendas. You labelled Carter a roller, I assume that Reagan would be one too. Their agendas were all wrapped up in their values and their perceptions of the world, and they did actively pursue them. But Clinton's agenda is, in many respects, far more threatening. His agenda is solely and completely the aggrandizement of Bill Clinton. His policies have mostly been weakly introduced and pursued because he doesn't particularly believe in them. The only thing that matters to him is getting elected. His entire life has been devoted to the pursuit of elected office, with the eventual goal of the presidency.
You imply that he doesn't care enough about money to commit treasonous acts, and to a point I agree with you. I would assume that personally, Bill Clinton doesn't care that much how much money he has, and that it genuinely isn't that important to him. However, in the modern world at least, money equals votes, and Bill Clinton would sell his own mother for votes. Note that the apparently illegal contributions didn't go to Bill Clinton, they went to his campaign. The money in question wasn't for him, it was for the campaign. For votes. For the only thing that really matters to Clinton.
-BLT |
