Video Player by Kaltura

 

Previous Idea from Ted

Who is Ted Sorensen?

Spreading good ideas with someone you know is one of the simplest things we can do to improve the conversation.

  •  BUZZ
  • Delicious  DELICIOUS
  •  DIGG
  •  FACEBOOK
  •  LINKEDIN
  • Email_icon  EMAIL

Spreading good ideas with someone you know is one of the simplest things we can do to improve the conversation.

  • Jamie Tyroler
    Jamie Tyroler replied on 09:56 PM on March 28, 2008
    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
    Jamie Tyroler replied on 01:56 AM on March 29, 2008
    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.

Sign up or log in to post a response to this idea.