This is an archive of past discussions. 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.

Can someone please explain to me why it says that Clinton achieved a budget surplus, when the following table ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_U.S._public_debt) shows a costant increase in the Public Debt? Which of these is wrong? It can't be the second one, because it's the data taken from the U.S. Bureau of the Public Debt.

–– This actually isn't inconsistent. A "budget surplus" is when there is money left in the federal budget after allocating funds. The debt is the amount of money that has been borrowed, by way of treasury bonds, for example, over time. Both can co-exist, as odd as that may sound. In addition, the debt would continue to climb even if there is a surplus because of interest that must be paid. Mborrelli 00:43, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Clinton being the first Democrat elected to two tems since FDR is mentioned twice. At the end of the second paragraph and again almost immediately at the beginning of the fifth paragraph. Since the article is s-locked to prevent vandalism, (or so I gather from the discussions), it behooves someone with more authority than me to unlock it and clean it up a bit. IdioT.SavanT.i4 07:20 CDST 11 August 2006

Also, there is no need to say that the impeachment vote was "along party lines" and that "Newt Gingrich and Tom DeLay exercised tight party disclipline" This piece of information is unnecessary to the introduction.

I edited some content about the Richard Mellon Scape adversarial relationship with Clinton that dogged his career for 8 years and even after he left office. Many of the controversies raised during Clinton's term were a DIRECT result of the Scape Arkansas Project and to see any reference to Richard Mellon Scape's part in Clinton's troubles just "disappear" seems like a very "right-wing-view" sanitization of the Wikipedia. As the, arguably, most important adversary of Clinton for a lengthy portion of Clinton's political career, to obliterate any mention of this relationship comes close to censorship. R.M. Scape is one of two very large and looming forces at work in American politics in the early 21st century, the other being George Soros on the left. Their fingerprints, from behind the curtain, certainly draw analogies to the Wizard(s) of Oz. Please note that I did not vote for Clinton either time, being somewhat more conservative, but I have noticed an apparent right shifted bias developing in areas that touch upon politically related items in the Wikipedia lately - and "it ain't good" as they say.

This slow erosion of complete disclosure concerning what is stylized as "right wing leaning" viewpoints and the retention of those things which critisize "left wing leaning" viewpoints is subtle but steady - not just here, but across many places on the Wikipedia. While they make me smile sometimes, my inclination toward keeping Wikipedia neutral reins in my mirth.

I would encourage the group to rethink the neutrality of Wikipedia & work very hard to balance the influences on both sides to prevent any more of this "shading" of the Wikipedia.

I know it is very hard to remain absolutely objective but it is imperative that we do so in order to remain a respected source. To remain COMPLETELY factual without opinionated bias, it seems to me Wikipedia should error on the side of INclusion rather than EXclusion.

IdioT.SavanT.i4 06:51 CDST 11 August 2006

I personally like the ToC's new position. I am not sure if this is within Wikipedia's official policy, but I would be interested to know. I feel that it makes the page more accessable and professional.- PhattyFatt 14:32, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I have reverted the edit because the information presented was obviously biased. The text:

Ann Coulter, whose antagonistic relationship with Clinton goes back to the Paula Jones case, has publically criticized Clinton on numerous occassions. In July 2006, Coulter stated that she believed Clinton displayed behavior consistent with "latent homosexuality." She has also claimed that Clinton is a rapist and that he molested Monica Lewinsky.

has two main faults. The first sentence, presenting the antagonistic relationship, is acceptable. However, presenting Coulter's heavily biased opinions, which have no evidence to merit them, are simply unnecessary and biased. Presenting the idea that Clinton is a rapist, molestor, and latent homosexual is inappropriate to this article for so many reasons. - PhattyFatt 23:56, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

-- Even those of us with more conservative inclinations are somewhat ashamed of this woman, she is a rather tawdry excuse for sensible discussion. IdioT.SavanT.i4 06:57 CDST 11 August 2006

Note: 75.3.23.157 has added a link to an article by Ann Coulter to Bill Clinton, I believe in effect using this page as a sandbox. See my Talk page for discussion.

It is perfectly legal to report any facts from any source, including Infotrac. Facts can never be copyrighted --although the specific text that discusses the facts can be copyrighted, so Wiki editors should rephrase the facts in their own words. Be sure to include the proper footnote. Rjensen 12:33, 3 August 2006 (UTC) Hello there. I've got a school research database (which is accessable from my anywhere with a school password) that has plenty of information, pro and con, on Clinton. It has lots of poll data (once found), economic data, etc. I am hesitant to use it because it is a school database and am unsure if Wikipedia would accept a citation that no one can verify without a school password. If I give the password (which is easy to get anyways), can the database sue Wikipedia? Or if I cite from it?

I don't know, but here is the link to the database (no password provided, no warranty, etc. etc.) http://infotrac.galegroup.com/galenet/culp72437

Here is a copy of the terms of use. I'm assuming that I'm not allowed to use it here, because of this, but it can't hurt to ask, can it?

[1]: As far as poll data goes, I just added a comment to the article saying that such data takes up too much space. What he did and what people think of it are very different things to me. Another way of phrasing the copyright relates to finding the original source, especially if you can find another copy. 216.234.170.66 12:17, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Terms and Conditions

Copyright and Limitations on Use © 2005 Thomson Gale, a part of the Thomson Corporation. Thomson and Star Logo are trademarks and are registered trademarks used herein under license.

The information available on Thomson Gale products is the property of Thomson Gale or its licensors and is protected by copyright and other intellectual property laws. This site contains copyrighted material, trademarks and other proprietary information, including without limitation, text, software, photographs, video, graphics, trademarks, service marks, logos, designs, and music and sound (the "Content"), and such Content is protected under U.S. Copyright laws, U.S. Trademark laws as well as international copyright and trademark laws and treaties.

The subscribing institutes ("Customer") and their authorized users, may make a single print, non-electronic copy of a permitted portion of the content for personal, non-commercial, educational purposes only. Except as expressly provided for in the foregoing sentence, you may not modify, publish, transmit (including, but not limited to, by way of e-mail, facsimile or other electronic means), display, participate in the transfer or sale of, create derivative works based on, or in any other way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part without the prior written consent of Thomson Gale and (if applicable) its licensor.

In the event of any permitted copying, redistribution or publication of the Content, such use shall be for personal, non-commercial, educational use only and no changes in or deletion of author attribution, trademark legend or copyright notice shall be made. Nothing contained herein shall be construed as granting the subscribing institute and its authorized users or any third party any interest in or to the Content. All rights in and to the Content are expressly reserved by Thomson Gale and/or Thomson Gale's respective licensor.

Disclaimer of Warranties and Liability

This Agreement is personal to you and you may not assign your rights or obligations to anyone. If any provision of this Agreement is invalid or unenforceable under applicable law, the remaining provisions will continue in full force and effect. This Agreement, all intellectual property issues, and your rights and obligations shall be governed by the laws of the United States of America and the State of New York governing contracts wholly entered into and wholly performed within the State of New York.

This Agreement is subject to change at any time.

There is no reason not to bring W's and Clinton's pages closer to similarity. I understand that Wikipedia is liberal dominated, but calling an entire section 'right wing conspiracies' or some variation is taking it a bit far. Objectively speaking, there are many, many more conspiracies surrounding Bush, and none of them are dismissed outright on his page. I think Clinton was dodgy, and most people would agree, and even as a Conservative Christian, I'd say the same about W. But the pages should match, and not be so blatantly opinionated. I see from lack of discussion you've discredited yourself enough that Conservatives have given up. The classic open source solution.

My other suggestion is just to break the pardons paragraph off on it's own, maybe include a statement about his staff vandalizing the White House, and call it 'Last Day' or something.

68.81.77.76 22:16, 13 August 2006 (UTC)potential scandals that turn out to be a lot of smoke and mirrors should be labeled as such in comparison to scandals that turn out to be real. To use another example, you would want to differentiate the 'Swiftboat Veterans for Truth' scandal in the biography of John Kerry from the potential scandal about him molesting one of his coworkers that turned out to be a complete fabrication which both parties dismissed. They are two types of scandals.

And for the love of God keep these talk pages away from politics. It's okay to say "such and such section/phrase seems biased in the article" but useless to say things such as "but, hey, whatever, Wikipedia is run by liberals and liberals hate America and own the media and want to control our lives..." The more comments like that, the worse wikipedia's credibility. And the more annoying it becomes on these talk pages.

Objectively speaking, there was never any evidence produced that the alleged vandalism of the White House took place. In fact, the whole "scandal" was made up [2]. Weirdkid 03:37, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't like president Bush or Bill Clinton very much. However, the facts are the facts, and cannot be changed. I have been trying to get some negative facts on this page to contrast the rest of the article, which I feel is pro-Clinton. In my mind, and based upon all the facts that I have, the success or failure of Clinton as president revolves around economy vs. national security. The first he succeded (or at very worst, got lucky on, but I think he did well here), the second was a disasterous failure involving massive military cuts and a failure to kill Osama bin Laden even when he was exactly located. Wikipedia should report all the facts, positive or negative, and let the reader draw his conclusion. As for the military, the only real mention of it is the gays in the military issue (which pales in comparison with the 800,000 or so troops cut by Clinton as a matter of importance), and a reference to him deploying the military "hesitantly." Loco en el coco 21:22, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, after reading these two entries, I may have to reassess my self description of "conservative" LMAO

This sentence: "suffering 18 casualties (19 according to the film Black Hawk Down) and 73 wounded in the battle." seems incorrect, as wounding also counts as a casualty. Should we not say, "18 deaths" and "73 wounded"? 68.174.93.94 01:25, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

 No. Wounding is NOT a casualty. Keep your liberal politics out of this.

• Please mind WP:NPA. -- Buchanan-Hermit™.. CONTRIBS.. SPEAK!. 17:46, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Is too. See Casualty. -- jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 17:44, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

• Don't argue with me, mr. lib.

Uhhhh .... have a clue. The term 'casualties' refers to all those who are killed, wounded, or missing in action. Consult a dictionary.

You are correct; any injury suffered in combat IS a part of the casualty count. The injury need not be fatal, or even 'serious', to be counted.

68.81.77.76 22:23, 13 August 2006 (UTC)I say once these discussions degenerate into someone screaming about the evil nature of liberals/conservatives and how wikipedia is a tool for party x, the instigators should be banned. Seeing someone use terms like "Mr. Lib" on a talk page just makes wikipedia seem like a badly run message board. And, honestly, how hard is it to be civil on the internet?

In the absence of any discernable objective grounds for determining which facts are correct --the ones supplied by Democrats or the ones supplied by Republicans -- all we have left is war.

"Read the Bleeping Manual": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualty_%28person%29

By all means show both sides of the impeachment and controversies as long as the statements have reputable sources. Durova 17:06, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

There already is a separate article for the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy charge. Since it is better developed than the paragraph here, it would probably be a good idea to cut down the paragraph here to a couple sentences and a link to the other article. - Maximusveritas 00:25, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment The only problem I have with the "vast right wing conspiracy" section is the following statement: "Special Prosecutor Kenneth Starr's investigation covering an ever widening sphere of topics could well have ground to a halt without the support of public opinion buoyed by the these conservative efforts against Clinton." Is this the speculation of the author, or an opinion by someone in a position to make such a statement? If it is the latter, it should be reworded for clairity. If it is the former, it should be removed. Come to think of it, as a speculative statement, it should be removed regardless of who said it.-- Bayyoc 20:37, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

In this merge, [3], I left out the bit about Starr because that was already addressed earlier in the article. I did include the info about Pardongate. I tried to find information about the resolution of the investigation, but as far as I can tell it is still dragging on. Info in this link [4] suggests that the Bush administration is not interested in pursuing it. OhNo itsJamie ^Talk 18:54, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I noticed that Clinton is included in the cat "Multiracial Americans". I'm just curious as to where this comes from. I haven't heard of him having anything other than European roots, and at least according to current American understanding, people who are entirely of European descent are not considered "Multiracial". I'm mentioning it instead of being bold and changing it because it's a prominent article and I could be mistaken. Mak emi 03:36, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

The category addition was probably an act of vandalism. I noticed it yesterday, but I haven't bothered to look it up. Frankly, if he was multi-racial, I think it would have come up during one of the campaigns. Rklawton 03:38, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

[5]: Maybe it has something to do with Toni Morrison's honourary induction. 216.234.170.66 12:36, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I've sprotected, given this apparent threat to return and vandalize the article from multiple IP addresses. android 79 18:05, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism? I think it is nothing but political correctness. Here's the factual paragraph that I added but was deleted. Judge for yourself whether it helps the reader get a deeper understanding of Bill Clinton:

Numerous other allegations of infidelity and sexual misconduct have arisen. Dolly Kyle Browning, a real estate lawyer and Clinton high school classmate said she had an off-and-on-again romance with Mr. Clinton for 30 years. Sally Perdue, a former Miss Arkansas, said she had a four-month affair with him in 1983. Connie Hamzy, a self-proclaimed rock-and-roll groupie, said Mr. Clinton propositioned her in 1984 while she was sunbathing by a Little Rock hotel pool. Juanita Broaddrick, a gubernatorial campaign volunteer said Mr. Clinton raped her during a nursing-home-operators convention in Little Rock in April 1978. Bobbie Ann Williams, a one-time Little Rock prostitute said Mr. Clinton fathered a child by her when he was the governor of Arkansas. Eileen Wellstone said Mr. Clinton sexually assaulted her after she met him at a pub near Oxford University where Mr. Clinton was a student in 1969. Sandra Allen James, a former Washington, D.C., political fund-raiser said Mr. Clinton invited her to his hotel room during a 1991 campaign trip, pinned her against the wall and put his hand under her dress. Christy Zercher, an airline flight attendant on Mr. Clinton's 1992 campaign plane, said Mr. Clinton exposed himself and grabbed her breasts. Lencola Sullivan, a former Miss Arkansas and fourth runner-up in the Miss America pageant, said Clinton made unwanted sexual advances, as did Elizabeth Ward, a former Miss Arkansas and Miss America and Susie Whitacre, press aide to Mr. Clinton when he was governor.

Cite published sources for all of those. It is against Wikipedia policy to include unverified accusations made by a single person against a living person. It is only relevant if the subject has been convicted, admitted guilt, or the accusation has caused a public scandal. And by the way, "George Bush raped my pet dog". See how it feels?

Does anyone have any corroboration for the Pakistan Daily Times quote? It seems unlikely that if Clinton had "urged countries to convict the publishers", some other media would have picked that up; it's not like he travels in a vacuum, and it's not like he's unaware of the constitutional protections on free speech enjoyed in most of the Western world, in particular Denmark and France. -- jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 20:59, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I've been looking for that myself for the past 30 minutes and can't find anything. I think BBC Worldwide Monitoring might have it, but it seems to be a paid service and I don't have it. Mithridates 14:16, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I've pulled it. -- jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 17:23, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I found the source; it's here. Looks like they made a mistake when Clinton used the word 'conviction' - he was referring to religious convictions. Mithridates 11:44, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

"During his tenure as president, his domestic priorities included a failed effort to create a universal healthcare system (led by his wife), restrict handgun sales, strengthen environmental regulations, and protect the jobs of workers during pregnancy or medical emergency."

It sounds like everything mentioned in this sentence is "a failed effort." On top of that, why list the failed effort to create a universal healthcare system first? I certainly don't think it was his most prominent domestic priority.

Smedley Hirkum 22:21, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Good catch. That paragraph was actually changed on February 4th as part of a flawed POV edit by an anon, but wasn't caught until now. The original paragraph still started with healthcare and that's probably right since I do think it was a major part of his agenda (in the first term at least). I'll restore the original for now - Maximusveritas 00:03, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

i think now there may be a bit of vandalism with the first para -- Childzy 18:07, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Richard Nixon was impeached by the House of Representatives but resigned from office before the Senate could try him.

Is there any source for this? Frankly, I always thought this gesture originated with Bob Dole, who used it partially out of necessity, but to great effect. Mak emi 16:17, 9 March 2006 (UTC) Richard Nixon was impeached by the House of Representatives but resigned from office before the Senate could try him.

Where did you learn history?? Nixon resigned BEFORE impeachment.

[6]: Impeachment doesn't require being removed from office.

It means discredited. 216.234.170.66 12:51, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Bill clinton has been nominated to be the Commisioner of the NFL. Condeleeza rice turned it down so it moved to him. google it. -DamienVryce-

Until reading this article, I was unaware that Clinton's second term started a full two years before his election. Any reason not to merge the pre-election events under "Significant Events of the Second Term" to the first term? ColumbiaKid 07:59, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

[7]: I didn't notice that, and I just made all the dates ISO,

so maybe the problem's been fixed, and if it isn't, then maybe that'll help. 216.234.170.66 12:58, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

As a former Fulbright Scholar I was informed last week by the Fulbright Association (I am a member) that Clinton has been named the recipiant of the "J. William Fulbright Prize For International Understanding". Previous laureates include Nelson Mandela, Jimmy Carter, Colin Powell, and others. In my opinion this is a well deserved honor. Jay Gregg

1. Okay, I removed the three paragraph discussion of why Bush lost the 1992 election. That kind of detailed explanation belongs on the Bush page, not the Clinton page.

2. On impeachment, I added the fact that he was cleared of impeachment charges because no one could specify which line of testimony was perjurious - that is information is essential to understanding why impeachment failed.. If the prosecutor cannot point to a line of testimony and state definitively that it is perjury, then it becomes difficult to convict on perjury - which tends to be fairly black and white. That's what happened with Clinton. Neither Ken Starr, Lindsay Graham, or Henry Hyde when asked, could point to a single line of testimony that rose to the rigorous standards of perjury.

3. We did remain in Bosnia but under the auspices of the UN. I removed the link to the Fox article because it's an opinion piece, not a journalistic source and is, in point of fact, misleading.

4. Linda Tripp stated publicly that Kathleen Willey was lying about her encounter with Clinton and Willey was caught lying several times to Ken Starr. Juanita Broaderick's story was also suspect, and she would not tell her story under oath when given the chance. She did not hesitate to tell it in public though when she couldn't held legally accountable for it. An examination of news stories published at the time reveals that Clinton could not have been where she says he was when she says he was.

5. Lastly, I cleaned up the pardon section a bit. As with all Clinton scandals, there are good reasons why he wasn't charged, and while the allegations are present in this article, the reasons that no charges were pursued is lacking. Most people are unaware that Rich received a $100 million dollar find, and most are unaware of the year and a half gap between Denise Rich's last donation, and Rich's attorney's even discussing approaching her about pardoning Clinton. Roger Clinton had long since served his complete prison sentence, and all the pardon did was erase it from his record.

Smokingmaenad 23:17, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I see no reason for these removals. Clinton's 92 campaign was known for the sexual harassment allegations as well as the "did not inhale" incident. Removing these incidents is known as whitewashing. The three paragraphs about reasons for Clinton's victory are appropriate and neutral. I am not sure why you are claiming that it belongs on Bush's page, since it deals with Clinton's campaign techniques and his image when compared to Bush. It is not correct to remove these paragraphs completely. Rhobite 22:05, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

the 3 paragraphs about the reason for Clinton's victory are unsourced, and thus merely speculation on the part of wikipedia editors. maybe clinton won because people liked his politics. maybe bush lost because he was viewed as a "wimp". it's just inappropriate for us to present our opinions on the causes of victory, because that is simply not an objective fact. we can report the speculations and opinions of others, so long as they are properly sourced and notable. Derex 05:45, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Why Bush lost belongs on Bush's page. Clinton won - you don't need to offer up excuses for Bush's loss which is how it comes across. I removed Juanita's Broaderick's tale because she claimed under oath that it wasn't true. If you insist on adding it, then I suppose the fair thing to do is point out that when offered the chance to tell her story under oath where she could held legally accountable for what she did, she refused it. Kathleen Willey, of course, was caught lying numerous times by the Starr investigation.

Smokingmaenad 05:45, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Mdbrownmsw 20:48, 19 June 2006 (UTC)I am removing the statement that he "perjured himself". Perjury is a legal term. Since he was NOT convicted of perjury, we cannot say that he "perjured himself" any more than we can say OJ murdered. Additionally, perjury requires a specific site of "willful falsehood" (absent in the charge) and, per 18 USC, it must be a "material matter which he does not believe to be true". So, in addition to specifying the exact nature of the lie, they would need to prove that he knew it was a lie (which is tough) and that it (re cheating on his wife) was MATERIAL to the investigation in question (a bad land deal).

This article needles every detail of Bill Clinton's personal life and lawsuits against him. Contrary to the George Bush article, where even if you add a section on any lawsuit involving him is deleted... -- 216.233.171.165 22:01, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I completely disagree. The current (revision id 47159510) Bush article has entire sections on "Alcohol and drug abuse," "National Guard service," "Calls for impeachment," and "Measure to censure." The current Clinton article appears to be relatively fair and balanced, particularly given the controversial nature of the topic(s). I advocate removing the NPOV tag and await support from others before engaging in a potential (and pointless and ridiculous) revert war. If you have specific suggestions, they are welcome. Untrue blanket assertions are unhelpful and unwelcome. -- ElKevbo 22:28, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

The test of NPOV is not the presence of negative material, but how it is presented. Negative facts should be sourced, and negative opinions should be properly cited. -- Dhartung | Talk 12:08, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree. In my opinion, this article is political and biased against President William Clinton. Fix please MagnumSerpentine 9-7-6

I agree, this articel is very biased against him, unlike Bush whereby any hint of a lawsuit is dismissed, please revise.-- Chrisp7 11:28, 25 Spetember 2006 (UTC)

There is a tendency in the latest revision of this article to imply every word Clinton speaks as fact, esp in the section detailing the recent Fox News Interview, I would like to see a section evaluating those statements for actual truth value. IE: That he left a comprehensive anti-terrorism strategy. 74.227.235.142 04:20, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

• Well, if you can find such evaluations from verifiable reliable sources and can present them in a neutral fashion, please introduce them to the article. Certainly we aren't going to be doing our own evaluations here; that would be original research. -- jpgordon ^∇∆∇∆ 04:49, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

No mention is made of Clinton being a father. 68.46.148.238 21:20, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Au contraire. "Their only child, Chelsea, was born in 1980." Fsotrain09 18:19, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Clinton didn't know his biological father very well. Christopher Hitchens wrote in passing of a child that Bubba never knew. (No one left to lie to.) 216.234.170.66 13:11, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Alright, i pulled out a few of my Clinton books, and cleaned up that section slightly. I have more work to do on the actual impeachment paragraph as well.

I fleshed out why Willey and Broaderick's charges went nowhere - how Willey was caught lying numerous times to Starr and how Broaderick first stated under oath that Clinton had never made an unwelcome advance.

Roger Clinton was NOT serving a prison sentence when he was pardoned - that's a flat out lie.

With the Marc Rich paragragh, as with the Willey/Broaderick subject, the allegations were listed but there was no discussion as to why there were no further charges. I explained a bit more as to why the prosecutors did not file charges against Clinton as it related to Rich - namely, that Denise Rich had given her last donation a year before emails revealed that her attorney's even discussed asking her to lobby Clinton, and included that Dan Burton dropped his investigation after listening to taped conversations of Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak lobbying passionately on Rich's behalf for a pardon.

I'm going to spend some time over the next few weeks getting this section straightened out - there is a lot of mythology referenced without a lot of substance to clear things up. If we're going to have sections about scandals, then it must be dense and sourced as to the resolution and the reasons for the resolution. Simply saying that "no charges were filed" after listing directly what the accusation is, is unfair to a person who was never charged. If we know why no charges were filed, it's fair to both parties to list succintly what those reasons are.

Your obedient servant, Smokingmaenad 07:26, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Is there really a growing friendship with W or should that read HW?

It should be HW. Thanks for catching it. I went ahead and changed it - Maximusveritas 17:45, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

[8]: A picture is worth a hundred lies. 216.234.170.66 13:23, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what Clinton's ancestral origins are but the categories to which this article belongs seems to be continually growing. Someone knowlegable needs to keep an eye on this and editors need to make sure they're citing sources. And what the hell did one editor mean when he removed the "Irish American" category and wrote "Irish American = Catholic?" WTF? -- ElKevbo 01:18, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

It's been my understanding as an Irish Catholic American that most "Irish Protestants" are really Scots-Irish. In any case, the best course of action is pulling out a copy of My Life and finding out what he considers himself to be. Fsotrain09 01:48, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, I pulled out my copy and I'm not sure what he considers himself, but he does refer to Irish Americans in the third person as though they were a group to which he did not belong. - Maximusveritas 03:01, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

The term "Irish American" especially in politics is used to refer to members of the Irish Catholic community. That was not Bill (he has always been a southern baptist). Ethnicity and religion overlap in complex ways in the US. Rjensen 03:50, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

My Protestant grandparents would be quite miffed to know they're not considered Irish. Derex 06:00, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Bill Clintons' fathers' surname was Blythe, and he has a small amount of Gypsy Blood.

Since he was the 42nd pres. of the usa, does it make him a potential answer to life universe and everything?

I don't know. Ask Monica.

oh, that doughter of evil that is responsible for all bad around the world.

Has anyone noticed the percentage of changes to this article that are either a)vandalism, b)POV attacks and c)cleanup of a and b? Perhaps it is now time to protect this page in the way George W. Bush is protected? Kukin i 20:16, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

This article doesn't get quite the traffic Bush's does (it's the most edited page on Wikipedia) and I know many people including me watch the page to revert vandalism. Wikipedia aims to keep all articles open to editing unless it really is impossible to manage, and I don't think that's the stage we're at here. Harr o 5 21:50, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the response. Best, Kukin i 23:25, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

In all the president books I look in, it says he was a Rhodes scholar. What's a Rhodes scholar? Coby2 03:18, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

A student who wins a scholarship (as an undergraduate) to study at Oxford. The scholarship was endowed by Cecil Rhodes, hence the name. - Fsotrain09 04:12, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

See Rhodes Scholarship. Not just Americans, but British colonials and Germans. User:Zoe| ^(talk) 04:14, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

In looking up References for style and content for other pages, I came across this sentence. "Clinton deployed the U.S. military hesitantly several times under hostile circumstances" this seems to be a PPOV. Shouldn't it read something like 'Clinton deployed the U.S. military several times under his Presidency.' I could easily give argument against the Original statement on the page! Maybe give reference to police style deployment, Air Force strikes, And not large scale campaign to clarify.

This Page is well done! So much Wiki it boggles my mind-- MadDogCrog 11:33, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

so I made this minor change to be NPOV-- MadDogCrog 06:28, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Was his trip to VN ever discussed on this page?

It's noteworthy and encyclopedic.

Thanks! -- M a s 23:53, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

(massive snip)

Please don't describe original research into sexual misconduct here. WP:NOR

[9] 216.234.170.66 13:36, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

There is a trivia point that states that he had the highest approval rating since Reagan. I recall George H. W. Bush having an 89% approval rating around the Gulf War which was the highest until his son's 90% rating after 9/11. (Anonymous User) May 29, 2006

Yeah, good catch. I looked it up and it's not that he had the highest approval since Reagan, but that he had a higher approval than Reagan ever had. I don't think that's notable, so I'll just remove the sentence altogether. Maximusveritas 21:09, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

And even if it had been true, is it really noteworthy that Clinton had the highest approval rating since Reagan?There was only one (one-term) president between them. That's like saying "Kill Bill vol 2" is the best Tarantino movie since "Kill Bill vol. 1" Now, GWB having the lowest rating since whoever.... that might be more trivia-worthy. Dubc0724 17:52, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

GWB having the lowest approval rating since CNN did it's last poll...10 minutes ago. Haizum 20:11, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Overall, this article is very good. It looks like a candidate for a featured article. John 03:19, 30 May 2006 (UTC)6 (UTC)

[10]: If you think so, then put this at the top and follow all three links, plus the instructions. 216.234.170.66 13:42, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Seriously, this article needs alot of work. Jasper23 15:51, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Clinton was recently intervied by Frontline on his policy on AIDS. If anyone here is interested in adding some info from this interview on this article you can see the interview here.-- Jersey Devil 03:07, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea what I'm doing, but I just wanted to say that the picture of "Clinton's First Cabinet, 1993" is most clearly incorrect, as Madelaine Albright is standing on the left hand side of the picture. She wasn't appointed until 1997. Sorry if I'm not following protocol or anything, just thought I should say something (anonymous from 169.232.73.178)

By consensus, here on talk, several sub-articles were spun off about 1.5 years ago. The reason was that the "controversies" section was quite long and detailed relative to the rest of the article, which is inconsistent with the undue weight provision of the NPOV policy. The idea was not that the controversies should be censored. Rather, a full article allowed them to be explored in even greater depth for the interested reader. And, a summary here informed the typical reader about the issue, while wiki-linking to the full article. However, repeatedly, great detail ends up being added here for the controversies, sometimes to the extent that the treatment here is longer than the full article. This is human nature, and it's going to keep happening unless we draw the line on it.

Every so often, I have shortened some of the treatments here, consistent with the rationale for the sub-articles. I intended to reduce the "pardons" criticism to a couple sentences today, with a link to the sub-article. To put that in perspective, it's as long as "Investigation and impeachment" — and I surely no sane person would find them in any way comparable in gravity. One is a standard exercise of Constitutional authority, though criticized by some; the other is an effort to remove the president from office for the first time in history. However, I've decided to get a consensus here first. I think we should either merge and re-direct the various sub-articles on the controversies back here. Or, we should actually make it policy to use them, holding the coverage here to a reasonable summary that describes the basic issue briefly. Maybe consensus has changed on the sub-article idea, but I personally think that excessively detailed coverage here runs afoul of the undue weight provision. Derex 18:31, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

• I agree. I think the standard for sub-articles should be to keep the info limited to one or two paragraphs. The "other controversies" section is a mess. It should be trimmed, drasticly. I really don't think this needs consensus, however. As long as the gist remains I don't think anyone will complain if you just went and did it. The intro should be trimmed down to three paragraphs as well. Just my 2 cents.-- Jayzel 19:05, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

• On second glance, the "Friendship with George H.W. Bush" section can can be trimmed down to one paragraph too. And the "Public approval" section should not be more than two paragraph. Also, the accompanying graph needs to be reduced; many of copyrighted pictures should go due to overcrowding; the list of honors in the "Post-presidential career" section should be turned into prose. Then there is the overall lack of citations throughout the article. If your interested, Derex, and no one else objects, what do you say you and I work on this thing to get it up to featured status? -- Jayzel 19:13, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

• [11]: I'm thinking that this article has been under fire so many times that a version is out there with good things to say about all the scandals. Someone wanted a lot of ^{citation needed}s in a paragraph that just re-hashed earlier parts. Maybe they would be happy

to find nothing but links instead of details to to stories about Juanita Broadrick and Arkancide. 216.234.170.66 13:59, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

An AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Accusations of rape against United States presidents seems to be converging on a merge decision. That would involve moving the information into this article. 69.181.124.51 05:02, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[12]: The best kind of concensus is unanimity.

Those three votes in the beginning carry a lot of weight. 216.234.170.66 14:08, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I still to this day cannot understand why the public was so shocked at Bill Clinton's infidelities, when John F. Kennedy used to bang a different prostitute every single day when his wife was away. He admitted this himself, yet nobody seemed to care. Bill Clinton was a prude compared with JFK!

The resurgence of American puritanism/fundamentalism. After JFK, things were very soon completely different. Even take a look at the incredible hit Carter took when he said "I have lust in my heart", admitting a purely natural weakness, while having no sign whatsoever of actually being unfaithful. At the same time, post-JFK, the optimism of the early 60s was replaced with a (possibly Vietnam-caused) cynicism, protests rose to extreme and violent degrees, the civil rights movement really propelled forward, and those who are least able to sanely handle change in social structures (they call themselves conservatives, but really they are using that fairly noble title inappropriately) fought back strong and vocally. As all of us know, those who yell loudest, and donate most, get the most from government. The current administration is a perfect example of this reaction to the changes. -- Kickstart70- T- C 18:05, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Don't forget the media. The 1990s were pretty boring, so Clinton's white trash antics certainly made good copy... Dubc0724 17:50, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

The 1990s were far from boring. What about OJ Simpson? Davez621 08:25, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Ah, but you prove the point. The 90s were a " nightmare of peace and prosperity" that forced hungry newshounds to focus on celebrity scandals because there weren't enough real catastrophes to go around. Frankie

His infidelities were not nearly as frightening, and disturbing, as his lying under oath. A President lying under oath tells the American People that there is absolutely no need to take the courts, or our justice system seriously. For that, he deserved impeachment. -- andrew leahey 20:08, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Edits by Handface indicate that Ann Coulter asserts that Clinton is homosexual. This section is beyond absurd and I do not anticipate an edit war need ensure over it. But if you insist:

1. Sourcing the statement in the edit summary is insufficient. Please follow the citation style used in the rest of the article.
2. You have missed the point -- "criticism tends to be inflammatory" is not the issue. The issue is that filing "Clinton may be homosexual" under "criticism" is inflammatory -- i.e., the is inflammatory. At the least you need to find a different location in the article for this claim.
3. Ann Coulter is not an authority on Clinton. This specific criticism is useless in this article. It belongs in the Coulter article.
4. A statement by one individual is grossly incogruous with the other miscellaneous criticisms in this section. Please justify that this is a notable criticism of Clinton.
5. A statement on a topic by Coulter does not warrant its inclusion in the article on that topic. Coulter makes many statements every day. These are more usefully grouped into the article on Coulter.

Thanks. -- Ptkfgs 15:01, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Is Coulter an authority on Clinton's personal life? Why are her claims alone sufficient for verifying that Clinton has committed rape and molestation, and that he may be a homosexual? For what it's worth, you might want to start by answering some of the serious concerns noted at Ann_Coulter#Plagiarism_and_factual_accuracy -- Ptkfgs 02:37, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't need to do any of that. You just don't get it. I've never said Ann Coulter's comments were accurate. I only said that Ann Coulter said them. And for better or worse, Coulter is an important albeit annoying voice in politics. Handface 04:10, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I am not disputing whether she said them. I dispute that they are relevant to this article in any way. If I had a problem with their inclusion whatsoever, we'd be discussing this at Talk:Ann Coulter. Why are these claims sufficiently notable for inclusion in an article on Bill Clinton? Again: why are these claims sufficiently notable for inclusion in an article on Bill Clinton? -- Ptkfgs 04:13, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Handface has said why: "Coulter is an important ... voice in politics." If that is the case, it would seem to be a deficiency not to include her, although it should be made clear exactly what her position is and how she is regarded generally. In other words, from NPOV to give the facts so the reader can make up their own mind with as comprehensive an article as possible. Tyrenius 05:30, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Coulter has her own article and her opinions are best expressed there. Rjensen 06:02, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed -- these edits say something verifiable about Coulter, but very little about Clinton. That's why I have no dispute with them being included in Ann Coulter. As for being an important voice in politics — Coulter surely has a good grasp of contemporary American conservative positions, but even an important voice for those positions does not indicate sufficient authority to present claims about the personal life of a former president. Even a psychologist specializing in sexual behavior would not be in a position to make those claims given the amount and nature of Coulter's contact with Clinton. If her claims were of a policy-oriented nature it would be different, but as written I cannot see how the edit is anything but off-topic. -- Ptkfgs 06:17, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

So many criticisms by Ann Coulter, but the one handface focuses on is an alleged, un-Encyclopedic comment on homosexuality. is Wiki a blog of the National Inquirer ilk.-- MadDogCrog 10:58, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

People, we're having a parallel discussion at Talk:Ann_Coulter. -- kizzle 19:21, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

The foreign policy section looks like it has been written by Newt Gingrich. It is filled with bias, including the accusation that Clinton violated international law and the claim that documents relating to Rwanda "undermined Clinton's earlier defence of ignorance causing many to once again attack his lack of honesty." Those are just two examples but no matter where you look, the section is blantantly bias. I will try to sift through this mess a rewrite a section on foreign policy worthy of an encyclopedia. I will appreciate any help. Again, all you need to do is read the section to see the problem. Mtmdem 05:06, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I took a stab at some small rewordings. I've added a bunch of request for citations. Some of the statements there are somewhat controversial or just should be cited so the user can read more - since it requires some interpretation of events and such.-- FNV 13:55, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

All done - I added sources for the facts you requested. Mtmdem 16:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

It seems every other president from Eisenhower forward has some military experience listed. 149.55.30.100 16:51, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

• Yes, and? -- jpgordon ^∇∆∇∆ 17:03, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Clinton was the first baby boomer President and the first Democratic President to be re-elected since Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1944.

While this is true -- FDR was reelected in 1944, and in 1940 and in 1936 -- I think it misses the point, which is that Clinton was the first Democratic president to win a second term, which is pretty much all one can do these days. Perhaps it should say simply, "Clinton was the first Democratic president to win reelection since Franklin D. Roosevelt."

I've noticed quite a few recent changes to the infobox entry for Clinton's party affiliation. For what it's worth, any of the following variations will produce exactly the same output in the infobox (currently, an icon of the party logo and the word "Democrat" linked to United States Democratic party):

Democratic

Democratic Party

[[Democrat]]

[[United States Democratic Party|Democrat]]

[[Democratic Party (United States)|Democratic]]

[[Democratic Party (United States)|Democrat]]

I don't personally see much difference between printing "Democrat" or "Democratic", but either way, the place to discuss altering this should probably be Template_talk:Infobox_President (the discussion page of the template that generates the infobox). — ptk⁂ fgs 08:09, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I suspect it relates to the discussion about republican usage of the term "Democrat Party" - the idea being that "Democrat" has less positive connotation than "Democratic" - unfortunately, it's kind of a mess: Harry Truman, Al Gore and LBJ are "Democratic" whereas FDR, JFK and Clinton here are "Democrat" - in terms of english grammar, it seems to me it should be "Political Party: Democratic" since that's the name of the party. Assuming good faith, I can see why one might just say "Democrat" since these people are "Democrats" but their party is, properly "The Democratic Party"-- FNV 15:47, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Wiki is an encyclopedia that provides the consensus of experts regarding major acts of public figures. That makes it immune from libel suits. The provisions of WP:LIVING do not limit this kind of historical analysis. Of course, every editor has a POV when it comes to such a controversial and visible figure. Out goal should be to represent all major interpretations of his actions, whether these are favorable or not. As for the speech episode in 1988, all the experts agree that Clinton's speech was a disaster for him--as does Clinton himself, so it is not POV to point that out. Rjensen 22:13, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Please ensure that you cite these "experts [that] agree" so everyone can recognize and understand that you're citing their words and opinion and not your own. -- ElKevbo 22:16, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Looking at the scholarly books on Clinton it's striking how much they are in agreement on 9 of 10 major issues and most minor ones as well. People differ widely on their moral judgments of the man, but there is rather little disagreement about what actually happened in his career. Rjensen 22:22, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay. Then it sounds to me that all that you (or anyone else) need to do is to cite those scholarly books. The last few iterations of the section in question have either been completely unsourced or the one source cited (a) appeared to be linked to one particular quote and not the entire section (although I could be wrong about that!) and (b) didn't appear to support the claims that "many experts said this" or "several people believed this" as only one source was cited. If there were multiple experts quoted in that one source, I suggest making that clear in the footnote so others don't make the same mistake that I am making. -- ElKevbo 22:26, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Rjensen, I like Clinton, and was tempted to remove that bit about his 1988 speech, but I looked into it and that actually does seem to be (close to) the consensus on it - everything I read from reputable sources did say it was a poor speech. As far as I'm concerned, if it's sourced well and appropriate to the article (ie compliant with WP:BLP and WP:NPOV) then I'm content to let it stand. For people who like Clinton it adds some colour to his career that he had a rough start at federal politics, and overcame it.

I for one, hate when an article gets boiled down too far to avoid perception of "bias" so as to remove all meaningful context on the person. Unless I'm reading it wrong, Clinton had a laughably bad speech, he was mocked for it, he was graceful enough to be self-deprecating about it - I see no libel issues.-- FNV 02:11, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

The problem with what Rjensen is doing is that it WAS a poor speech. But he's not pleased with it saying it was a poor speech and not well-received. It has to be "a disaster" where "he was nearly booed off the stage." That's crap writing, and POV, and doesn't even make sense. How the hell does somebody get NEARLY booed off a stage? What, exactly, is the action by which someone determines this? And not one of his links mentions any boos AT ALL. It DOES say that there was SILENCE and the loudest applause was when he said "In conclusion." But that's not booing. And the fact that most here barely REMEMBER it sort of proves that it wasn't a "DISASTER," doesn't it? Carlo 02:23, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Fair points. I'm content to leave the section as it currently stands, unless some source for booing or it being a "disaster" can be substantiated somehow. I was being more generic about Rjensen's general quesion on whether criticism is allowed. Cheers.-- FNV 03:47, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I noticed that the criticism of Clinton's economic policy are unsourced. I am talking about the sentences that try and attribute economic growth to everything but his policies. Most of these arguments have little merit and without specific sources violate NPOV, they should be removed. I will do it soon if someone doesn't clean this up.

The 90's Economic Expansion began in March 1991 after a brief mild six month recession, almost two years before Clinton took office.

Clinton remained popular with the public throughout his two terms as President, ending his presidential career with a 65% approval rating, the highest end-of-term approval rating of any President in the post-Eisenhower era.

Is the "post-Eisenhower era" really considered a significant period of time? I understand the point of the sentence -- to show that Clinton was more popular than many recent presidents. But it reads as if the editor is reaching, trying to make Clinton sound as good as possible. Couldn't it just be reworded to say "best approval rating since Eisenhower in 1960 (or '61 when JFK took office I guess would be more accurate?) Dubc0724 19:04, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree, I've never heard heard of the "post Eisenhower era". I guess it should be post FDR era, but I don't know if Clinton's approval rating were as high as FDRs. Someone should look into this. <<Coburn_Pharr>> 20:46, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

After removing this article and its mirrors from the results, "post eisenhower era" only gets 46 hits on google. Seems like it's not really in wide use. I'll rephrase it. — ptk✰ fgs 22:08, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks - I think the original point is still in tact; it just sounds better now. Dubc0724 13:03, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Executive orders should not be listed in the "Major legislation signed" section. Executive orders are not legislation, and even if they have the force of law (which is uncertain), the rest of that list is legislation delivered by Congress. It is incongruous to list an executive order here. — ptk✰ fgs 22:17, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

"Harris 367-60, 397" is cited as a source for "The vote to impeach was essentially along party lines in the Republican-led House of Representatives, where Speaker Newt Gingrich and Whip Tom DeLay exercised very tight party discipline." Any clue what Harris refers to? TransUtopian 23:22, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Whats planed for his 60 birthday? -- Stone 08:33, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Throughout the article, I see little about the fact that Bill Clinton was faced with few crises. Moreover, the article gives a lot of facts about public image during the time of his presidency without rating him from a historian's perpective. In a Wall Street Journal/Federalist Society poll conducted by a group of ideoligically balaced scholars, Clinton was ranked 24th out of 39 ranked presidents.

I would like a Clinton in Fiction section; there are lots of nice examples, like the film "Primary Colors" as a striking one and many others. Any objections? MarkThomas 13:27, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I think it's a good idea. No objections here. -- Db099221 03:45, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Does anybody have a copy of this speech? I'm really desperate! Thanks! -- CityGuy88 22:38, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

There's a bit of it here. 1 It's Rothermere by the way not Rothemere which may help you in Googling. The Clinton presidential library may have all his speeches online, not sure but worth a try.

MarkThomas 23:30, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

The bottom of the page lists Clinton as an Irish-American politician, and he's included in that page on wikipedia, but I don't see it mentioned in the article. Mother was Irish or father?

Please look in the archives, this issue has been previously discussed. - Fsotrain ₀₉ 00:32, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

To further support the claim that Clinton is an Irish-American, there is evidence to suggest that Clinton was seen eating a bowl of lucky charms in feburary of 2004. There is some debate as to whether or not he was wearing a green hat with a buckle on it at the time. An artist's rendition of this event was previously available at www.billsluckycharms.com however, this website and all of the material therein was classified by the FBI and will not be released to the public until 2065.

For ever one that does not get it Bill Clinton was NEVER IMPEACHED, he was very close to being impeached but in the end all charges were drop, all the things saying he was the second president impeached need to be droped from the page. Danny, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, he was impeached (charged by the house of representatives), just not convicted (by the Senate), so not removed from office. Brian 05:27, 9 September 2006 (UTC)btball

He was not removed from office and he got to finish his term as president, that must mean he got impeached, that does not make since yes he was charge but he was not convicvted/lost his right to be president, thast means he was never impeached, so even if he was charged that doesn't mean he was impeached, it means he was the second president to get question are being impeached. Not the secsond president to be impeached. So, for all the statements saying he was impeached change it to there was talk of him being impeached, or something along the lines where it is he almost got impeached but didn't. Danny, 12:55 10 September 2006

With all due respect, I don't think you understand the impeachment process. Clinton was impeached, which means that the House of Representatives charged him with perjury, but he was not convicted by the Senate, which means he was not removed from office. Quite a few people think "impeachment" equates to "conviction," when the more appropriate equivalent would probably be "indictment." Easy enough mistake to make, though. Luna Santin 17:00, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

It's pretty funny, though....back in the stone age, when I was in 7th grade, my English teacher ("Miss Donch") punished me quite unfairly for insisting that Andrew Johnson was impeached. I think it was at that point when I realized teachers could be just as utterly wrong as anyone else. -- jpgordon ^∇∆∇∆ 17:02, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Danny, you might also want to see Impeachment in the United States. Clinton was indeed impeached (indicted), just not convicted. Brian 17:07, 9 September 2006 (UTC)btball

Hopefully that'll go over well.

Any thoughts?

-- RobbieFal 03:08, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

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 17:27, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Been a few days. If it can't be verified, should I just delete it until it can be? Dubc0724 13:28, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

While I find it important to source these numbers, as I'm skeptical, I think deleting them would be too bold untill we get a response as for their source. -- A Sunshade Lust 01:11, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree that deleting is an undesirable move. Thanks for your input. Dubc0724 15:36, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

This article used to mention something about Clinton's health but doesn't anymore. Why not? Jack Daw 20:08, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I would like to add: While many pundits pondered the effect of his impeachment on his legacy, Clinton viewed his impeachment battle as a "badge of honor." ( http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/06/01/60minutes/main620619.shtml) Phredd 20:00, 24 September 2006 (UTC)Phredd

The quote "While I was there, they refused to certify. So that meant I would have had to send a few hundred special forces in helicopters, refuel at night." (last in the paragraph) could use some clarification. The way this paragraph has been written, the "they" in the quote seems to refer to "the right-wingers who are attacking me now", but as i understood it from the full interview, Clinton was refering to the CIA and FBI would not certify that bin Linden & Al-Qaeda is responsible for the USS Cole bombing so Clinton could not do what he wanted with teh special forces and the refueling.

Of course, please check to make sure that my understanding of Clinton's comment is correct before making the changes.

The following information :U.S. intelligence agencies, using a reconnaissance satellite to monitor bin Laden's phone calls, prevented the six embassy attacks by tipping off local officials, who then arrested the suspects, officials said. In Uganda, police arrested 20 suspects in September, does not appear in the article cited. [13] ... Or in other words, you got some splainin to do Mr Sloat. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 23:42, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Uh, that's not the article cited.-- csloat 23:52, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Umm, yes it is, and its more than a bit dishonest to say its not. Same date, same author. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 23:55, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

And on second thought, what the hell are we even referencing Jack Kelly for anyways? He was canned and stripped of his awards for plagiarism and Jason Blair Houdini style journalism. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 00:00, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

What are you talking about? You are citing an AP article; I was citing a USA Today article. Your article is referencing the one I cited. The one I cited contained the quote that you censored. The one I cited did not contain the quote you put in. If you want to add your quote, please reference it to the proper article, as it does not appear in the USAToday piece. The bad faith personal attack on my honesty is not necessary here. As for Kelly, it's true that he is often a right-wing mouthpiece, but I don't see any evidence that he was stripped of any credentials. In fact, he is still writing for the Pitssburgh Post-Gazette. And I see no evidence that the 1999 article in question was fabricated. Perhaps you could help us out?-- csloat 00:06, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Seven weeks into an examination of former USA TODAY reporter Jack Kelley’s work, a team of journalists has found strong evidence that Kelley fabricated substantial portions of at least eight major stories, lifted nearly two dozen quotes or other material from competing publications, lied in speeches he gave for the newspaper and conspired to mislead those investigating his work.

It never fails to see how far you reach for a source to reinforce your POV. Hey, did Wayne Madsen have anything to say about this? I bet he did. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 00:17, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Well that seems to establish pretty clearly that articles written by that reporter can not be considered reliable. I have thus deleted the sentences in the article that used the source in question as its only source (in the "Bin Laden" subsection). Thanks TDC! -- ElKevbo 00:31, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I had no idea who Jack Kelley was. I had him confused with Jack Kelly. I agree the article should be removed if it has been discredited (although the linked article does not say that it has). In an astounding interpretation of WP:AGF, TDC claims that I was reaching for a source to enforce my POV. I'm not sure what any of that has to do with POV - we did not have a POV dispute here! In any case I look forward to TDC's additions from Wayne Madsen, since he seems to think he had something relevant to say on this.-- csloat 00:36, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I think it's sufficient that we know that the reporter in question falsified multiple articles, including at least one other article specifically written about Bin Laden. If there is really something important and noteable here then I expect alternative sources can be found. -- ElKevbo 00:50, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

You should be one to talk about WP:AGF. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 00:40, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you're right, I should, which I did. I confused the name "Jack Kelley" with "Jack Kelly," thanks to your misspelling above, and you accused me of lying. Thank you for your support.-- csloat 00:47, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I could say something rude here, but I think your contributions, Jack Kelley, to this article is indicative of the level of quality the material you introduce to Wikipedia. But enough of this, the issue is closed. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 00:52, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Uhhh, again, WP:AGF. If you think confusing Jack Kelley with Jack Kelly is "indicative of the level of quality" of anything, you shouldn't have done it in the first place -- my confusion stemmed from your misspelling. I had never heard of the -ey guy, and had found one article from 1999 USA Today, which I had no reason to believe was fabricated. (Honestly, I still don't -- it is consistent with what other papers are reporting in that time period, and no admin official stepped forward to refute it. But I do accept that Kelley is discredited, and different articles will need to be found for this section). There's no need for your continued personal attacks.-- csloat 01:08, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Let's keep the discussion on the George W. Bush Bill Clinton encyclopedia article, please. -- ElKevbo 00:50, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure this discussion has much to do with him.-- csloat 01:08, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Oops. Can you tell which article I was working on/looking at before making that comment? :) -- ElKevbo 01:40, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I am going to start peeling things off and maybe source some of it myself. Wow, this article has to be one of the worst major articles on wikipedia. Jasper23 00:55, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Many of the non-science articles are in pretty poor shape. Remove and source away! Best of luck! -- ElKevbo 00:57, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, lets hope that I dont piss too many people off. Jasper23 01:31, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

See if we can get sources for all the economic growth claims. I'll help when I can... Dubc0724 17:23, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

These facts should be merged into the article body

• Following the death of Pope John Paul II on 2005-04-02 Clinton stirred up a mini-controversy saying the late pontiff, "may have had a mixed legacy…there will be debates about him. But on balance, he was a man of God, he was a consistent person, he did what he thought was right." Clinton sat with both President George W. Bush and former President George H.W. Bush as the first current or former American heads of state to attend a papal funeral.
• On 2006-05-13, Clinton was the commencement speaker along with George H. W. Bush at Tulane University in New Orleans. They both received honorary Doctorates of Laws from Tulane University. Clinton spoke to the students, faculty and alumni of Tulane and of the devastation caused by Hurricane Katrina that Tulane students know firsthand.
• Clinton is an amateur saxophonist (other recent musical presidents include pianists Harry Truman and Richard Nixon).
• Clinton was the only President to be married to a member of Congress: Hillary Rodham Clinton's service as a Senator officially began 18 days before his second term ended.
• Centraal Beheer, a Dutch insurance company famous for its humorous commercials, once had a TV commercial involving Clinton and a voodoo doll. This commercial was taken down after a few weeks at the request of the White House.
• In November of 1997 President Clinton made history by being the first sitting President to speak to a gay rights organization. He gave a speech at a formal dinner hosted by the Human Rights Campaign. [14]
• The Clinton thumb gesture was popularized by Clinton.

• Clinton's campaign song during his first Presidential campaign was " Don't Stop" [Thinking About Tomorrow] by Fleetwood Mac. He even managed to persuade the then-defunct group to perform for his inaugural ball in 1993.
• Clinton's campaign theme and song during his second Presidential campaign was "Building the Bridge" by the rock band REO Speedwagon. The phrase "Building the Bridge" was also used by Clinton in many of his speeches during the course of the campaign.
• Clinton is, to date, the only sitting U.S. President to have shaken hands with Cuban dictator Fidel Castro. The two leaders found themselves standing next to each other at a U.N. photo op in September 2000. As the 150 leaders in attendance were exiting for lunch, a chance bottle neck at the door put the two leaders side by side and the handshake took place. They shook hands and exchanged what was described as small talk for a couple of minutes. Richard Nixon shook Castro's hand when he was Vice-President, and Jimmy Carter has done so during his post-presidential years. [15]
• The first presidential Webcast, held by President Bill Clinton on 1999-11-08 live from George Washington University, is currently the only bona fide Internet-age broadcast in a Presidential library. The two hour internet broadcast entitled Townhall with President Clinton, hosted by Al From of the Democratic Leadership Council and directed by Marc Scarpa, was billed as an "Online Town Hall Meeting" ushering in 'The New Politics of the Information Age'".
• Appeared in a commercial with preceding president George Herbert Walker Bush encouraging donations to the Red Cross and other charities after the 2004 Tsunami.
• Appeared in a commercial for Nickelodeon's Let's Just Play Get Healthy Challenge.
• During the 1998 Stanley Cup Playoffs, Clinton made a bet with Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chrétien on the playoff series between the Washington Capitals and the Ottawa Senators where the loser of the series had to wear the opposing team's jersey, the Capitals won the series four games to one and Chrétien had to wear a Capitals jersey.
• His press conference speech concerning the discovery of fossilized bacteria in a Martian meteorite was controversially recontenxtualized and incorporated into Robert Zemeckis' film adaptation of Carl Sagan's novel Contact.
• In 2003, he became the only politician to be the highlight of an E! True Hollywood Story.
• U.S. Representative Charles B. Rangel caused controversy on February 13, 2005, by blasting Bill Clinton as a Redneck in response to Hillary Clinton's refusal to support his views on the Amadou Diallo case.
• In Europe, Bill Clinton remains immensely popular, especially in a large part of the Balkans and in Ireland. In Prishtina, Kosovo, an enormous 5 story picture of the former president was permanently engraved into the side of the tallest building in the province as a token of gratitude for Clinton's support during the crisis in Kosovo. [http://www.amren.com/mtnews/archives/2005/02/rangel_blasts_c.php]
• Mr. Clinton currently drives a Mercury Mariner hybrid SUV that has been custom fitted with a refrigerator and extra leg room.

Jasper23 01:29, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I have cut down large amounts of the text in the controversy section to make a more ordered list of interwikipedia webpages. When I have more time tonight or tomorrow I plan on putting summaries in front of those and maybe working on the sub-articles themselves. My goal is to make this article confom to discussion above under the heading of sub-articles. Any help would be appreciated. Jasper23 15:56, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

The section on the economy is not neutral, many economists feel that the economic growth during his presidency was due to the internet bubble and the Federal Reserve's management of interest rates, specifically letting unemployment fall much further than would've in the past since they felt the "New Economy" would allow gains in productivity that wouldn't spark inflation. This viewpoint that Clinton wasn't responsible for the growth that occurred during his presidency should be presented.

On February 26, 1993—thirty-six days after Clinton took office, terrorists who the CIA would later reveal were working under the direction of Osama bin Laden detonated a timed car bomb in the parking garage below Tower One of the World Trade Center in New York City. (See World Trade Center bombing) President Clinton responded by ordering his National Security Council, under the direction of Anthony Lake, and the FBI to find and punish those responsible. The FBI was able to quickly identify the vehicle used in the bomb from a remnant found in the rubble: a Ryder rental van, which had been reported stolen in Jersey City, New Jersey the day before. The truck was rented by Mohammed Salameh, whom the FBI immediately detained. Similar evidence led to the arrests of other plotters behind the attack, including Nidal Ayyad, Mahmoud Abouhalima, Ahmad Ajaj, and Ramzi Yousef—who was identified as the key player in the bombing. All men were tried and convicted for the bombing and other terrorists activities.[49]

And the other 10 paragraphs should be developed into its own page. Was this a cut and paste job from a different article? If so, we should link it. Jasper23 01:34, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

No, this was not a "cut and paste job." I wrote the section based on the various sources named throughout. Others mentioned expanding the section to include an account of President Clinton's Counterterrorism policy, which is what I did. I don't think you could make this into its own article, since it is just a summary of the counterterrorism policy of the Clinton administration. It is a good foundation for a separate article, but I would have to add much more. Mtmdem 19:55, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I hope I didnt offend. If I did I apologize. The section just appeared so quickly and is very well-sourced. Thank you for your well written addition to the article. Jasper23 10:08, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

It's okay—I took no offense. I understood yout concern and didn't intend my reply to be negative. I've been working on it since the interview on Fox, but I didn't want to put it into the article unto I had all my facts straight and my sources correct. Thank's for your response. Mtmdem 14:01, 29 September 2006 (UTC)