Prior to his persecution by Ken Starr- the right absolutely came unglued when Clinton won his first election.

He co-opted and adopted many of the very things conservatives (I mean fiscal conservatives especially here) wanted the most- deficit reduction, fairly hawkish in foriegn policy, welfare reform, housing reform, cops on the beat, public safety, all of these were either right- of center or moderate platforms, he could never be considered really liberal, unless you consider pro-choice liberal or gays in the military liberal- which I don't, I consider them libertarian.

He was clearly not liberal, with perhaps the only real issue he was mildly liberal was gun control- and that wasn't very extreme in his policy either- in fact, as governer of Arkansas, he was a hunter and endorsed by the NRA- but when he got behind the Brady bill- they hated him. But he was certainly not against hunting or for gun confiscation or anti-gun ownership- and came down squarely on the side of law enforcement on this one.

He put cops on the street, thousands and thousands of them- though he, in all fairness did not provide them with permanent funding- though I blame repubs for that- they didn't want to pay the tab for safety on that one

To me, he represented pretty much what much of the conservative movement had been asking for years from a candidate-he was not a "tax and spend" liberal and a deficit hawk and at least hawkish on foriegn policy-

So why did the right start an instant war against him?

Was it the religious right and thier hatred for his pro-choice stance?

Was it because he co-opted so many Republican platform issues that he muddied thier message?

Was it because he was a fiscal conservative but social liberal that threatened to split the conservative vote if succesful?

Some other reason you can quantify other than "Clinton BAD"?

Let me start off by saying that I was never a Clintonista, mainly because he was too darn conservative for my taste. This is not meant to be a defense of the Clinton administration, but rather an analysis of why there was so much anger against it.

Of the three reasons you list, the only one I find convincing is the strong objection of the religious right to a President who was moderate-to-liberal on social issues. I can remember when the really crazy backlash against Clinton -- the stuff that accused him of murder and so on -- came from folks of the Jerry Falwell type. A favorite Bible quote of the time, often seen on the signs of conservative churches, was Psalms 109:8 -- "Let his days be few; and let another take his office."

In addition to that factor, the Clinton administration simply had bad timing. Those were the days when the rift between the left and the right started getting mean. It was the time of Borking. It was the time when it wasn't enough to campaign against your rival; you had to destroy your enemy.

A third factor might be, that after the glory days of the Reagan administration (particularly after the incredible lopsided election of 1984), the GOP was understandably upset to have to have serious competition from the donkeys. I can remember when there was serious speculation that the Democratic Party was all but dead, and that they would not win the Presidency for decades to come, if ever. This was, of course, utterly false; but it must have seemed to many Republicans that they had somehow been cheated out of their "right" to the White House.

So why did the right start an instant war against him?
I saw the initial level of dislike very similar to what Bush has enjoyed. I would place the initial dislike into partisanship as usual. As the years went on the talking points of course accumulated and climaxed in the Monica thing , it did take somewhere around 6 years to get that ugly.

Was it the religious right and their hatred for his pro-choice stance?
I have an avid Clinton hater in my family, whom never hesitated to bait me for a debate, actually abortion never came up. I am sure he didn't approve though he certainly was able to avoid the issue for 8 years and still engage in many a provocative debate.

Was it because he co-opted so many Republican platform issues that he muddied their message? For me that would probably fall into his marketability factor. The very same worked for Bush. Every one knows that moderation bring in the more moderate vote.

Was it because he was a fiscal conservative but social liberal that threatened to split the conservative vote if succesful? Now you may have something there...

Some other reason you can quantify other than "Clinton BAD"? The only Clinton action that made me say Bad Clinton, was lying under oath. Gosh I wish he hadn't done that. Prior to lying (in my eyes, he was successfully making the Republicans look real bad) I was fairly happy with him. In hindsight maybe he should have been a bit more effective in his reactions to the terrorist acts of the day, though that is in hindsight. For that conservative in my family, I should add that he despised Clinton for those very same minimal reactions and the Cole bombing was his greatest Pet Peeve. So I must say that his inconsistent and noncommittal reactions to attacks on us was a real problem for some conservatives.

Poor premise for debate. You state as fact that the right hated Clinton. Clinton's character was/is severely flawed and not worthy of the office he held. The right felt pity for him in spite of wanting him removed from office.

You left out a very important issue. They went to town on him because he appointed Hillary head of the national health care task force. This is the precise moment the right went to town on him. They saw red, in more ways than one: red as in anger and red as in communism. Perhaps it was too soon after the Berlin Wall coming down. The other part that angered the right was the appointment of his wife, they saw this as some kind of violation of executive authority. It is interesting to note how Bush has appointed his bed buddy Karl Rove to a very powerful position, equally disturbing if you ask me.



The abortion issue has always been a way merely to 'force a show of hand' (i.e. label a conservative or liberal), until this administration, when conservatives decided they have control of government maybe they should start us on a path to trump Roe v. Wade. It is the religious right with a vengeance. Isn't it interesting when they can only defend their views when they have a so-called piecemeal coalition and hence, a majority to back them up? To me it takes true character to stand up for your beliefs when you are the minority. These days everybody is a religious fanatic. This is dangerous, BTW. We can't even set an example for an extremist nation we are trying to help without stooping to their level.



This is true to some degree. He moved the Democratic party too far to the right, and now they are struggling to get back (or maybe just taking their time). They have lost their base as a result: the Labor Left, counterpart to the Christian Right.



Clinton is a ladies man. Look at the demographics and who put him into office. Incidentally it was also the female vote who put W. over the top in response to Clinton's behavior, and they still can't get over it (He wasn't even running!) Who cares? As far as I am concerned it is the fact that people keep bringing up his indescretions which degrade the office of the president as opposed to the indescretions themselves. And if such indescretions are such a big deal to people, why don't we get into every past president who had affairs (there are quite a few of them) and try to figure out exactly how these indescretions affected policy? Point is, the only votes that are courted anymore are so-called 'minority' (whatever this word means) votes. If you are not in a minority, you had better find one to get into, right? What does this mean if are part of the so-called 'majority'? Prostitute yourself to a minority? Such is the garbage modern day politicians and panhandlers enjoy sifting through to keep themselves afloat.



When are people going to learn that major parties DO NOT CARE ABOUT YOU. In the words of Fredrich Nietzche, they are the 'superman' and you are the 'herd animal'. Each has its own fundamental morality, and these moralities are mutually exclusive, which is why it disturbs so many people when they try to legislate it.

So why did the right start an instant war against him?

Well, the right is a very general term for a diverse group of people. I don't think the Republican political establishment went right after him.

I think having a feminist first lady pursue a policy of national health insurance and trying to implement a policy of toleration for gays in the military put many people back and made them feel that their was a moderate in sheep's clothing in the White House.

I think that the Neo-Conservative movement had consciously created a new way to communicate to Americans through traditional liberal ways, radio programs and think tanks. By 1992 these things had matured. Rush Limbaugh was made by the fact that he had a democratic president to rail against in the White House. He suffers from the opposite.


Was it the religious right and their hatred for his pro-choice stance?

I don't think so. These people were energized already. The Clinton bashing I heard often mentioned abortion but did not seem to dwell on it.

Was it because he co-opted so many
Republican platform issues that he muddied their message?

I don't think so. It was probably more of the success in appealing to the middle and the left if fear was a factor. Because if those two parts are controlled by the democratic party, then the republicans could be out of power for a long time. I think the same fear works on the left third in this country today. Politicians get their work done in the middle. This is the cause of fear, not a petty concern that a republican idea was making success for a democratic president.


Was it because he was a fiscal conservative but social liberal that threatened to split the conservative vote if successful?

Maybe. I love that combination myself.


Some other reason you can quantify other than "Clinton BAD"?

I think many republicans truly hated the fact that Clinton represented the slick politician who lacked a clear moral compass. The fact that he was likable to many people while still having a questionable personal life was something to latch onto.
His policies were largely popular or uncontroversial and harder to assail than his character.

I don't know of just 1 reason or even 2 reasons that the Republicans hate Clinton so much.

Maybe it was because the Republicans had been in power for 12 years and they hated him because of that.

Clinton had his faults,like any other person, but there was something about him the Republicans didn't like. Could it be his charisma, ladies man,or Hillary taking a active part in health care.

Even in the present, most conservative radio and news host, hate Hillary more than Bill. Why? I have heard her called Neo-Nazi,the liberal ____ from hell, and lots of names that can't be repeated on this site.

I believe what the Republicans despise Bill the most for now, is that in 6 or 7 years of Starr's investigation and approximately $60 million,only 1 accusation was proven. A BJ.

There is no need to rehash all the names of the good ole Republican family men of moral stature that accused Bill of immoral conduct that bit the dust. It appeared that they had as many if not more skeletons in their closet than Bill.

No, I definitely don't intend on making President a hero, but I believe the Republican efforts to derail him and his presidency sure did.

Maybe one last thing I just thought of could be it. The last 12 years had presidents who were richer than the average joe. Now comes Clinton who has never had much money(if any at all) and he is a average person the electorate can relate to. And he came from no where in the polls and is the UNDERDOG.

Who can relate to Ronald Reagan,George H W Bush, and George W Bush. Not me. The last two and especially the last one has never had to worry about making the last mortage payment, car payment or going to a job.

But "Slick Willie" was always falling and getting back up. Now that is the average person in this old world. We always have problems and will always be making mistakes. Thus we can relate to Bill Clinton.

So why did the right start an instant war against him? Upon election, with only 43 percent of the vote, I remember rising to be greeted by a front-page paper with the huge letters, ‘It’s a Mandate!’. The campaign was the most media-biased I have ever seen (before or since). And I don’t say that lightly.

He promised during that campaign not to raise taxes, and within the first couple of months in office he announced one of the largest tax increases in our history. Then, in a gesture of flagrant nepotism, he placed his wife in charge of the healthcare plan for the country, along with 500 lawyer friends, but no doctors. He cut defense funding by twice as much as he said he would during the run for election…the only significant cut in spending he made. There were two military-style assaults on civilians within those first months, unlike anything the US had seen since…when? The civil war? The whiskey rebellion? I’m not certain.

Was it the religious right and thier hatred for his pro-choice stance? No
Was it because he co-opted so many Republican platform issues that he muddied thier message? no
Was it because he was a fiscal conservative but social liberal that threatened to split the conservative vote if succesful? no
Some other reason you can quantify other than "Clinton BAD"? I disliked him because he sent our soldiers as peacekeepers to Kosovo and Bosnia, but didn’t allow a large percentage to have actual bullets in their weapons because that would have been too aggressive. He didn’t allow the requested tanks in Mogadishu and our soldiers died because that would have appeared too aggressive. He kept our troops stationed in Saudi which enraged the Muslims against us, and we continued to enforce those no fly zones for no apparent reason other than a stall because he lacked an exit strategy. He cut our defense funding to the bone, while increasing commitments and deployment rates 500 percent. He eliminated a lot of security measures and clearance procedures that allowed some very imprudent technology transfers to the Chinese, which improved their military capability. He sent our forces to bomb and intervene in Kosovo and Bosnia, but didn’t have even enough integrity to call it a war (it was a conflict). Whatever his motivations for bombing that aspirin factory..they might have been very just, I think it’s more than a little suspicious that he chose to do so on the day Monica Lewinsky was testifying before a grand jury.

I'll refrain from commenting on the fact that, during his terms of office, I always wondered why our middle eastern policies didn't result in any terrorist act in our country. Ooops. Guess I said it, but it's the truth. 10 months after he was out, terrorism hit. Maybe that was a coincidence, but I think it's more than naive to place all of the blame with Bush, when the planning went on significantly before he took office. Neither here nor there. It's history, but you brought it up. I could go on a while. This is old news and I've gotten over the fact that this person ran the country. He did some good things, but there were A LOT of reasons beyond religion to dislike him.

Clinton's campaign slogan was 'It’s the economy stupid', at the Rainbow coalition Clinton stood up and said, "George Bush brings no domestic agenda to the American people". Clinton lead in most polls from that time on, while the right used the same tired old supply-side trickle down, pro-status quo, rhetoric that has marked their policies for 100 years. The emphasis was on 'character' but when they say it’s not the money, it’s the money.

Clinton did not support these capitol gains tax cuts and instead believed that the tax burden should be more evenly divided among the richest 1%. It’s no secret that Reagan’s historic capitol gains tax cuts benefited the rich far more then the working class. There were real benefits for the small business people and this should not be diminished. Still, many of the working people in this country have very few advocates and even fewer lobbyists.

One of the things that came up was the Voter Motor Bill that was in effect an unfunded mandate for local municipalities. There was also the Family Leave Act that made it a matter of Federal Law that employers must excuse employs for 6 weeks (I could be off a little on that) and the right hated this. Gore was Clinton's man on Capitol Hill and probably was on the ticket for his connections and experience there. Which brings us to the meat of the issues involved the political strategy of the GOP.

Remember Gary Hart? He denies having a long term affair with some pretty little thing that he denies repeatedly. The picture of Hart surfaces, on the appropriately named 'Monkey business', and the issue was not his adultery but the way he lied through his teeth. When the GOP couldn't really catch Clinton in any wrong doing in the Whitewater savings and loan scam they went after his personal life and Clinton subsequently lied, repeatedly. The whole business of Monica was pure political mudslinging except for the fact he lied about it. The fact that it was based on an illegal wiretap is beside the point.

Clinton was hated because he resisted the status quo and when you do that, you will atone. He also got some heat from the religious right but I don't think it had more then an emotional appeal. Like I said, when they say it isn't about the money, it’s the money. They hated him for his domestic agenda, I have always believed that.

I think, of all the dislike for Clinton- Mrs P's holds the most water for me- though I don't think he is totally to blame for this one.

I mean, there is no doubt in my mind that the military was horribly bloated and over budgeted when Clinton took office- and pretty much both parties realized we needed to close alot of bases and scale back.

The problem with goverment spending cuts is they NEVER go to where the cuts are the most deserved. This is true in big private industry AND goverment.

For instance, we had a report here in Alaska that said we needed to cut "X" amount of managment jobs in the Social Services arena, and needed to HIRE "X" amount of social workers. Well, guess what- they cut the actual social workers, kept all the managers.

Same thing happens in the military- it is the same cronyism that works everywhere where you have very large managment systems.

So, due to the horrible efficiency of the military , the wrong areas got cut, as usual. Cut the command staff of the military in half and you would never notice it in readiness or efficiancy.

I think I will start a thread on this issue, since it seems to be a topic by itself.

So outside of the military, I think Phaedrus probably hit the nail on the head.

Things get real uncivil when power has to be shared - a local playright said we are in the middle of a "semi-polite civil war"- and I think that is true, and when Clinton brought the dems to the center, it REALLY threatened the right, and they reacted violently.

From the get go, Clinton seemed a bit too liberal for most conservatives. Begin with a huge tax increase, follow it up with Hillary Care and the Family Leave Act (which, to date, I have never heard of anyone exercising ) and Clinton seemed like Mr. Liberal comes to Washington.

Clinton had many more scandals than the Monica thing. From Whitewater (Clinton associates were convicted, but not the Clintons), to File-Gate (the hundreds of FBI files which were illegally "found" in Bill and Hillary's possession), to China Gate (the infamous laptop which was finally found behind a Coke machine after weeks of searching) the Clinton administration seemed to be one huge scandal machine.

By the time Monica rolled around, I felt like I could not trust anything the President ( ) said. After he blatantly lied to us on national TV ("I did not have sex with that woman, Miss Lewinsky" ) the guy became a complete worthless scum bag to me.

Clinton's economic policies were, how should I put it, non-existent. I can recall no economic stimulus measures that Clinton can point to. His best decision was keeping Alan Greenspan as Chairman of the Fed. Greenspan kept the economy rolling, while Clinton did, um, other things.

Clinton's economy was largely illusionary, which we quickly forget. The accounting scandals that surfaced during Bush's first year actually occurred during the Clinton "boom". The Dot-com disaster was intensified by poor SEC control over these IPOs of companies which never made a dime, and yet pocketed millions (if not billions) of dollars. The "jobs" these dot.com firms produced were scandalously short-lived. When Bush talked about the softening economy in the 2000 campaign, he was chastised as "talking down the economy".

I see little redeeming in Bill Clinton's policies. His character is downright nauseating. The effect his personal actions had on the Presidency were by far his worst contribution to the American Republic.

I saw the thread title "why did the right hate Clinton so much?"

A great question.
I don't know why.

I post this without having read any other post on this thread.

The conservatives are bewildered and asking the question as to why the "left" hate Bush so much.

I don't expect to ever know the answer to either question, but I know that the answer is the same.

Clinton's economic agenda included things like NAFTA and GATT and the inarguration of the WTO. On the domestic side the Family Leave Act was something I saw, first hand, provide real world benefit for working people. My partner at the time was pregnant and she had six weeks after the delivery to spend with her newborn for that very reason. Had it not been for the Family Leave Act she would have had to go back to work immediately or lose her job. While Clinton's domestic agenda was not as bold as I would have liked it was his predecessor who had no domestic agenda. Clinton did raise taxes and was often accused of being a tax and spend liberal but is it any better to cut taxes and then increase spending? Lets not forget that the budget was actually balanced under his administration and the cuts in spending should not be marginalized.

As far as Clinton on foreign affairs I remember some air strikes after the attacks on our embassy in Africa that was characterized as the tail wagging the dog. The problems in Kosovo had began well before Clinton had ever taken over and Warren Christopher (Secretary of State) called it the problem from hell. The Oslo Accords were the best solution to a nearly impossible situation and when Arrafat rejected it the second infata insued.

I really have no defense for his philandering, much less for his lying but show me one time he lied about something other then personal indescritions. They start an investigation into Whitewater which was a savings and loan scam, not unlike the Silverodo Savings and Loan scam that George W. Bush was involved in. How this translates into an impeachment based on an illegal wiretap is a mystery to me. Also, the Roses were imprisoned because they refused to give Starr something to use against the President. Bottomline, it was all political mudslinging.

I understand and even respect conservatives who dispise Clinton but like the War in Iraq we should not dismiss the possibility of alterior motives too easily. Like I said, when they say its not the money, its the money.

I found this and I will offer it was a post script as a critical and IMHO, balanced criticism of Clinton's administration:

"Bill Clinton's overall ranking fell into the middle of the nation's presidents. He received high marks for political leadership, but low ratings for character brought down his overall score. "Predictably, many of the scholars polled were rather harsh on Clinton, giving him a ranking in 'character' as one of the worst presidents, surpassed by only [Richard] Nixon and [Warren G.] Harding," explains associate professor of history Fred Beuttler. "On the other hand, he was ranked quite high on political leadership and his domestic policy accomplishments"

Scholars Rank ClintonBoth High and Low

This is the part about Clinton hating by conservatives that confuses me the most Amlord- they hate Clinton for lying, but give a pass for thier guys, you guys LOVE Reagan, but this was the most indicted and convicted presidency in US history, but you don't have a problem with that.

If the hate is for "moral" reasons-why is it not applied evenly to all politicians?

I have talked to many moderates, left and right of center folks, and even extreme liberals that don't neccesarily worship the ground Clinton walks on, and think some of his behavior is repulsive, but really expect that of all politicians, and think of that as the nature of the biz, and this is the way I feel as well. But why is it so hard for conservatives to apply this morality to thier guys as well?

Not giving him credit for anything good that happened during his presidency, and everything bad, seems wierd to me in a logical debate. IT would be different, as with GW, where there is very little good news, but during Clinton's time, there was ALOT of good news.

Clintons character was no more flawed then any other president in the last 100 years of US history. In many ways Clinton was more of Republican than the current administration, since he managed to lower government spending and nearly balanced the budget (isn't that conserving?). This is in stark contrast to Bush who has driven the countries debt into the stratosphere, and could be called a tax and spend president if he hadn't CUT taxes for the wealthy. Maybe Bush is best described as a spend and spend president.

The Conservative business press loved Clinton. He passed NAFTA, passed the telecommunications act which handed over public communication networks to private power without any renumeration, he cut social programs, he continued the tradition of vast military spending, and helped bolster corporate welfare for many companies.

On a genocidal level he did just as much as any past president. He sold arms to Turkey that were used to commit genocide against the Kurds, then had the gaul to curse Sadaam Hussien for doing the same. He bombed baby milk factories, and medical manufacturing facilities that killed perhaps hundreds of thousands of innocent people. His sanctions killed perhaps 500,000 children under the age of 5 in Iraq.

All in all I can't see why Republicans don't love Bill Clinton. He seems as if he would be their kind of guy in reality!

I'm no conservative, but it could be fairly said that I hated Clinton.
I hated him for his wishy-washy demeanor, never willing to take a stand for anything, which resulted in DOMA and the military's "don't ask don't tell" policy. I hate him for bringing weasel-speak to unheard of heights in Washington: "that depends on what the definition of is is." I hate him for choosing someone as anti-free speech as Al Gore to be his VP. Most of all I hate him for having the sheer gall to claim to be defending the institution of marriage from the likes of me while he was trashing his own marriage vows.
What I mean by that is that he had a certain personality (weasely used car salesman) that just sets some people off, regardless of politics. I found the guy personally distasteful almost from the beginning, and I think a lot of the reaction from conservatives was the same thing. I also think that some of the Clinton hatred was an act, trying to be as outrageous as possible to get a reaction.

Grendel,

Most conservatives had the same opinion of Clinton as you. I remember the first time I heard a news story on him, when he was just starting to gain traction in the Democratic primaries. It was pointing out how he flip-flopped his position repeatedly, depending on the group he was talking to. Basically, he just told everyone what they wanted to hear, even giving the oppositie opinion to two different groups once on the very same day. (No, this wasn't on FOX). In essence, Clinton had no character--something conservatives value strongly. Despite this, and in an era when being too 'political' was out--Clinton won convincingly by being such a polished politician. So, he was certainly an extremely shrewd and skilled politician (and, ironically, won primarily because his opponent did once something he did almost constantly--went back on his word). Once in office, this very same characteristic allowed Clinton to be perhaps the most succesful Republican President, at least on domestic policy. Under Clinton, Republicans got more of their agenda through than under any other President in recent history. The very nature I despised created the environment to get most legislation I favored passed. So, do I hate him? No, never did. But I am constantly amazed at the ease with which almost any liberal I've ever talked to will gloss over his shortcomings, or ignore his actual legislative accomplishments. So, I don't think conservatives hate Clinton nearly as much as we're baffled by liberal's attempts to glorify him.