Talk:Bill Clinton: Difference between revisions

From Citizendium
Jump to navigation Jump to search
imported>Will Nesbitt
imported>Chris Day
No edit summary
 
(83 intermediate revisions by 12 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{checklist
{{subpages}}
|                abc = Clinton, Bill
 
|                cat1 = Politics
|                cat2 = History
|                cat3 = Topic Informant
|          cat_check = n
|              status = 2
|        underlinked = n
|            cleanup = y
|                  by = [[User:Rilson Versuri|Versuri]] 10:25, 25 June 2007 (CDT)
}}
== Editor plan and guidelines ==
== Editor plan and guidelines ==
* A general principle of all articles about political figures: it should be impossible to determine whether the authors are supporters or opponents of the subject of the article.  Citizendium is neither Democrat nor Republican.
* A general principle of all articles about political figures: it should be impossible to determine whether the authors are supporters or opponents of the subject of the article.  Citizendium is neither Democrat nor Republican.


==Word Choice==
== <s>This article talk page is now under dispute watch</s> ==
 
Which would be the best word to describe those of alternative sexual preference; "gay" or "homosexual"?--[[User:Robert W King|Robert W King]] 09:56, 25 June 2007 (CDT)
 
==Gushing?==
This turn of phrase comes across like cheerleading: "Known as a brilliant campaigner and policy wonk ...". Aren't all Presidents brilliant campaigners?  Aren't all gold medalists "brilliant athletes"? All Presidents also know a great deal about policy.  I think Clinton is a brilliant campaigner. I think Bill Clinton knows policy. But what President
doesn't?
 
Also, it has been argued that it's of prime importance to mention that [[George W. Bush]] didn't win the popular vote vs. Gore. Is it important to mention that Clinton did not win a majority in either of his elections? [[User:Will Nesbitt|Will Nesbitt]]
::Clinton was a much better campaigner than Kerry, Gore, Dukakis, Mondale, or Carter, experts agree. He's a policy wonk, they all agree--like Gore but UNLIKE George W. Bush or Ronald Reagan. [[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 07:14, 22 July 2007 (CDT)
 
:::Clinton is a better campaigner than Carter, who only won one term.  None of the others you mention were Presidents.  Carter was clearly a better campaigner than Kerry, Gore, Dukakis or Mondale. (I voted for both Dukakis and Mondale, btw.) So the question remains, what President wasn't a great campaigner? Truman, Nixon, Kennedy, Reagan and virtually every other two term President was a "brilliant campaigner".  Can't we just say he had two terms?  That's a fact. His "brilliance" is an opinion. It is an opinion that can be argued.
 
:::Consider this: if Bill Clinton was so brilliant then why did ALL of the candidates you just mentioned gain a higher percentage of the popular vote than Clinton. And MOST of those candidates lost!  A '''lot''' more people voted for Gore than Clinton in either of Clinton's elections. (It must be noted that I'm not arguing your point. I'm merely showing that the point can be argued.)
 
 
:::I would much safer and much less inflammatory to report the fact that he won two terms instead of taking an official stance on Clinton's brilliance. Alternately, we could cite an expert who said Clinton but brilliant. 
 
:::We don't know much about the Bush administration yet, because he's still in office. When Reagan was in office it was widely reported that (and I believed that) he was a bit of a good natured dolt. The story was that Reagan didn't really understand this or that. Now that the internal documents have been released and now that Reagan is in a historical context, we have learned that he had a brilliant political mind and he was far more involved than anyone ever suspected at the time.
 
:::I don't understand why those opinions remain in the text, but the fact that Clinton never won a majority is not mentioned. Compare and contrast this with the [[George W. Bush]]. I don't care if it's mentioned or not, but I do think there should be something resembling consistency. The Bush intro is about vote counts. The Clinton intro is about how brilliant he is?  [[User:Will Nesbitt|Will Nesbitt]] 09:23, 22 July 2007 (CDT)
 
::::I'd rather build a consensus than edit in a vacuum, but if I receive no response I'll assume that this is a non-issue and insert. [[User:Will Nesbitt|Will Nesbitt]] 08:56, 23 July 2007 (CDT)
:::The rules of the game call for winning the electoral college, with Clinton did by two landslides (compare Bush's two very-narrow=electoral colege wins) [[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 10:32, 23 July 2007 (CDT)
 
::On evaluations of Clinton's campaign skills see [http://search.live.com/results.aspx?q=%22bill+clinton%22+%22best+campaigner%22+&form=QBRE] I have never seen a serious critic challenge the consensus about his skills, often compared to Reagan as the best in 60+ years </ref>
 
:::My argument is that everyone who won two presidential elections (except possibly Washington) was a pretty good campaigner.  On the other hand, if the name of the game is winning the electoral college then why mention the popular vote when talking about Bush.  I don't care which way it's reported, but it should be reported the same way for both presidents. [[User:Will Nesbitt|Will Nesbitt]] 11:29, 23 July 2007 (CDT)


:::BTW, there is a big difference between quoting an expert who describes Clinton as a brilliant campaigner and arriving at a value judgment then stating Clinton is a brilliant campaigner. [[User:Will Nesbitt|Will Nesbitt]] 11:57, 23 July 2007 (CDT)
See [[CZ:Dispute Watch]].  You're going to have to start using the {{tl|prop}} template in the way that page describes, illustrated here: [[Talk:Oriental (word)]].  We're testing out a dispute resolution idea, but I'm taking the test seriously.  From now on, disputation on this page must be on-topic, and on-topic means (1) aimed at a specific proposition, (2) the proposition must concern ''the wording of the text,'' and (3) engaging in a dispute, as opposed to how to characterize the dispute, is off-topic. Call it the Anti-Bloviation Rule!  :-) --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 07:26, 3 August 2007 (CDT)
:::Actually Jensen is an expert on the history of American election campaigns. That's why he's at CZ not Wikipedia. :) [[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 12:59, 23 July 2007 (CDT)


::::Of course, any expert in any field (Jensen included) would have a conflict of interest with regards to questioning his own opinion. So please don't take it personally when I say that I challenge this opinion, albeit an expert one. It is my hope and expectation that Jensen will remain objective while I lay the grounds for my challenge of this opinion, and more importantly how the opinion is presented. I challenge this opinion, not because it is wrong, but rather for these three reasons: 1) it is a value judgment; 2) the same could be said of nearly all Presidents; 3) editorial balance. While challenging the opinion, I think the opinion is a valued and important one.  
:What follows is not my most passionately held belief, nor is it a particularly important issue IMHO, but it is an issue  none-the-less and I'm going to try to push it through this new system to see how the system works. [[User:Will Nesbitt|Will Nesbitt]] 06:39, 5 August 2007 (CDT)


::::I oppose Citizendium making value judgments, because Citizendium speaks for all of us. Therefore, I think it inappropriate and would oppose a Citizendium article which said, "Clinton is a brilliant campaigner and a policy wonk." However, I support quoting expert opinions. Thus, I would support an edit which said, "Jensen says Clinton is a brilliant campaigner and a policy wonk." Like me, the reader might very well examine the credentials and motives of Jensen and agree that he is a credible resource.  Unfortunately, if Citizendium crosses this line we are no longer a credible resource.
Will demonstrated able how well a motivated troublemaker could break the system. I think it's a failure, so this dispute watch is off... --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 03:31, 10 August 2007 (CDT)


::::As I wrote, above I think all Presidents are by default brilliant. Although many Presidents have been called stupid, it's a statistical improbability that a man can rise to that level of power in a democratic system without have the confidence of a great many people who have had the opportunity to examine the man up-close and personally. Sometimes only in retrospect do we come to learn how brilliant a President was. Often there are material facts which are undisclosed to critics and to the public that later exonerate decisions which were panned when they were made. Therefore, calling a President brilliant is like calling a boxer strong or a cheetah fast or calling a fish wet. Unless you say it about every single President, this statement reads like partisan cheerleading.
==The appropriateness of the word "brilliant" to describe any political figure.==


::::On the point of editorial balance, I have compared and contrasted this article about Clinton and to [[George W. Bush]].  When I read [[George W. Bush|Bush]], I do not find a value judgment praising about Bush's best qualities as an apology for his shortcomings. Both men have shortcomings. Both men have strengths. In the Bush article editors find it important to mention the popular vote, but there is no mention of the fact that Clinton did not reached a majority of popular vote in a Presidential election. These articles should be a mirror image of facts and opinions. They are not.
:Proposition: Introductory paragraph sentence reading: Clinton, a policy wonk, was (with Ronald Reagan) one of the two best campaigners in recent decades.


::::In present form, there is an editorial detachment from Bush and but an editorial affinity for Clinton. I would prefer to find an editorial detachment from both men. However, I'm willing to defer to my editor's better instincts and allow for an affinity for both men. But whatever editorial choice is made, in all fairness, both men should meet with the same standards of journalism.  If a fact is material for one man, then a similar fact is material for another. If a gushing value judgment is fair for one man, than no doubt a gushing value judgment can be found for the other man.  
I think it is inappropriate for CZ to describe any politician with an editorial adjective such as "brilliant". Clinton may well be brilliant, but there are many arguments against his brilliance. Because this is an arguable statement, it is not a factual statement, thus I don't think CZ should take a position on his brilliance.  


::::Although I think Clinton's brilliance has been overstated by those who do not understand the crazy Perot voters (i.e. me), please don't read this to mean that I am seriously trying to say that Clinton is something less than brilliant. I agree that Jensen and a good many other experts think Clinton is brilliant. Few serious people would disagree with those opinions.    [[User:Will Nesbitt|Will Nesbitt]] 07:02, 24 July 2007 (CDT)
The comparison to Reagan reads like an attempt to placate partisans, and doesn't solve the real editorial issue.  I don't think CZ should take a position on Reagan's brilliance either, btw. The way it's now written, the comment on Reagan seems wildly off-topic and only makes sense in the context that someone is trying to appease those who disagree with Clinton's brilliance. The footnote leads to a search engine with no direct quote or opinion by any expert. If there were an expert to quote I would suggest the sentence read:


:::::Geez, Will, don't you read the NYT, Time, Newsweek, other newspapers, editorials from all over, columnists from all over?  For the last 15 years these sources have almost universally used the word brilliant or great or unrivalled or some such when talking about Clinton's political skills, no matter whether they liked him or not.  "The greatest politician since FDR" is a common phrase.  I don't see how you can *possibly* argue with Prof. Jensen about this.  Are you going to say that FRD and LBJ weren't brilliant politicians?  Dan Quayle was a heartbeat from the Presidency: Does that make *him* a brilliant politician?  You can write "Bill Clinton was a despicable president [I saw that yesterday in the Oakland Tribune], a lousy human being, but a brilliant politician."  And it might be true, at least the politician part. [[User:Hayford Peirce|Hayford Peirce]] 11:43, 24 July 2007 (CDT)
:''Expert X says that Clinton, a policy wonk, was one of the two best campaigners in recent decades.''


At first I thought you were being sacarstic, because you listed a series of sources which I generally scoff at. Then I realized what you were saying is that you do not read the Washington Times, the Wall Street Journal and other papers with increasing (not diminishing) circulation. Some of us (we're called "the minority" now, but for 12 years we were called "the majority") take each of the sources you mention with a grain of salt. Don't take that to mean that I'm being angry or argumentative. I'm actually a bit amused.  
As a result of working through this debate, I checked the "sources" for this claim. The current source is not really a source but a link to the results of a keyword search from a search engine. These are quotes from the top three sources on the search engine provided by previous researcher:


Your response seems to ignore the part where I repeated: "please don't read this to mean that I am seriously trying to say that Clinton is something less than brilliant". Clinton is probably brilliant. Like it or not, Bush is probably brilliant too. (I believed Reagan was a dolt when the same sources you just listed told me he was a dolt. Now that I know more of the truth it's hard to get me to agree again that a sitting President is a dolt.) As I said above (you must have missed it) all Presidents are brilliant politicians. This would include LBJ and FDR. I would say that Dan Quayle is a pretty damn good politician too. Why? With his (lack of) skills, he managed to guide his career to the Vice Presidency?  If that's not an example of over-achieving and brilliant politics, I don't know what is.  
:''"Bill Clinton's the best campaigner I've seen in my life," said Tom McGrath of Pepperell, Mass., who plans to support Hillary Clinton "on her own merits."'' -- Concord Monitor Online (Tom McGrath is some average guy at a Clinton rally.)


It's fair and accurate to say that NY Times, Newsweek, the Boston Globe and others describe Clinton as brilliant. It's okay for Jensen to say that in his opinion Clinton is brilliant.  What is unfair is to make a definitive value judgment about Clinton's brilliance.  When we say that any of the sources say Clinton is brilliant we can put it in a context with everything else they've said. When we say Clinton is brilliant that we begin to define our own official opinions. I don't think that's where this reference wants to go. I'm pretty sure that NPOV means that Citizendium doesn't make value judgments about the brilliance of individuals. We report the value judgments of others. Thus, it is not our place to take a position on Clinton's brilliance. However, it is our place to report on what others have said about his brilliance. 
:''"the best campaigner there ever was"''--David Matthews...Longtime friend of Clinton


I've already address my personal opinions on Clinton's brilliance. You're free to disagree with my opinions. Obviously, many people think he's brilliant. I'm more concerned with the three issues I raised that were not addressed. I challenged this verbiage, not because it is wrong, but rather for these three reasons: 1) it is a value judgment; 2) the same could be said of nearly all Presidents; 3) editorial balance. I've explained these issues at length above. 
:''“What John Edwards had going for him is first of all he’s the best campaigner I’ve seen since Bill Clinton. His speech is the most fantastic stump speech.”'' -- DAVID BROOKS. (This appears to be a Democratic campaign site of some sort.)


Sorry for being so thorny and thanks for chiming in. Your input is valued. [[User:Will Nesbitt|Will Nesbitt]] 15:04, 24 July 2007 (CDT)
The next reference is entitled: "Rush Limba ''sic.'' - Lying Nazi Whore". It's a random collection of thoughts attesting the poster's political opinions regarding Rush Limbaugh's flaws. One of the quatrains mentions the phrase "best campaigner of the 20th Century".


Should assume that no response means that I'm clear to begin making edits? [[User:Will Nesbitt|Will Nesbitt]] 02:42, 27 July 2007 (CDT)
I gave up research after this, because it does not appear that the sources support the claim made by the sentence. I would prefer to see this sentence removed until these claims can be supported by expert opinion. [[User:Will Nesbitt|Will Nesbitt]] 07:03, 5 August 2007 (CDT)


== At least some winning candidates have been far from brilliant in their campaigns ==
::the experts agree on Reagan and Clinton's campaign prowess and CZ reflects that. It's not at all controversial. [[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 14:01, 5 August 2007 (CDT)
I just returned home after two weeks out of my office, where it has been difficult to always check into CZ. Off the top of my head I would like to make major points:


1) "Brilliant" is such a charged word that it probably should *never* be used by anyone unless it is a direct quote with multiple citations, ie, Newsweek, Time, yesterday's NYT, Washington Times, WSJ, etc.  So I belatedly agree with you there.
:::Reagan's brilliance is not relevant and thus shouldn't be mentioned. Clinton's brilliance is not particularly controversial, but it is an opinion.  Opinions must be ascribed to experts and not to CZ. Please find a reference that testifies to Clinton's brilliance. The previous source was very poor work. I have said repeatedly, it's fine to quote the opinions of Jensen or Moyers or Tom McGrath or David Matthews (above) regarding Clinton's brilliance. CZ is not neutral and our work here is exceeding difficult if we devolve into a place to argue opinions, rather than a place to report facts. [[User:Will Nesbitt|Will Nesbitt]] 14:07, 5 August 2007 (CDT)


2.) I think the point that I most object to that Will keeps making is that '''any''' presidential candidate who wins is, by simple definition, '''brilliant'''. I don't have Prof. Jensen's knowledge, and all of the following is what I pondered while walking the Oakland nature trails without recourse to sources, but I think I am being fairly accurate when I say about the following elections:
::::Facts are what the experts agree on, including Clinton's brilliance at campaigning. there is no alternative viewpoint. [[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 14:10, 5 August 2007 (CDT)


:*1912. Teddy Roosevelt ran the only "brilliant" campaign.  As a third-party candidate he naturally lost.  But no one has ever, I think, commented on what a brilliant campaign Woodrow Wilson ran -- he won solely because Teddy and Taft split what otherwise would have been the winning vote.
:::::Isn't a dead horse being beaten here? The word "brilliant" hasn't been used for some time now - it says that he and Reagan were the two best campaigners of recent times.  This too, I freely concede, may also be inaccurate, as being as possibly being biased, but at least I think the discussion should focus of *this* phrasing, not the previous.[[User:Hayford Peirce|Hayford Peirce]] 14:11, 5 August 2007 (CDT)


:::*''And what exactly is the difference between Wilson vs. Teddy & Taft and Clinton vs. Perot & Bush or Dole?'' [[User:Will Nesbitt|Will Nesbitt]] 08:51, 2 August 2007 (CDT)
::::The advantage of current phrasing: there have been a few dozen major national campaigners in recent decades Clinton and Reagan have received intense scrutiny from many experts all across the spectrum, who agree on the consensus. To report that consensus is CZ's mission. To NOT report it because it makes a Democrat look good is the sort of pro-GOP bias we avoid. [[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 14:16, 5 August 2007 (CDT)


:*1916. As the famous cliche goes, Charles Evans Hughes went to bed knowing he had been elected President -- only to wake up in the morning to discover that Wilson had won California and hence the election by a very narrow margin.  Hughes ran a terrible campaign, otherwise he would have been elected.
::::::Thank you Hayford for identifying my mistake of honing in on "brilliant". But the argument remains the same whether you insert "best campaigner" or use "brilliant".  This is an editorial value judgment and as such is outside of our purview.  


:*1968. The Vietnam War was at its height. The Tet Offensive had shocked America. LBJ had announced he would not run.  Kennedy and King had been shot. No one except big-city pols liked HHH. There was serious rioting in the streets, particularly Chicago, and the Democratics were chaotic as never before. George Wallace was poised to take the Southern vote (which he did). Nixon should have won by a landslide. He squeaked in by a hair.  If LBJ had announced his bombing halt a week earlier, or if the campaign had run a week longer, HHH would have won. A '''far''' from brilliant campaign by the winner.
::::::Contrary to Richard's assertion, there is no great consensus about Clinton's skills. In fact, it's not difficult to find both conservative and liberal commentators who agree and/or disagree about Clinton's campaign skills. I've posted them here before and I can post them again. My point is not to prove that Clinton is any type of campaigner (brilliant or poor) but rather to prove that the point is arguable. That is a relatively easy point to prove. The simple solution is to pick from one of the quotes above or find another that you prefer. It's too easy to get hung up on political labels and thus be unable to see best path to neutrality. [[User:Will Nesbitt|Will Nesbitt]] 14:21, 5 August 2007 (CDT)


:*1972. This time Nixon '''did''' win by a landside.  His tactical relection campaign was so brilliant that, directly because of it, he was forced from office two years later, the only President to ever resign.
::::::who does Nesbitt think are the consensus-best campaigners of the last 50 years? Lets put some alternative names on the table. [[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 14:44, 5 August 2007 (CDT)


:*1976. In the summer of 1976 Jimmy Carter was ahead of Gerald Ford in '''all''' the polls by 32 to 36 percent. Read that carefully: '''32 to 36 percent'''. In spite of Ford's infamous statement that the USSR did not control Eastern Europe, Carter barely squeaked in. If the campaign had lasted another week Ford would probably have won. [[User:Hayford Peirce|Hayford Peirce]] 23:52, 27 July 2007 (CDT)
I find this discussion very strange. It is not unreasonable for Will to ask for academic sources, rather than political allies' and supporters' opinions. It should not be difficult to find some! As far as superlatives are concerned, my feeling is that it is not a comparison with other campaigners, it is rather a theoretical position suggesting that it is difficult to imagine anyone doing better. Such a conclusion should be supported by analysis, rather than simply being claimed. --[[User:Martin Baldwin-Edwards|Martin Baldwin-Edwards]] 15:27, 5 August 2007 (CDT)
::"Brilliant" and superlatives in general should be used in CZ when they are appropriate. The idea that we reject the proper word because we don't like the man's politics is a bad idea.[[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 09:24, 28 July 2007 (CDT)


::Nesbitt himself cited David Brooks making the point, then dismissed him as a Democrat! Brooks is a leading conservative, the columnist for NY Times. The article cites standard books by experts, all of whom agree on Clinton's amazing campaign skills.  Nesbitt is making an artificial controversy and he is not citing any experts who support him (because there are none). [[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 15:42, 5 August 2007 (CDT)


:::Hayford, I think you're making my point not undermining it. My point is there is an argument to be made for or against the use of the word brilliant to describe any of the campaigns in the examples above. So long as the point is arguable, we should maintain a position of neutrality. I endorse your insertion of "considered by many" as accurate and fair. [[User:Will Nesbitt|Will Nesbitt]] 07:07, 30 July 2007 (CDT)
I did not put David Brooks on the table, nor did I dismiss him. I followed the footnote which led to a search engine which lead to a website with a quote from Mr. Brooks. I quoted the website that was sourced (with a simple cut and paste). The source gave not indication of who Mr. Brooks was or why this was a worthwhile resource. It was just a a picture of John Edwards with a quote about Clinton. If this article chooses to quote Mr. Brooks, I have no problem or issue. My only issue is that this article should not take a stand on "best campaigner", "brilliance" or other value judgment. [[User:Will Nesbitt|Will Nesbitt]] 18:03, 5 August 2007 (CDT)
:::There is no argument here--no expert disagrees, they all think Clinton was a brilliant campaigner. What we must avoid is allowing a GOP partisan to distort the article because some point might emphasize Clinton's strengths. That is a bias CZ cannot allow and no one can be a CZ author if they want to insert political preferences into CZ. [[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 11:47, 30 July 2007 (CDT)


::::Richard, it is perhaps most productive if you stick to characterizing your POV and let me characterize my POV. I do not consider myself a GOP partisan.  The fact remains that this article gushes over Clinton's strengths and paves over his weaknesses.  I really don't have a problem with that, so long as all Presidents are treated the same way. It smacks of unfairness when the same facts that are considered material to understanding [[George W. Bush]] are not reported on the Clinton page.
: I think when judging a politician's skill at something, you will always find a dissenting opinion.  There does appear to be a significant amount of commentary referring to Clinton's campaign skills.  I suggest the best way to qualify this in the article is to note something like "Clinton is widely regarded as..." with links to several footnotes to back this up. --[[User:Todd Coles|Todd Coles]] 21:43, 5 August 2007 (CDT)
::I put in almost exactly this same phrase some time ago but Prof. Jensen deleted it on the grounds that experts had already decided Clinton was brilliant and that there was no purpose in discussing it any further. [[User:Hayford Peirce|Hayford Peirce]] 10:15, 6 August 2007 (CDT)


::::On one of your deletions you said that something read "like Rush Limbaugh". Is it not true that the neutrality policy expects that all political perspectives are fairly represented --- including the GOP partisan position. Rush Limbaugh does not speak for me and I often disagree with him. However, your statements seem to imply that you think Rush Limbaugh's views are unimportant in a political dialogue. Why wouldn't the political perspective of the most popular (by a long measure) political commentator in America, an expert in the field of politics, not comprise one small part of understanding the Clinton Presidency? [[User:Will Nesbitt|Will Nesbitt]] 06:36, 31 July 2007 (CDT)
I'm deleting this "vote."  Until we actually discuss and decide that we will take open "votes" about these issues, a la Wikipedia, we aren't going to do it. --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 05:13, 6 August 2007 (CDT)


Regarding Clinton's brilliance please consider the following quote from a self-described "progressive" named Sam Smith who wrote "Shadows of Hope" (Indiana University Press) about Bill Clinton <ref>http://www.amazon.com/Shadows-Hope-Freethinkers-Politics-Clinton/dp/0253352843</ref>:
::Todd, thank you for stating my point more eloquently. I agree with your solution completely. [[User:Will Nesbitt|Will Nesbitt]] 09:55, 6 August 2007 (CDT)


:''BILL CLINTON AND GEORGE BUSH are the two most corrupt individuals to have occupied the White House in modern times. While Bush has clearly proved more venal and deadly and far more destructive of the American republic, it is a fair reading of history to say that Clinton was the warm up band for George Bush, towit:''
==Relevance==


That preamble is just to let you the author's perspective. He's not exactly part of the Rush Limbaugh movement. Here's what he says about Clinton's brilliance:
:Proposition: This sentence "Clinton has become a major fundraiser and campaigner for his wife, with his special appeal to the African American vote to neutralize her main opponent, Barak Obama" is very nearly factual, but is mostly editorial. A better sentence would be: "Currently, Clinton is a major fundraiser and campaigner for his wife." With a source to support this claim."


:''CLINTON WAS NOWHERE NEAR as good a politician as the Washington media and political establishment has claimed and the myth has proved to be a destructive fantasy for the party. Bill Clinton got 43.9% of the vote in 1992, while Michael Dukakis - purportedly the worst of all candidate - got 45%. True Clinton was up against Ross Perot who got 19% as well as Bush, but Clinton might well have lost were it not for Perot, in which case he would have joined Michael Dukakis in the hall of shame. Clinton won a majority in only two state-like entities: Arkansas and DC. In only 12 other states was he able to get ever 45%. Dukakis, meanwhile, got over 50% in 11 states and got over 45% in 12 others.''
{{nocomplaints}}
::the issue of the black vote is very important in Dem primary, and the experts report it as a contest between Obama and BILL Clinton. CZis not taking sides for or against any candidate here. [[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 00:43, 6 August 2007 (CDT)


:''THE DAMAGE DONE TO THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY by Bill Clinton was the worst experienced under any incumbent president since Grover Cleveland. Here are some of the stats:''
:::I agree. The issue is important. Importance and relevance are two different things.  Let's stick to relevant facts and avoid editorials at all costs. [[User:Will Nesbitt|Will Nesbitt]] 09:53, 6 August 2007 (CDT)


:*''GOP seats gained in House after Clinton became president: 48''
::::Will, what's the problem at all?  Why would the above be a better sentence?  The original sentence is both true and uncontroversial, isn't it? --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 03:32, 7 August 2007 (CDT)
:*''GOP seats gained in Senate after Clinton became president: 8''
:*''GOP governorships gained after Clinton became president: 11''
:*''GOP state legislative seats gained since Clinton became president: 1,254 as of 1998''
:*''State legislatures taken over by GOP after Clinton became president: 9''
:*''Democrat officeholders who became Republicans since Clinton became president: 439 as of 1998''
:*'' Republican officeholders who became Democrats: 3''<ref>http://prorev.com/missingclinton.htm</ref>


These are material facts which are not easily dismissed. These facts seem to stand in opposition to your characterizations of Bill Clinton's brilliance. [[User:Will Nesbitt|Will Nesbitt]] 06:59, 31 July 2007 (CDT)
== Experts ==


==Pardons==
<s>Commented this section out, too.</s>  Reinstated.  Maybe you, Richard and Will, are proving that the Dispute Watch regime is a failure, but this section began with something that wasn't a clear proposition about how to change the text.  It merely listed some quotations (albeit very interesting) that establish that
Is there room in this article for the Marc Rich ''et al'' pardons on the way out the door? [[User:Will Nesbitt|Will Nesbitt]] 09:31, 22 July 2007 (CDT)


::When an expert says Clinton is one of the best campaigners in last half century readers show pay attention. It's true and widely held by all experts in the field. Editoral detachment that leaves the truth out (which is non-controversial and important) makes a bad encyclopedia.[[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 11:04, 24 July 2007 (CDT)
To comment an issue brought up here.  The fact that some experts say X does not entail that CZ should state X without attribution or qualification.  If there are other experts who deny or doubt X, and even if there are significant portions of the ''non-''expert population who disagree with X, it follows that we must attribute X to the experts if we state X at all.  This is our policy, and frankly, I have no idea why anyone would object to it. It's perfectly innocuous: so, say it, but then attribute it.  CZ ''is'' guided by experts and it ''does'' reflect expert opinion first and foremost. But it is also guided by a neutrality policy that acts as an important qualifier of expert opinion.


:::I'm sorry I can't understand what you're saying.  Are you say that Alberto Gonzalez is important enough to warrant a paragraph under [[George W. Bush]], but Clinton's mass pardons aren't worth mentioning? [[User:Will Nesbitt|Will Nesbitt]] 15:15, 24 July 2007 (CDT)
Furthermore, Richard, if you as an editor in this area don't want to participate in Dispute Watch, let me know, and we will remove this article from Dispute Watch.
::::I think eventually there will be a section dealing with those controversies, including the Marc Rich's pardon, the impeachment, and the China fundraising scandal, among others. [[User:Yi Zhe Wu|Yi Zhe Wu]] 15:14, 24 July 2007 (CDT)


==Fairness==
I will be e-mailing you individually and trust me, this time we will solve the problem ''permanently.'' --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 03:59, 7 August 2007 (CDT)
I compare and contrast the admiration for Clinton in this article with the handling of [[George W. Bush]]. Perhaps this is a work in progress and it just needs more progress. This article doesn't mention the fact that Clinton never won a majority of the popular vote, the the Bush article makes such point at the outset. The Bush article goes out of its way to make mention of Alberto Gonzalez, a non-issue for a good many people, but this article fails to mention the long, long list of Clinton scandals. [http://prorev.com/legacy.htm][http://members.tripod.com/~GOPcapitalist/clinton-scandals.html]


: In the strictest sense of the word, you are correct, neither Clinton nor Bush won a "majority" of the popular vote, rather they won a plurality. I believe the reference in the Bush article is to the fact that Al Gore recieved more of the popular vote than Bush, yet lost in the electoral college.  Most of the articles are works in progress here, so I would suggest if you want to add something about Marc Rich, etc, you should. --[[User:Todd Coles|Todd Coles]] 08:24, 31 July 2007 (CDT)
Larry, this succinct statement describes my understanding of the neutrality policy. Thanks for you efforts. I know this is a difficult task, but we appreciate it, even when it seems like we don't. [[User:Will Nesbitt|Will Nesbitt]] 08:19, 7 August 2007 (CDT)


::It is my experience that my edits are deleted minutes after contribution.  I'm trying to build some sort of consensus before start an edit war.  [[User:Will Nesbitt|Will Nesbitt]] 09:28, 31 July 2007 (CDT)
== What the experts say ==


:::If you add a brief paragraph about Marc Rich in an appropriate place I don't see why it would be deleted except, say, for horrendous writing or egregious errors of fact, neither of which I expect from you. If you put it into the first sentence or two, yes, it would be either deleted or moved to a more appropriate spot. So go ahead![[User:Hayford Peirce|Hayford Peirce]] 11:39, 31 July 2007 (CDT)
Here's what experts say:
::::I think someone who adds negative stuff about Clinton should at the same time add some positive information. We don't want our authors accused of political bias one way or the other. [[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 15:19, 31 July 2007 (CDT)
* "The [1992] victory was clearly a result of Clinton's superiority as a campaigner, combining
:::::That sounds dangerously like WP-think to me if you can't add one without adding some of the other in order to ensure *every* point of view. The article on Hitler doesn't have much positive stuff to say. [[User:Hayford Peirce|Hayford Peirce]] 15:24, 31 July 2007 (CDT)
broad knowledge and clear articulation of issues, unbounded personal energy ..."[http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=6k5Z7zagYmcC&oi=fnd&pg=PP11&dq=clinton++campaigner&ots=ONBNd9i5nC&sig=lFZpGyFUSl6MpiE0M5LKEvyT4ek]
::::comparing Hitler and Clinton is not useful. The editors will not allow political partisans to use CZ as a partisan tool to attack people they oppose (or support those they favor) in current US politics. The person who wants to add Mark Rich is advised to writethe original article on Rich to demonstrate he actually knows a lot about the issues before moving to Clinton article. [[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 19:00, 31 July 2007 (CDT)
* "Clinton proved to be an agile and resourceful campaigner, supported
:::::I voted for Clinton twice and I have no axes to grind in this or any other article. But are you saying that *I* couldn't add a couple of sentences to the Clinton article about Mark Rich without *first* having written an article about *Rich*? That seems like a fairly unreasonable requirement to me.... If that's *really* what you mean, I'll be happy to run it by Larry to get his opinion on the matter. [[User:Hayford Peirce|Hayford Peirce]] 20:15, 31 July 2007 (CDT)
by a good organization and ample funding." [http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=fXKw56MiszIC&oi=fnd&pg=PP9&dq=clinton++campaigner&ots=liOyGNAJaH&sig=n6u0FZ7PlwrdLrKLXWjXkQ6VFSE]
* "Clinton: Quiet Momentum The Comeback Kid is a fierce campaigner" (Washington TIMES< right wing newspaper)
* " that consummate campaigner" [http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0020-5850(199610)72%3A4%3C657%3ATUPE1%3E2.0.CO%3B2-T], British journal of political science
* "campaigner Clinton came on strong" [http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0015-7228(199524%2F199624)101%3C75%3AALR%3E2.0.CO%3B2-U]
*"the Great Campaigner" London Review of Books
* "Clinton is known as "the Great Campaigner." US pol Sci journal [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&se=gglsc&d=76954034] [[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 15:54, 5 August 2007 (CDT)


::::::{{nocomplaints}}


:::::::{{nocomplaints}}
I would support inserting any of these quotes into the article.


If you will forgive me here (I have just been working on [[Tony Blair]], in many ways a similar politician. I have to say that I feel that the opening paragraph does show apparent bias, in that it appears to give Clinton's administration the credit for the strong state of the economy. This is an interpretation that many might agree with but probably others wouldn't; the point is that it is an interpretation not a fact. I'd suggest neutralising it (e.g. during Clinton's administration, the economy prospered etc) I also think that the word brilliant should be avoided, as an adjective it is not specific, and so attaches itself as an accolade to the person (Clinton) rather than simply qualifying the specific noun (campaigner). I'd be happy with a specific superlative (e.g. outstandingly effective campaigner) but it would probably be better if this were expressed as reported opinion not as the editorial judgement here ("known as an outstandingly effective campaigner"). Apart from in the lead, I read this article as seemingly a fair and balanced account though.[[User:Gareth Leng|Gareth Leng]] 14:55, 1 August 2007 (CDT)
I suggest balancing these quotes with alternative viewpoints such as liberal Sam Smith who wrote: "CLINTON WAS NOWHERE NEAR as good a politician as the Washington media and political establishment has claimed and the myth has proved to be a destructive fantasy for the party." This is a quote from [http://www.amazon.com/Shadows-Hope-Freethinkers-Politics-Clinton/dp/0253352843 Shadows of Hope: A Freethinker's Guide to Politics in the Time of Clinton] by [http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-handle-url/002-1670347-3759259?%5Fencoding=UTF8&search-type=ss&index=books&field-author=Sam%20Smith Sam Smith] co-author of [http://www.amazon.com/50-Reasons-Not-Vote-Bush/dp/1932595023/ref=sr_1_9/002-1670347-3759259?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1186355605&sr=1-9 50 Reasons Not to Vote for Bush]. [http://prorev.com/missingclinton.htm Here's a complete breakdown] of why this liberal author has written a book to deconstruct the Clinton myth. [[User:Will Nesbitt|Will Nesbitt]] 18:17, 5 August 2007 (CDT)
::Smith is a left winger who complained that Clinton failed to pass a left-wing agenda in hisfirst year in office. He does not comment on Clinton the campaigner.[[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 00:56, 6 August 2007 (CDT)


::Gareth, on the whole I would agree with your comments. However I compare and contrast this article with [[George W. Bush]]. The tone and focus of the two articles is markedly different. The tone of one article seems admiring, while the tone of the other article is distant and at times accusatory. If we ignore the prosaic style of the articles and focus instead upon the facts of the article, one article chooses to highlight the personal attributes and accomplishments of one man and the nation he led. The other article focuses on the shortcomings of the subject and the failings of his administration.
Smith's commented on Clinton's campaigning by charging that the Clinton legacy is "Greatest amount of illegal campaign contributions" and "Greatest amount of illegal campaign contributions from abroad" and "47 individuals and businesses associated with the Clinton machine were convicted of or pleaded guilty to crimes with 33 of these occurring during the Clinton administration itself." <ref>http://prorev.com/missingclinton.htm</ref> Would you prefer a right-wing assault on the claims of Clinton's greatness?


::Some obvious examples:
BTW, you have misunderstood this as my personal assault on Clinton it is not. I also oppose the descriptor of Clinton as "a mediocre speaker". We cannot say with absolute certitude that Clinton is "brilliant" this or "mediocre" that. Those are opinions. Let's stick to facts and quote others for opinions. [[User:Will Nesbitt|Will Nesbitt]] 09:52, 6 August 2007 (CDT)
:::*Why is Bush's vote count important enough to mention in the opening, but there is no mention (anywhere) of the fact that Clinton ''never'' won a Presidential majority of the vote? (See the criticisms of Clinton's "brilliance" by a liberal political author above.)
:::*The implication in the Bush article is that Cheney is a co-president. There is no mention of Gore in Clinton's victories.
:::*Compare the Bush milestones: "the midterm election gains of 2002, the midterm loss of Congress in the 2006 elections" to the unmentioned losses in governors, legislatures, and Congress during Clinton's term. 


::There are more examples (documented above and elsewhere). I don't care if the tone is accusatory, distant, factual or admiring, but I should like to see both men given relatively similar treatment. [[User:Will Nesbitt|Will Nesbitt]] 15:48, 1 August 2007 (CDT)
::"Do no harm" should be our motto. When we say "some believe XYZ" users read that as "some do NOT believe XYZ".  In the Clinton issues discussed here (on campaigning and speaking) there is unanimity among experts (including Sam Smith who was mis-characterized--he actually equated Clinton to the best campaigner of the 20th century--it was Clinton's POLITICAL GOALS Smith denounced).  As for "opinions" --yes that is what encyclopedias are full of: the opinions of experts. We are built around that and the notion that there are "facts" versus "opinions" is very poorly formulated misunderstanding of scholarship. [[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 10:26, 6 August 2007 (CDT)


I see your point. My preference for biographical articles is that they should be sympathetic (in tone) about the person while being coolly objective about the facts; maybe there is a problem with the Bush article. However on the vote count, from a very distant perspective I'd say that the agonies of the recounts and the delay in the outcome ineviably made the voting figures a defining event in the early days at least of the Bush administration, and I don't recall it being a comparable issue for Clinton. However the media here anyway were saturated with analysis of the Bush-Gore outcome. So I'd say it's an important item in reporting on Bush, but unimportant for any other president before or since, but it should be clear why it was important - i.e. because of the media coverage and because it raised questions in the minds of some about the moral legitimacy of Bush's election victory[[User:Gareth Leng|Gareth Leng]] 16:40, 1 August 2007 (CDT)
:::{{nocomplaints}}


::There are some who theorize that Clinton's many "scandals" were not scandals at all, but rather a by-product of the fact that many saw his presidency as illegitimate because he never came close to winning a majority. This is among the many reasons that Clinton's vote tallies are an important part of his Presidency.  The fact remains, Clinton's vote tallies are no more or less important than those of a good many other Presidents. Consider the voting totals of Lincoln, JFK, Nixon, Reagan and T. Roosevelt and the effect/relationship of those tallies on their administrations.  Only in the case of Bush are Presidential voting tallies mentioned in the introduction of the man. [[User:Will Nesbitt|Will Nesbitt]] 18:42, 1 August 2007 (CDT)
::::Only experts can tell the difference between "facts" and "opinions" (because facts are what experts agree on). They do this by intense in-depth analysis of primary and secondary sources, with sustained debates in serious forums.  CZ (as opposed to Wikipedia) has made a commitment to reliance on the experts and scholars. [[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 10:47, 6 August 2007 (CDT)


::Sorry for the brevity in the comment above. It's not meant to imply anything less than the best of intentions and highest of regard for my colleagues.  BTW, I'll be off at the beach for a holiday, so this means I will provide one less thorn to the rose we know of as CZ. [[User:Will Nesbitt|Will Nesbitt]] 19:09, 1 August 2007 (CDT)
:::::That's your opinion. ;^)  


:::The implication of Cheney as a "co-president" (or a prime minister) was something that the Republican campaign pushed, in part to counteract a perception of Bush as a lightweight. The Democrats didn't push that implication for Gore, though Clinton did openly dump a lot of work on Gore, and said he would, but more in the way he might a cabinet secretary.  
:::::Seriously though, I may be wrong but after some reflection I think that statement reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of the neutral policy of CZ. As I understand it, we are here to provide information and the reader is there to decide. However, it's not my place to put an editor in check. Therefore, I think we'll want to check this one with the Editor-in-Chief.[[User:Will Nesbitt|Will Nesbitt]] 11:11, 6 August 2007 (CDT)


:::While Clinton never received a popular majority, nobody disputes that Clinton won both elections under the rules of the game as they are set. There was a significant dispute over whether Bush had legitimately won Florida's electoral votes in 2000, and a small (crankish) dispute over whether Bush legitimately won Ohio's votes in 2004.
:: CZ policy:   2. t will be the project's aim to make the content of the Citizendium:
        * accurate
        * based on common experience, published, credible research, and expert opinion
        * neutral in this sense
        * legal and responsible
        * family-friendly from [http://www.citizendium.org/fundamentals.html] [[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 12:48, 6 August 2007 (CDT)


:::Failing to mention that the House went Republican in 1994, however, is a HUGE oversight - it was the defining political event of the Clinton administration.
==Footnote #1==
That takes us down to Klein, who I assume is Joe Klein, but then the link does *not* take us to a Klein citation.  Shouldn't there be a clear "Source" that tells us what the Klein reference is? I.e.,


:::[[User:Anthony Argyriou|Anthony Argyriou]] 19:13, 1 August 2007 (CDT)
--Sources--
*''Presidents I Have Known and Scorned'', by Joe Klein, '''Time''' magazine, July 4, 2005, page 24


::::You may or may not be right about Cheney, but that opinion is a conclusion not a neutral fact. If that opinion is germane to the discussion, it should be quoted from an expert rather than inserted ad hoc into the introduction.
{{unsigned|Hayford Peirce}}


::::I do not dispute the importance of the narrowness of Bush's victory. I just challenge how and where this fact is reported. I do this because a similar fact is completely omitting regarding Clinton.  Keep in mind, there were charges of election fraud in Chicago in Kennedy's narrow defeat over Nixon.  I don't think the place to mention this is in the first few sentences about [JFK]. So, no mention for Clinton. No mention for Kennedy. But this is in the Bush introduction? Clinton is brilliant. Kennedy is glamorous. It would seem fair by this measure that Bush would be affable, but he's not. He's the guy who lost the popular vote. 
{{off topic}}
::the Klein reference is to his full-length book on the clinton presidency which is cited in the bibliog Klein is a top political reporter and expert on campaigns see [http://www.amazon.com/Natural-Misunderstood-Presidency-Bill-Clinton/dp/0767914120/ref=sr_1_1/104-1795140-9172706?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1186380069&sr=8-1] and [http://www.time.com/time/columnist/klein/article/0,9565,490843,00.html] [[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 01:02, 6 August 2007 (CDT)


::::The House going Republican for the first time in 30 years was the tip of the iceberg. The Senate went Republican. Governors went Republican. The Democratic representation at the state legislatures was decimated.
I'm sorely tempted to delete the above exchanges as they do not make use of {{tl|prop}}: will you please convert them now? --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 22:04, 6 August 2007 (CDT)
::the question was what was the ambiguous Klein reference, and I answered it (his recent book on Clinton)[[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 00:37, 7 August 2007 (CDT)


::::There a a good many of Bush's shortcomings. Let's not forget to mention a few of Clinton's masterpieces. The Federal government was shut down in a budget crisis/showdown. How about the campaign finance fiasco that resulted in an $8.5 million fine and the massive amounts of Chinese money, along with the sale of technology to China. In due time we can cover the disappearing and reappearing FBI files. There were also (some say well-founded) allegations of audits and FBI investigations launched on political opponents. Whatever happened to Vince Foster and the other Clinton related deaths and disappearances? When we mention that Clinton is a brilliant campaigner can we mention that he rented out the Lincoln bedroom to DNC donors for $150,000 a night? That's brilliant
==Hold off==
How about no more than two propositions per person at a time?  This is to keep things manageable. &nbsp;&mdash;[[User:Stephen Ewen|Stephen Ewen]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Stephen Ewen|(Talk)]] 20:03, 5 August 2007 (CDT)


:::::Don't take this to mean I want to trash Clinton. I don't want this article to trash Clinton. I don't mind if we gloss over his many scandals. I would prefer that we ignore his many scandals. But if we do, let's give President Bush the same amount of respect. [[User:Will Nesbitt|Will Nesbitt]]
The page is beginning to look hilarious:-) Probably, your two propositions per person per day should be in the rules. --[[User:Martin Baldwin-Edwards|Martin Baldwin-Edwards]] 20:06, 5 August 2007 (CDT)


::::::Will, you have absolutely got to see that there is a quantum leap of difference between Bush's disputed victory in 2000 and other closely contested elections going back to 1876, for pete's sake!  The 1876 election was the Bush-Gore election of the 19th century and it marked the politics for the rest of the century. Sure, it can be said for many other elections, including Kennedy's that they were "close", or "narrowly won" or even "contested" -- but none of that stuff deserves first paragraph attention. For many, many, MANY people the closeness, and the disputed resolution of the 2000 election, is still the defining point of the biography of George Bush, as much as, or even more so, than the Iraq war.  And even if *you* think they're equivalent, you've got to stop trying to conflate things like "brilliant campaigner" and renting out the Lincold bedroom as "brilliant".  They're not equivalent.  And by harping on them to the exclusion of more important matters, such as writing a neutral article, or articles, you make yourself sound foolish.  You can argue this as long as you want, but you're never going to get these very biased opinions into *any* articles.  You KNOW the facts -- why don't you just concentrate on getting the FACTS into the articles in an unbiased way?  The readers are smart enough to eventually draw their own conclusions from the facts themselves.... [[User:Hayford Peirce|Hayford Peirce]] 21:23, 1 August 2007 (CDT)
:I added [http://en.citizendium.org/wiki?title=CZ:Dispute_Watch&diff=100145753&oldid=100144895 this]. &nbsp;&mdash;[[User:Stephen Ewen|Stephen Ewen]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Stephen Ewen|(Talk)]] 20:45, 5 August 2007 (CDT)


Hayford, I think you're arguing in good faith, so I won't flag you for characterizing my arguments with the term "foolish".  I would expect my arguments would sound foolish to you, based upon what you listed as your primary news sources above. ;^)


You also have to consider the fact that a good many people find those arguments that oppose these arguments "foolish". Those people read the Washington Times & Wall Street Journal. Those people watch the most popular news channel in America. Those people make conservative talk radio a commercial success. Any argument based upon the foolishness of their views is, well, as foolish as calling them "foolish".
== Changes to this article ==
Any substantive changes to this article must be discussed here first. --[[User:Martin Baldwin-Edwards|Martin Baldwin-Edwards]] 10:56, 6 October 2007 (CDT)
:Indeed--and I will add that only experts are able to separeate fact and opinion. The article is now well balanced and factual.[[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 15:52, 6 October 2007 (CDT)


I will admit to an Irish temper and I will admit to getting unnecessarily worked up over the current state of the article and over the oppressive manner with which it has been edited. That said, you will find that I am not arguing for this to read like a GOP pamphlet. I don't like Republicans.  If I'd have had a better alternative I wouldn't have voted for Bush. I'm a wacky Perot two-timer and thus I will remain. (Bloomberg is courting me now.) ;^)
== chinagate ==


I am in complete and total agreement about the reporting of facts. The next question is which fact is reported where. I think vote tallies are extremely important. They measure the mandate of a President. Like him or not (and at the time I hated him), Democrats had to deal with a force called Reagan. Clinton never, even in two terms, came close to possessing this kind of power. Thus I would agree that Bush's vote tallies are an important part of understanding his place in history. But I don't buy into the assertion that Clinton's vote tallies are less important / less newsworthy than Bush's tallies. All Presidential vote tallies are equally important when understanding the subject in question. Bush had higher vote tallies than Clinton, but Clinton out right won the election by the rules of the game. These aren't secrets. They are facts. People can judge for themselves how important they are. We just need to treat equivalent facts ... well ... equally. 
Clinton was implicated in an illegal fundraising from the PRC government, dubbed "Chinagate", should it be discussed in the article? Also, the article says he and Reagan are two best campaigners, how about [[John F. Kennedy]]? [[User:Yi Zhe Wu|Yi Zhe Wu]] 21:16, 6 October 2007 (CDT)
::the Catholics LOVED Kennedy, but more as a symbol than anything else. He overwhelmed his opponents with family money, and otherwise was not especially good at campaigning. [[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 22:24, 6 October 2007 (CDT)
:::If you have well-sourced information on the illegal fundraising, I think it should be included. It might help with some of the arguments here about pro-Left bias, to include it.--[[User:Martin Baldwin-Edwards|Martin Baldwin-Edwards]] 22:31, 6 October 2007 (CDT)
:::::Wikipeida has a [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1996_United_States_campaign_finance_controversy featured long article] on this particular issue, I think there are some sources listed that are useful. Myself is not a Clinton historian and did not like him as a president, especially his Darwinian welfare reform that hurts millions of poverty-stricken Americans (that is considered "Left"?) [[User:Yi Zhe Wu|Yi Zhe Wu]] 10:03, 7 October 2007 (CDT)
::::::the "Chinagate" business did not directly touch Clinton; only the GOP alleged that when it was looking for mischief. [[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 17:23, 7 October 2007 (CDT)
:::::::My concern is that whether the president actually accepted money from the PRC government, and I am confused by those articles (still not knowing he did or not). [[User:Yi Zhe Wu|Yi Zhe Wu]] 19:15, 7 October 2007 (CDT)
::::::::he did not. that would be an impeachable crime--he was impeached, but not for THAT. [[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 19:27, 7 October 2007 (CDT)


It sounds like we're saying almost the same thing to me. The only point of contention is that I think we need to position and order Bush's facts in the same perspective as Clinton's and vice versa.
==Recent campaign==


As for my "opinions" I have no idea what you're referring to. It is my opinion that "brilliant" is an opinion. I believe that an editor who understands the neutrality policy will agree and brilliant must go or must be ascribed to an expert. Aside from that I've done nothing but present facts.[[User:Will Nesbitt|Will Nesbitt]] 07:51, 2 August 2007 (CDT)
Has the article talk about the recent campaigns he conducts to first help elect his wife, and now Obama, to the presidency in the 2008 election? [[User:Yi Zhe Wu|Yi Zhe Wu]] 17:14, 3 September 2008 (CDT)
:Also I started the scandals and impeachment section. I don't know a lot about those scandals (many "-gates" and Monica). Someone who is an expert of Clinton presidency please expand the section. [[User:Yi Zhe Wu|Yi Zhe Wu]] 17:41, 3 September 2008 (CDT)

Latest revision as of 21:27, 9 March 2009

This article is developing and not approved.
 Main Article
 Discussion
Related Articles  [?]
Bibliography  [?]
External Links  [?]
Citable Version  [?]
 
To learn how to update the categories for this article, see here. To update categories, edit the metadata template.
 Definition:  Democratic politician (1946– ), President of the United States of America 1993–2001, and husband of U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton [d] [e]
Checklist and Archives
 Workgroup categories:  Politics, History and Topic Informant [Categories OK]
 Talk Archive:  1  English language variant:  American English

Editor plan and guidelines

  • A general principle of all articles about political figures: it should be impossible to determine whether the authors are supporters or opponents of the subject of the article. Citizendium is neither Democrat nor Republican.

This article talk page is now under dispute watch

See CZ:Dispute Watch. You're going to have to start using the {{prop}} template in the way that page describes, illustrated here: Talk:Oriental (word). We're testing out a dispute resolution idea, but I'm taking the test seriously. From now on, disputation on this page must be on-topic, and on-topic means (1) aimed at a specific proposition, (2) the proposition must concern the wording of the text, and (3) engaging in a dispute, as opposed to how to characterize the dispute, is off-topic. Call it the Anti-Bloviation Rule!  :-) --Larry Sanger 07:26, 3 August 2007 (CDT)

What follows is not my most passionately held belief, nor is it a particularly important issue IMHO, but it is an issue none-the-less and I'm going to try to push it through this new system to see how the system works. Will Nesbitt 06:39, 5 August 2007 (CDT)

Will demonstrated able how well a motivated troublemaker could break the system. I think it's a failure, so this dispute watch is off... --Larry Sanger 03:31, 10 August 2007 (CDT)

The appropriateness of the word "brilliant" to describe any political figure.

Proposition: Introductory paragraph sentence reading: Clinton, a policy wonk, was (with Ronald Reagan) one of the two best campaigners in recent decades.

I think it is inappropriate for CZ to describe any politician with an editorial adjective such as "brilliant". Clinton may well be brilliant, but there are many arguments against his brilliance. Because this is an arguable statement, it is not a factual statement, thus I don't think CZ should take a position on his brilliance.

The comparison to Reagan reads like an attempt to placate partisans, and doesn't solve the real editorial issue. I don't think CZ should take a position on Reagan's brilliance either, btw. The way it's now written, the comment on Reagan seems wildly off-topic and only makes sense in the context that someone is trying to appease those who disagree with Clinton's brilliance. The footnote leads to a search engine with no direct quote or opinion by any expert. If there were an expert to quote I would suggest the sentence read:

Expert X says that Clinton, a policy wonk, was one of the two best campaigners in recent decades.

As a result of working through this debate, I checked the "sources" for this claim. The current source is not really a source but a link to the results of a keyword search from a search engine. These are quotes from the top three sources on the search engine provided by previous researcher:

"Bill Clinton's the best campaigner I've seen in my life," said Tom McGrath of Pepperell, Mass., who plans to support Hillary Clinton "on her own merits." -- Concord Monitor Online (Tom McGrath is some average guy at a Clinton rally.)
"the best campaigner there ever was"--David Matthews...Longtime friend of Clinton
“What John Edwards had going for him is first of all he’s the best campaigner I’ve seen since Bill Clinton. His speech is the most fantastic stump speech.” -- DAVID BROOKS. (This appears to be a Democratic campaign site of some sort.)

The next reference is entitled: "Rush Limba sic. - Lying Nazi Whore". It's a random collection of thoughts attesting the poster's political opinions regarding Rush Limbaugh's flaws. One of the quatrains mentions the phrase "best campaigner of the 20th Century".

I gave up research after this, because it does not appear that the sources support the claim made by the sentence. I would prefer to see this sentence removed until these claims can be supported by expert opinion. Will Nesbitt 07:03, 5 August 2007 (CDT)

the experts agree on Reagan and Clinton's campaign prowess and CZ reflects that. It's not at all controversial. Richard Jensen 14:01, 5 August 2007 (CDT)
Reagan's brilliance is not relevant and thus shouldn't be mentioned. Clinton's brilliance is not particularly controversial, but it is an opinion. Opinions must be ascribed to experts and not to CZ. Please find a reference that testifies to Clinton's brilliance. The previous source was very poor work. I have said repeatedly, it's fine to quote the opinions of Jensen or Moyers or Tom McGrath or David Matthews (above) regarding Clinton's brilliance. CZ is not neutral and our work here is exceeding difficult if we devolve into a place to argue opinions, rather than a place to report facts. Will Nesbitt 14:07, 5 August 2007 (CDT)
Facts are what the experts agree on, including Clinton's brilliance at campaigning. there is no alternative viewpoint. Richard Jensen 14:10, 5 August 2007 (CDT)
Isn't a dead horse being beaten here? The word "brilliant" hasn't been used for some time now - it says that he and Reagan were the two best campaigners of recent times. This too, I freely concede, may also be inaccurate, as being as possibly being biased, but at least I think the discussion should focus of *this* phrasing, not the previous.Hayford Peirce 14:11, 5 August 2007 (CDT)
The advantage of current phrasing: there have been a few dozen major national campaigners in recent decades Clinton and Reagan have received intense scrutiny from many experts all across the spectrum, who agree on the consensus. To report that consensus is CZ's mission. To NOT report it because it makes a Democrat look good is the sort of pro-GOP bias we avoid. Richard Jensen 14:16, 5 August 2007 (CDT)
Thank you Hayford for identifying my mistake of honing in on "brilliant". But the argument remains the same whether you insert "best campaigner" or use "brilliant". This is an editorial value judgment and as such is outside of our purview.
Contrary to Richard's assertion, there is no great consensus about Clinton's skills. In fact, it's not difficult to find both conservative and liberal commentators who agree and/or disagree about Clinton's campaign skills. I've posted them here before and I can post them again. My point is not to prove that Clinton is any type of campaigner (brilliant or poor) but rather to prove that the point is arguable. That is a relatively easy point to prove. The simple solution is to pick from one of the quotes above or find another that you prefer. It's too easy to get hung up on political labels and thus be unable to see best path to neutrality. Will Nesbitt 14:21, 5 August 2007 (CDT)
who does Nesbitt think are the consensus-best campaigners of the last 50 years? Lets put some alternative names on the table. Richard Jensen 14:44, 5 August 2007 (CDT)

I find this discussion very strange. It is not unreasonable for Will to ask for academic sources, rather than political allies' and supporters' opinions. It should not be difficult to find some! As far as superlatives are concerned, my feeling is that it is not a comparison with other campaigners, it is rather a theoretical position suggesting that it is difficult to imagine anyone doing better. Such a conclusion should be supported by analysis, rather than simply being claimed. --Martin Baldwin-Edwards 15:27, 5 August 2007 (CDT)

Nesbitt himself cited David Brooks making the point, then dismissed him as a Democrat! Brooks is a leading conservative, the columnist for NY Times. The article cites standard books by experts, all of whom agree on Clinton's amazing campaign skills. Nesbitt is making an artificial controversy and he is not citing any experts who support him (because there are none). Richard Jensen 15:42, 5 August 2007 (CDT)

I did not put David Brooks on the table, nor did I dismiss him. I followed the footnote which led to a search engine which lead to a website with a quote from Mr. Brooks. I quoted the website that was sourced (with a simple cut and paste). The source gave not indication of who Mr. Brooks was or why this was a worthwhile resource. It was just a a picture of John Edwards with a quote about Clinton. If this article chooses to quote Mr. Brooks, I have no problem or issue. My only issue is that this article should not take a stand on "best campaigner", "brilliance" or other value judgment. Will Nesbitt 18:03, 5 August 2007 (CDT)

I think when judging a politician's skill at something, you will always find a dissenting opinion. There does appear to be a significant amount of commentary referring to Clinton's campaign skills. I suggest the best way to qualify this in the article is to note something like "Clinton is widely regarded as..." with links to several footnotes to back this up. --Todd Coles 21:43, 5 August 2007 (CDT)
I put in almost exactly this same phrase some time ago but Prof. Jensen deleted it on the grounds that experts had already decided Clinton was brilliant and that there was no purpose in discussing it any further. Hayford Peirce 10:15, 6 August 2007 (CDT)

I'm deleting this "vote." Until we actually discuss and decide that we will take open "votes" about these issues, a la Wikipedia, we aren't going to do it. --Larry Sanger 05:13, 6 August 2007 (CDT)

Todd, thank you for stating my point more eloquently. I agree with your solution completely. Will Nesbitt 09:55, 6 August 2007 (CDT)

Relevance

Proposition: This sentence "Clinton has become a major fundraiser and campaigner for his wife, with his special appeal to the African American vote to neutralize her main opponent, Barak Obama" is very nearly factual, but is mostly editorial. A better sentence would be: "Currently, Clinton is a major fundraiser and campaigner for his wife." With a source to support this claim."


A comment here was deleted by The Constabulary on grounds of making complaints about fellow Citizens. If you have a complaint about the behavior of another Citizen, e-mail constables@citizendium.org. It is contrary to Citizendium policy to air your complaints on the wiki. See also CZ:Professionalism.

the issue of the black vote is very important in Dem primary, and the experts report it as a contest between Obama and BILL Clinton. CZis not taking sides for or against any candidate here. Richard Jensen 00:43, 6 August 2007 (CDT)
I agree. The issue is important. Importance and relevance are two different things. Let's stick to relevant facts and avoid editorials at all costs. Will Nesbitt 09:53, 6 August 2007 (CDT)
Will, what's the problem at all? Why would the above be a better sentence? The original sentence is both true and uncontroversial, isn't it? --Larry Sanger 03:32, 7 August 2007 (CDT)

Experts

Commented this section out, too. Reinstated. Maybe you, Richard and Will, are proving that the Dispute Watch regime is a failure, but this section began with something that wasn't a clear proposition about how to change the text. It merely listed some quotations (albeit very interesting) that establish that

To comment an issue brought up here. The fact that some experts say X does not entail that CZ should state X without attribution or qualification. If there are other experts who deny or doubt X, and even if there are significant portions of the non-expert population who disagree with X, it follows that we must attribute X to the experts if we state X at all. This is our policy, and frankly, I have no idea why anyone would object to it. It's perfectly innocuous: so, say it, but then attribute it. CZ is guided by experts and it does reflect expert opinion first and foremost. But it is also guided by a neutrality policy that acts as an important qualifier of expert opinion.

Furthermore, Richard, if you as an editor in this area don't want to participate in Dispute Watch, let me know, and we will remove this article from Dispute Watch.

I will be e-mailing you individually and trust me, this time we will solve the problem permanently. --Larry Sanger 03:59, 7 August 2007 (CDT)

Larry, this succinct statement describes my understanding of the neutrality policy. Thanks for you efforts. I know this is a difficult task, but we appreciate it, even when it seems like we don't. Will Nesbitt 08:19, 7 August 2007 (CDT)

What the experts say

Here's what experts say:

  • "The [1992] victory was clearly a result of Clinton's superiority as a campaigner, combining

broad knowledge and clear articulation of issues, unbounded personal energy ..."[1]

  • "Clinton proved to be an agile and resourceful campaigner, supported

by a good organization and ample funding." [2]

  • "Clinton: Quiet Momentum The Comeback Kid is a fierce campaigner" (Washington TIMES< right wing newspaper)
  • " that consummate campaigner" [3], British journal of political science
  • "campaigner Clinton came on strong" [4]
  • "the Great Campaigner" London Review of Books
  • "Clinton is known as "the Great Campaigner." US pol Sci journal [5] Richard Jensen 15:54, 5 August 2007 (CDT)


I would support inserting any of these quotes into the article.

I suggest balancing these quotes with alternative viewpoints such as liberal Sam Smith who wrote: "CLINTON WAS NOWHERE NEAR as good a politician as the Washington media and political establishment has claimed and the myth has proved to be a destructive fantasy for the party." This is a quote from Shadows of Hope: A Freethinker's Guide to Politics in the Time of Clinton by Sam Smith co-author of 50 Reasons Not to Vote for Bush. Here's a complete breakdown of why this liberal author has written a book to deconstruct the Clinton myth. Will Nesbitt 18:17, 5 August 2007 (CDT)

Smith is a left winger who complained that Clinton failed to pass a left-wing agenda in hisfirst year in office. He does not comment on Clinton the campaigner.Richard Jensen 00:56, 6 August 2007 (CDT)

Smith's commented on Clinton's campaigning by charging that the Clinton legacy is "Greatest amount of illegal campaign contributions" and "Greatest amount of illegal campaign contributions from abroad" and "47 individuals and businesses associated with the Clinton machine were convicted of or pleaded guilty to crimes with 33 of these occurring during the Clinton administration itself." [1] Would you prefer a right-wing assault on the claims of Clinton's greatness?

BTW, you have misunderstood this as my personal assault on Clinton it is not. I also oppose the descriptor of Clinton as "a mediocre speaker". We cannot say with absolute certitude that Clinton is "brilliant" this or "mediocre" that. Those are opinions. Let's stick to facts and quote others for opinions. Will Nesbitt 09:52, 6 August 2007 (CDT)

"Do no harm" should be our motto. When we say "some believe XYZ" users read that as "some do NOT believe XYZ". In the Clinton issues discussed here (on campaigning and speaking) there is unanimity among experts (including Sam Smith who was mis-characterized--he actually equated Clinton to the best campaigner of the 20th century--it was Clinton's POLITICAL GOALS Smith denounced). As for "opinions" --yes that is what encyclopedias are full of: the opinions of experts. We are built around that and the notion that there are "facts" versus "opinions" is very poorly formulated misunderstanding of scholarship. Richard Jensen 10:26, 6 August 2007 (CDT)

A comment here was deleted by The Constabulary on grounds of making complaints about fellow Citizens. If you have a complaint about the behavior of another Citizen, e-mail constables@citizendium.org. It is contrary to Citizendium policy to air your complaints on the wiki. See also CZ:Professionalism.

Only experts can tell the difference between "facts" and "opinions" (because facts are what experts agree on). They do this by intense in-depth analysis of primary and secondary sources, with sustained debates in serious forums. CZ (as opposed to Wikipedia) has made a commitment to reliance on the experts and scholars. Richard Jensen 10:47, 6 August 2007 (CDT)
That's your opinion. ;^)
Seriously though, I may be wrong but after some reflection I think that statement reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of the neutral policy of CZ. As I understand it, we are here to provide information and the reader is there to decide. However, it's not my place to put an editor in check. Therefore, I think we'll want to check this one with the Editor-in-Chief.Will Nesbitt 11:11, 6 August 2007 (CDT)
CZ policy: 2. t will be the project's aim to make the content of the Citizendium:
       * accurate
       * based on common experience, published, credible research, and expert opinion
       * neutral in this sense
       * legal and responsible
       * family-friendly from [6] Richard Jensen 12:48, 6 August 2007 (CDT)

Footnote #1

That takes us down to Klein, who I assume is Joe Klein, but then the link does *not* take us to a Klein citation. Shouldn't there be a clear "Source" that tells us what the Klein reference is? I.e.,

--Sources--

  • Presidents I Have Known and Scorned, by Joe Klein, Time magazine, July 4, 2005, page 24

...said Hayford Peirce (talk) (Please sign your talk page posts by simply adding four tildes, ~~~~.)

A comment was removed from the talk page here because the article is under dispute watch. The comment was not on-topic for a particular proposition. Please do see CZ:Dispute Watch for background.

the Klein reference is to his full-length book on the clinton presidency which is cited in the bibliog Klein is a top political reporter and expert on campaigns see [7] and [8] Richard Jensen 01:02, 6 August 2007 (CDT)

I'm sorely tempted to delete the above exchanges as they do not make use of {{prop}}: will you please convert them now? --Larry Sanger 22:04, 6 August 2007 (CDT)

the question was what was the ambiguous Klein reference, and I answered it (his recent book on Clinton)Richard Jensen 00:37, 7 August 2007 (CDT)

Hold off

How about no more than two propositions per person at a time? This is to keep things manageable.  —Stephen Ewen (Talk) 20:03, 5 August 2007 (CDT)

The page is beginning to look hilarious:-) Probably, your two propositions per person per day should be in the rules. --Martin Baldwin-Edwards 20:06, 5 August 2007 (CDT)

I added this.  —Stephen Ewen (Talk) 20:45, 5 August 2007 (CDT)


Changes to this article

Any substantive changes to this article must be discussed here first. --Martin Baldwin-Edwards 10:56, 6 October 2007 (CDT)

Indeed--and I will add that only experts are able to separeate fact and opinion. The article is now well balanced and factual.Richard Jensen 15:52, 6 October 2007 (CDT)

chinagate

Clinton was implicated in an illegal fundraising from the PRC government, dubbed "Chinagate", should it be discussed in the article? Also, the article says he and Reagan are two best campaigners, how about John F. Kennedy? Yi Zhe Wu 21:16, 6 October 2007 (CDT)

the Catholics LOVED Kennedy, but more as a symbol than anything else. He overwhelmed his opponents with family money, and otherwise was not especially good at campaigning. Richard Jensen 22:24, 6 October 2007 (CDT)
If you have well-sourced information on the illegal fundraising, I think it should be included. It might help with some of the arguments here about pro-Left bias, to include it.--Martin Baldwin-Edwards 22:31, 6 October 2007 (CDT)
Wikipeida has a featured long article on this particular issue, I think there are some sources listed that are useful. Myself is not a Clinton historian and did not like him as a president, especially his Darwinian welfare reform that hurts millions of poverty-stricken Americans (that is considered "Left"?) Yi Zhe Wu 10:03, 7 October 2007 (CDT)
the "Chinagate" business did not directly touch Clinton; only the GOP alleged that when it was looking for mischief. Richard Jensen 17:23, 7 October 2007 (CDT)
My concern is that whether the president actually accepted money from the PRC government, and I am confused by those articles (still not knowing he did or not). Yi Zhe Wu 19:15, 7 October 2007 (CDT)
he did not. that would be an impeachable crime--he was impeached, but not for THAT. Richard Jensen 19:27, 7 October 2007 (CDT)

Recent campaign

Has the article talk about the recent campaigns he conducts to first help elect his wife, and now Obama, to the presidency in the 2008 election? Yi Zhe Wu 17:14, 3 September 2008 (CDT)

Also I started the scandals and impeachment section. I don't know a lot about those scandals (many "-gates" and Monica). Someone who is an expert of Clinton presidency please expand the section. Yi Zhe Wu 17:41, 3 September 2008 (CDT)
  1. ↑ http://prorev.com/missingclinton.htm
Retrieved from "https://citizendium.org/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:Bill_Clinton&oldid=29302"