[OpenMind5]

Ok, i know i am supose to be gone, but i have somthign for u guys to brood over while i am gone...(I am leaving in like an hour)

How should you judge a political canadait? Does his persoanl life have anythign to do with it? Example, Bill Clinton was a great president who did good things, but made one bad mistake that some say tarnished his image as a political figure head. What do you guys/gals think?

Op5

[Tormod]

It will always depend on the person. There are good bad guys and bad good guys.

[C1ay]

A political candidate should be judged by his character and yes, there are some personal affairs (no pun intended) that should be considered.

As for Clinton, peruse the returns of these searches and judge for yourself if you truly believe that he had his country's best interests at heart:

clinton china loral
clinton china super computer
clinton russia super computer
clinton Chelyabinsk-70 nuclear weapons laboratory
clinton FBI whitehouse background checks
clinton CIA whitehouse background checks

[Fishteacher73]

It seems to me the very act of wanting to be a politician should indicate that more than likely you are dealing with someone you really don't want to vote for. It seems to take an outsider to shake up the status quo and at least do something (ie Jesse Ventura (pro wrestler gone governor) to at least admit that our current system for dealing with the vices of prostitution and drugs are inadequate and SOMETHING should be done).
Unfortunatly it seems that the only "outsiders" the American public likes to elect are guys that have acted in the movie "Predator".

[Biochemist]

Originally Posted by Fishteacher73

It seems to me the very act of wanting to be a politician should indicate that more than likely you are dealing with someone you really don't want to vote for.

I think that is a pretty insightful point, FsT. I don't want to pick on Clinton (he is too easy a target). It seems to me that the criteria for a "good" politician (even though I agree with FsT that it is probably an oxymoron) are:

1) integrity- Does the guy/gal say what he/she is going to do, and then stick to it
2) productivity- Does he/she get much done

This framework would apply to any politician, irrespective policy orientation. By this model, Bush II, Carter, Reagan, show as pretty high integrity; Clinton, and Bush I less so.

3) If you were to add charisma into the qualifications (as some do, and I think it is a credible point of view) I think Bush II would plummet and Carter, Reagan and Clinton would rise.

4) You could also add raw political skill to the mix, although I think the arguments in favor of it are weaker. The is the skll set that lets the President (for example) characterize ideas in simple terms quickly and out maneuver their opponents in the public rhetorical field. In this skillset, I think Clinton was the strongest president since FDR. Reagan probably comes in second. Strong partisans tend to want this skill most, above all else.

[bumab]

Originally Posted by Biochemist

1) integrity- Does the guy/gal say what he/she is going to do, and then stick to it
2) productivity- Does he/she get much done

I would add two more:

3) responsibility- does he/she act with an eye towards the best for everyone.
4) intellegence- can he/she see past the immediate conditions to the longer term goal.

By those measures, Bush II fails completely.

And I do think charisma is an important indicator as well, boosting Bush II's position. But that just makes you an effective leader. Bush II is an effective leader. He is NOT a good one, in my opinion. Not at all...

[Fishteacher73]

One thing that many people seem to be stuck on is some sort of "morality" that is used to lampoon Clinton. So what if he was playing the field. Did that alter his ability to make decisions? The only ones that seemed to really care were the reps. The world stage saw it as a joke and a huge media circus. To put in perspective, JFK was all but screwing Monroe on a stage. Does that alter his legacy?

[C1ay]

Originally Posted by Fishteacher73

One thing that many people seem to be stuck on is some sort of "morality" that is used to lampoon Clinton. So what if he was playing the field. Did that alter his ability to make decisions? The only ones that seemed to really care were the reps. The world stage saw it as a joke and a huge media circus. To put in perspective, JFK was all but screwing Monroe on a stage. Does that alter his legacy?

It's this kind of spin that keeps people from knowing what the real issue was in the Clinton-Lewinsky affair. It had nothing to do with playing the field. As the Govenor of Arkansas he abused his power with a subordinate, Paula Jones. She sued him for sexual harrassment. In that case he testified that he had not had any romantic relationships with any other subordinates under his authority. Lewinsky was in fact one of those subordinates and the evidence that he had commited perjury under oath in his testimony in the civil suit. It was this same perjury that he was disbarred in Arkansas for and fined $25,000 dollars for folowing his Presidency. He was also permenantly disbarred from the US Supreme Court for his perjury. This whole case was a good example of the media reporting what the case was not about and omitting what the case was about.

FWIW, I am not completely convinced this mattered much even though it reflects his flawed personal character. As you pointed out, JFK had a bit of flawed character himself. OTOH, JFK did not barter with our cold war enemies and transfer classified weapons technologies as Clinton did. Those kind of issues should be considered when evaluating a political candidate.

[Biochemist]

Originally Posted by Fishteacher73

One thing that many people seem to be stuck on is some sort of "morality" that is used to lampoon Clinton. So what if he was playing the field. Did that alter his ability to make decisions?...

Speaking only for myself, I do think morals matter. I do not expect presidents to be sinless, but I expect some level of integrity.

I agree that the issues around Clinton drove a media circus. What bothered me was not the philandering, but the subsequent stream of lies and coverup activities. Clinton will probably NEVER get past a bold-faced lie on camera about his picadilloes. And the magnitude of the coverup was similar in scale to the Nixon years, although the underlying behavior was (probably) not as heinous.

...To put in perspective, JFK was all but screwing Monroe on a stage. Does that alter his legacy?

I don't intend to defend JFK's behavior, but I don't think he ever lied about it. It is true that was a different time, and the press gave him more license, but he never was forced to misrepresent the behavior.

[Fishteacher73]

I will grant that the integrety issue is valid. Yet to be practical, what would you have done? I know more than likely that I would have tried to cover my ass on such a non-issue in terms of the actual mechanics of gov't and something that one a small section of the raise hell about. The main thing was that it was a partisain witch-hunt and they stumbled onto an insignificant error. (Possibly lighter than King's plagiarism for his doctorate).