Question: You’ve said that Bill Clinton didn’t accomplish much in office despite rhetorical skills. Why?
Sorensen: Bill Clinton, of course he was effective. Very good communicator – so good that if he were sitting here right now he might even persuade me that I was wrong. But what did he do with it? What did he accomplish? He had a better understanding of Black values and culture in this country than any president since Lyndon Johnson. But what did he do with it? The problems faced by Blacks in this country – segregated schools; segregated neighborhoods; unjust discrimination in the law enforcement process, whether we’re talking about profiling by police or disparate penalties in the sentencing; populating our prisons with such a large percentage of the young black male population in this country – terrible situation. None of it changed during eight years. Clinton had two terms – an opportunity to do so much. And he appointed a commission of some very distinguished people. They delivered a report which was noble in its sentiments, but nothing changed. Nothing was done. There was an opportunity to send legislation. Ted Kennedy for example just within the last week or so has sent to . . . has introduced in Congress new civil rights legislation to undo the damage done by the United States Supreme Court under its new conservative rule. Why wasn’t that done during the Clinton administration? Why didn’t he go out on a limb? The same is true internationally. It was an era for multi-lateral cooperation. There was established an international criminal court. Clinton decided the U.S. wouldn’t participate. There was signed in Kyoto a protocol to take the first steps against global warming and other climate change crises. Clinton decided not to send it to Congress. There was with leadership from our friends in Canada and some of the non-governmental organizations a new treaty to restrict the use of landmines. And I’ve been in countries where I’ve seen the limbs that are blown off by landmines that are still littering the ground. Clinton decided the United States wouldn’t participate. We didn’t participate in the biodiversity treaty. We didn’t even participate in the treaties against discrimination against women. We didn’t even discriminate in the treaty against the drafting to the military service of people too young to be inducted into Armed Forces. We backed away from every one of those, because Mr. Clinton with all his wonderful, rhetorical gifts was not willing to go out on a limb.
Discuss
Jamie Tyroler on March 28, 2008, 9:56 PM
I wasn't able to watch all of Mr. Sorensen's comments (I was having problems getting the entire video clip to upload). I agree that former President Clinton could have done much better as President – even before his sex scandal (although he went into office having a history).
As far as LGBT rights, he created the failed "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy for the military, although I do suspect that the military isn't exactly sticking to the "Don't Ask" part of that. But, Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act at a time that the Republicans couldn't override a veto.
We didn't sign onto the international agreements that might have cut down on our carbon emissions.
Would our war on terror be different had the Clinton administration responded to the USS Cole attack?
The portion of Mr. Sorensen's comments that I wasn't able to see had to do with having a hostile Congress. Yes, Congress in 1993 was hostile towards President Clinton – he came into office with some heavy baggage: Genifer (sp?) Flowers and Paula Jones, White Water, etc. The Republicans in Congress were ready to prevent President Clinton from doing much right off the bat.
Would Clinton have been a better President if didn't have these issues? Possibly. Could the Republican Congress take some of the blame for Clinton not being able to do some things? Definitely.
For example, after the bombings of the Kenyan and Tanzanian embassies, we did launch attacks on al Qaeda camps in Afghanistan. Republicans in Congress (almost in unison) were saying that this was a "Wag the Dog" episode after a recent movie. Because of that, the Republicans who were in office at that time and put pressure to decrease or stop the attacks on al Qaeda definitely should be held accountable for our not having a more aggressive attack against al Qaeda at that time.
Clinton might have been more effective if Congress hadn't spent, what was it, $50 million investigating Clinton when he was the Governor of Arkansas. This investigation tied up several FBI agents for a period of time. He probably would have been more effective had he not been involved with Monica Lewinsky.
Would we have our current President if Clinton hadn't had this baggage in 2000? Quite possibly things would have different.
Al Gore had to distance himself from the scandal-laden Clinton. Instead we have had 8 years of George W. Bush, quite possibly one of the worst Presidents in our history.
Jamie Tyroler on March 29, 2008, 1:56 AM
I wasn’t able to watch all of Mr. Sorensen’s comments (I was having problems getting the entire video clip to upload). I agree that former President Clinton could have done much better as President – even before his sex scandal (although he went into office having a history).
As far as LGBT rights, he created the failed “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy for the military, although I do suspect that the military isn’t exactly sticking to the “Don’t Ask” part of that. But, Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act at a time that the Republicans couldn’t override a veto.
We didn’t sign onto the international agreements that might have cut down on our carbon emissions.
Would our war on terror be different had the Clinton administration responded to the USS Cole attack?
The portion of Mr. Sorensen’s comments that I wasn’t able to see had to do with having a hostile Congress. Yes, Congress in 1993 was hostile towards President Clinton – he came into office with some heavy baggage: Genifer (sp?) Flowers and Paula Jones, White Water, etc. The Republicans in Congress were ready to prevent President Clinton from doing much right off the bat.
Would Clinton have been a better President if didn’t have these issues? Possibly. Could the Republican Congress take some of the blame for Clinton not being able to do some things? Definitely.
For example, after the bombings of the Kenyan and Tanzanian embassies, we did launch attacks on al Qaeda camps in Afghanistan. Republicans in Congress (almost in unison) were saying that this was a “Wag the Dog” episode after a recent movie. Because of that, the Republicans who were in office at that time and put pressure to decrease or stop the attacks on al Qaeda definitely should be held accountable for our not having a more aggressive attack against al Qaeda at that time.
Clinton might have been more effective if Congress hadn’t spent, what was it, $50 million investigating Clinton when he was the Governor of Arkansas. This investigation tied up several FBI agents for a period of time. He probably would have been more effective had he not been involved with Monica Lewinsky.
Would we have our current President if Clinton hadn’t had this baggage in 2000? Quite possibly things would have different.
Al Gore had to distance himself from the scandal-laden Clinton. Instead we have had 8 years of George W. Bush, quite possibly one of the worst Presidents in our history.
Add a Comment
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or Register