I know that it is damning with faint praise, but you realize that by rating Mr. Carter as the worst living president, you are implicitly recognizing that Mr. Clinton is NOT. Oh, how galling that must be, to have to admit that Mr. Clinton was at least a marginally effective president!

Galling perhaps, but it depends on the meaning of the word "effective." Carter was not effective. Period. Clinton was effective in many respects. He effectively tucked his tail between his legs and ran from the liberalism of his first year (gays in the military and nationalized healthcare), he effectively triangulated conservative ideas to his own benefit (welfare reform), he effectively seduced an intern, and he effectively lied about doing so in order to save himself from having to resign the presidency.

Oh, come on, you can't have it both ways! Either Clinton is (in your opinion) the worst living president, because of all the issues which you list, OR he enjoyed some measure of professional achievement during his presidency which exceeds the achievements of Carter. Personally, I believe that an intellectually honest answer is that Clinton had a VERY successful presidency, in large measure, DESPITE his personal moral failures and idiotic acts of hubris. Balanced budgets, deficit reduction, unprecedented stock market performance, a net increase in police, lower crime, welfare reform, peace, a military which was well funded and well equipped enough to prevail in the Balkans AND to be ready for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq (surely you are aware of the lead time necessary to develop any weapons system, which of course means that most of the cool technology our troops are now employing in the Middle East was developed and implemented during the Clinton administration). Plus, as you point out, he backed off his most "radical liberal" proposals (like health care reform) once he realized that they were not politically feasible (which one might charitably say was a recognition of the popular will, which is generally a good thing in elected leaders in a democracy -- don't we want our politicians to represent our united interests?) You might not like it, but the period from 1992 to 2000 was pretty darn good for the country.

Trial Lawyer, you make some good points. But how much of Clinton's success came because of work done by Reagan and Bush Part One? I mean, how successful would Clinton have been staring down the Soviets? Would Clinton have come to Kuwait's defence like Bush One did?

I think most of us on the right side of the political spectrum are a little too hard on Clinton's political record because we're so disgusted by his moral record. But having said that, I can't help looking at the relatively smooth stretch of water he had when he was captaining the U.S. ship of state, and wondering how he would have done in a storm.

We'll never know, will we?

Thank you for the kind words, Damian. Let me very gently suggest a few things: 1) it is difficult to accept the premise that everything good that happened during the 8 years between 1992 and 2000 was directly as a result of the groundwork laid down by Clinton's predecessors; 2) if we follow that logic, can there not be persuasive case made that many of Reagan's successes piggy backed on the "hard choices" made by his predecessor (which gets us back to where we started, which is the assertion by the host of this site that Carter is the worst president of modern times)? Lest you dismiss this as preposterous, one facet of that argument could be that Carter's yeoman service in bringing about peace in the Middle East (which is not really disputed by many) enabled Reagan to focus on the former Soviet Union. Silly? Possibly, but probably no less far fetched than the notion that G.H.W. Bush's actions in Kuwait freed up Clinton to pursue economic prosperity. Alternatively, G.W. Bush will certainly argue in 3 weeks that the past 4 years of his presidency has been a rousing success economically. Do we credit that economic success to Clinton? 3) Could it be possible that the waters were calmer because of the direction in which the captain steered the ship? Or isn't it equally possible that the waters were just as stormy (with the notable exception of 9/11), but that the ship was steered more ably? While we might never really know, results (in my book) speak volumes.

My response to Trial Lawyer, sarcasm aside, is that Clinton may well be our most effective living politician. His mix of personal charisma and political realism confounded political opponents and frustrated political supporters. During most of his presidency, America enjoyed prosperity at home and respect abroad.

This does not equate to professional accomplishment, however, if one considers accomplishment in proactive terms. Damian is spot-on in attributing to Reagan and Bush I much of the groundwork necessary for the peace and prosperity of the 90s. Reagan won the Cold War and Bush I shaped the peace leaving Clinton to enjoy the so-called Peace Dividend. Reagan shaped the economic environment (low taxes and low inflation for example) that made possible the prosperity of the 90s. The recession which Clinton attributed to Bush I ended before Clinton entered office. The recession Democrats like to attribute to Bush II began before Clinton left office. Between these events, which were cyclical in nature and largely beyond political remedy, the economy grew as if on auto-pilot. I find not a single action on the part of Clinton that can realistically be considered the cause of the growth- at best he managed to stay out of the way (or backtrack in the case of nationalized healthcare).

I credit Clinton little in the areas of foreign policy and national defense where he left no substantive mark. His successes amount to Ireland and the Balkans. His failures include the second Palestinian intifada, the growth of Islamism without a corresponding understanding in America of the threat posed by it, and a massive scaling back in the size and readiness of our armed forces and intelligence gathering agencies.

In summary, Clinton was an effective politician and the nation enjoyed prosperity during his term. The link of causality between these to assertions is tenuous at best. I should add that the legacy of Clinton, much as he will try and change this in retirement, is a semen stain. How then was Clinton more effective than Carter? Carter was not an effective politician and during his presidency America suffered economically and lost international respect.

"Let me very gently suggest..."

Patronizing me doesn't win you any points Trial Lawyer. Either does misrepresenting my position. I certainly didn't assert that "everything good" that happened during the Clinton presidency was the result of previous administrations. I did wonder out loud how much of Clinton's smooth ride could be attributed to the work of others. None? Not bloody likely. Some? Certainly. All? No friggin' way.

No president - or government for that matter - can reasonably be given full credit or full blame for everything that occurs on their watch. How much of Clinton's success was of his own making, and how much was due to good fortune and the hard choices made by other people is a question with no right answer.

Oversimplifying doesn't cut it here.

Can I just say that I think its funny that they brought out Carter to talk about foreign policy, and now I'll tip-toe away....

Yeah, I was wondering if they were going to exhume Neville Chamberlain next to give a televised plea for world peace. ;)

Damian, I wasn't trying to patronize you by prefacing my comments as I did. I was actually attempting to tread carefully with my follow up comments, because I appreciated your courtesy. But if you would like, I can certainly turn the flame thrower on full throttle.

Moreover, I was not trying to misrepresent your position -- I cannot disagree with you that the success or failure of any president (or government) depends upon many factors, including without limitation what has occurred in the immediate past presidency (I would probably disagree with you on how long into the next presidency the effects of the previous presidency linger, but that's a debate for another time). However, the way in which you have phrased your "unanswerable question" seems to me to suggest a certain answer -- specifically, that Clinton's "smooth ride" is largely due to good fortune and the hard decisions of others, and NOT due to any particularly good governance on his part.

If I have misread your opinion on the answer to this "unanswerable question," my apologies. However, if I read you correctly, then I stand by my earlier comments.