Why would a disgraced former President was to be appointed a US Senator? I would think there are a lot of other prominent (or promising) democrats in NY to take the job.
Bill Clinton might just be a place holder until the 2010 special election. Bill Clinton will have the incentive of doing it to try to repair his image, that he damaged during the primaries.
Disgraced? We're talking about Bill Clinton, the most popular (worldwide) President of the 20th Century. You must be thinking of that despicable traitor Bush.
The guy who shook his finger at you and swore he never had sex with that woman? Only the 2nd president to be impeached. Disbarred by SCOTUS and his home state. Paid $900K to Paula Jones. The most scandal ridden presidency in the last 70+ years, if not since 1900. So popular that AlBore easily won the presidency as a sign the people so wanted more of the same. You know his full name is William Milhaus Clinton, right?
No, I'm thinking of a President who was impeached for lies to Congress and were it not for a deeply partisan Congress, would have been thrown out of office. I'm also thinking of a president who drummed up the largest tax hike in the history of world civilization and lost both houses of Congress over it. Early historians are calling his administration the 3rd most corrupt ever.
Yeah BP...Faux News historians? You might remember that the situation in the US was more than a little better in terms of economy, foreign policy, and human rights, than it is now. I bet Clinton is somewhere in the middle, historically speaking. Great in his ability, but deeply flawed as well.
March 2000 would be during Clinton's last year in office. http://www.lowrisk.com/nasdaq-1929.htm This chart shows the current Nasdaq bear market compared to the Dow Jones Industrials in 1929: The black line shows the Dow bear market that started on September 3rd, 1929. After that drop, the Dow didn't make it back to its highs until 1954!! The magenta line is the Nasdaq bear market that started on March 11th, 2000.
Actually, I read revisionist historians that are 100% non political. Very heady stuff. The general consensus is that Clinton had the 3rd worst "administration" and he ranks as our 10th worst president. I think that's about right. Of course, to libs he's one of the greats and to conservatives he's one of the very worst. As for me, I'll take the non political route as it's more honest.
How on earth did he damage his image during the primaries? Barack Obama called a president who has done more for black people than any other since Lyndon Johnson and perhaps Abraham Lincoln a racist. It was President-Elect Obama who trashed him and his fawning press was complicit in the character assassination.
Again, link? Obama publicly praised Bill several times that I saw, and never called him a racist as far as I am aware of. The right-wing press implied it daily, and Bill definitely tried to prey on the fears of redneck racists to help his wife win, but it backfired in the same way Mccain's attempts backfired. Voters are smarter nowadays.
I guess we'll have to take your word for all this as the graph has no timeline, and no explanation of what the numbers and % mean. I could overlay another graph line like you did and it would match as well. Bush's popularity starting in 2001. Or the average American's actual buying power over that time frame. Or the % of rights and freedoms we enjoyed over that time frame. Or the overall health of our environment over that time frame. Or the level of respect our nation has from other nations over that time frame. This is fun! Graphs are like the Bible, you can use them to support any nutty arguement.
HAHAHA... what 'revisionist historians' are you reading? What are their goals in attempting to overturn popular historical views? Among Whom is this general consensus held? ...Well?
