So you did Fox’s bidding on this show. You did your nice little conservative hit job on me. What I want to know is…

Every so often, a friend of mine will comment on what a terrible leader President Clinton was. He does it with a wink and a nod, in a way that assumes a mutual opinion. While he has made these comments no more than three times over the course of our nearly year-long friendship, he has done so during times when neither the time nor the place were appropriate to formulate a proper response.

Tonight I watched the Fox News Sunday Interview with Bill Clinton which was wildly entertaining. Chris Wallace had his ass handed to him by a spirited Bill Clinton, which makes me feel like finally rebutting the nod-and-wink comments of my friend about Bill Clinton (implicit in his commentary on Bill Clinton is the idea that George W. Bush is a great leader- a view I do not share.) Chris Wallace’s constant smirk felt like a nod-and-wink moment, too, which prompted me to comment.

First a moment on Fox’s Clinton interview. Possibly my favourite moment of the interview happened when Chris Wallace asks about Clinton‘s efforts to kill or capture Bin Laden. He asks,

WALLACE: Do you think you did enough, sir?

CLINTON: No, because I didn’t get him.

WALLACE: Right.

CLINTON: But at least I tried. That’s the difference in me and some, including all the right-wingers who are attacking me now. They ridiculed me for trying. They had eight months to try. They did not try. I tried. So I tried and failed. When I failed, I left a comprehensive anti-terror strategy and the best guy in the country, Dick Clarke, who got demoted. So you did Fox’s bidding on this show. You did your nice little conservative hit job on me. What I want to know is…

WALLACE: Well, wait a minute, sir.

CLINTON: No, wait. No, no…

WALLACE: I want to ask a question. You don’t think that’s a legitimate question?

CLINTON: It was a perfectly legitimate question, but I want to know how many people in the Bush administration you asked this question of. I want to know how many people in the Bush administration you asked, Why didn’t you do anything about the Cole?

________
Brilliant. Anyone who has read the 9/11 Commission Report (who is honest with himself) has probably wondered the same thing. But let’s broaden the scope in a way that, unfortunately, won’t allow me to pursue a rigorous academic study of the contrasting leadership of the current and former White House administrations, but which will still permit a wider aperture to look through than through the lens of, say, just the so-called war on terror.

Let me state very clearly that I believe Bill Clinton was a far superior leader in every characterization of the word. There is no hiding behind thinly-veiled objectivism here, which is the modus operandi for many media outlets these days (a great example would be the Wallace/Clinton interview).

On nearly every suggested quality of leadership, Bill Clinton leads over George Bush. Granted, Bush has leadership qualities. One doesn’t become POTUS without some of these qualities. But while Bush has a moderate sprinkling of these traits, Clinton has them in spades. Namely,

Talent. Both men arguably have talent. You don‘t become President without some talent. However, Bill is actually younger than Bush, despite serving two full terms before George started his. In fact, Bill is the youngest President to ever exit office (second youngest to be elected to office, after JFK).

Intelligence. This category is a bit unfair. George’s Texas drawl makes him appear as a bumbling idiot, but Bill is from the south too, and he still doesn’t coin his own words. And if he does, I’m sure he would never coin “Suiciders.” Bush has a tenuous grasp of grammar, at best (a particular pet peeve of mine). But while it may seem cute or harmless, it might be indicative of some greater problem. Some famous Bush trademarks:

Mispronunciation, particularly of the word nuclear.(Pronounced "Nukyular")

Occasional use of spoonerisms such as "mexed missages" (mixed messages) and "terriers and bariffs" (barriers and tariffs).

Use of two modal verbs, such as "musta could've."

Nonsensical statements, such as, "I am here to make an announcement that this Thursday, ticket counters and airplanes will fly out of Ronald Reagan Airport."

Adding agentive endings to words not usually accustomed to such treatment, such as "suiciders".

Constructing neologisms such as "tacular" (a portmanteau of "tactical" and "nucular") and "misunderestimated" ("misunderstood" and "underestimated").

Use of words that sound similar to intended words but are wrong in the context (i.e., malapropism). "Nuclear power pants" instead of "nuclear power plants."

Slang and double negatives, as in "We've not got no better friend and ally than South Korea."

Redundant or odd sentence construction, such as "We had a chance to visit with Teresa Nelson who's a parent, and a mom or a dad."

Psychoanalyst Justin Frank suggests in his 2004 book, Bush on the Couch: Inside the Mind of the President, that based on "growing anecdotal evidence," President Bush may suffer from dyslexia or Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, observing:

“Naturally, the occasional misstatement or discrepancy between word and deed may be dismissed as politics as usual. But when the most powerful man on the planet consistently exhibits an array of multiple, serious, and untreated symptoms — any one of which I've seen patients need years to work through — it's certainly cause for further investigation, if not for outright alarm. President Bush is not my patient, of course, but the discipline of applied psychoanalysis gives us a way to make as much sense of his psyche as he is likely ever to allow.”

On the other hand, Bill Clinton is generally recognized as having a high IQ, and is a long-time member of Mensa. He is an avid reader, as demonstrated by his insistence of having his daily CIA briefings in written reports, versus George W. who insists on oral debriefing. Bush defenders would cite such attacks as malicious and elitist. I say, generally you want your president to be intelligent. I can demonstrate very little evidence of Bush’s intelligence. His presence in office could be enough to demonstrate this, but people have often claimed the presidency is a popularity contest; more about name-recognition than pure intelligence. The belief (by some) that Bush is a puppet could possibly be supported by the fact that he had to have rigorous foreign-policy tutoring by Condy.

Charisma. It seems unfair to place undue emphasis on the categories where Bill is clearly ahead of George, but charisma is a critical component to leadership. It is how you influence the people you lead. This attractiveness to others gives the charismatic individual the ability to leverage this esteem to motivate others. Bush has polarized the nation, and squandered an opportunity (post 9/11) to unify the country and, perhaps, the world. People enjoy how Bush shoots straight from the hip. I do appreciate his honesty (when I know he is being honest, and not lying about WMDs), but Clinton takes the charisma category. Maybe not for the Republicans who hate him, but they’d hate him no matter how charismatic he is.

I could and should go on, but it’s already nearly 2:00 am. Clearly I’m leaning towards one camp, but that’s not to say I can’t recognize when someone has talent, even if they are on the other side. Abraham Lincoln was a talented, charismatic Republican, and is counted among the best American Presidents ever. Rightfully so. And so I expect citizens to critically analyze the characteristics of their leaders. Put your president under a microscope, not on a pedestal.

When Bill was president, I questioned his logic and vehemently disagreed with many of his policies, including his reversal of automobile fuel efficiencies, or the suspicious 11th-hour pardons he granted to over 200 felons before leaving office. But in the leadership category, I still have to vote for him every time over Bush.

Getting back to my friend who hates Bill Clinton, when he shakes his head at the thought of another horrible president like Bill Clinton, I keep wishing I have to the time to say,

“Horrible president? Horrible like being widely cited as being stupid?* Horrible like manning the helm during the single worst terrorist attack on American soil and not only not being criticized for inaction, but actually receiving the highest approval ratings in years? Horrible like squandering your opportunity to unite a nation under attack? That kind of horrible? Or horrible like over-emphasizing (read: fabricating) the connection between Al Qaeda and Iraq in order to convince the American people to support the invasion of a sovereign nation? Or are you scared of a Clintonesque president either lying or just plain wrong about the presence of WMDs to prop up an aggressive, costly preemptive war? Are you worried a Clintonesque president would eliminate valuable sex-education (where teens are taught the safety of condoms) in favour of abstinence education (where kids are taught … um…)? Are you worried about a president that would plunge the country into deep debt (despite this boon of an economy that everyone is so impressed with); a president who would suspend the rights of so-called terrorists (so-called because they never received a trial, and so we don’t really know); a president who would rush into war, champing at the bit, instead of letting Hans Blix finish his work, and giving the free world a chance to get behind it, thus giving it legitimacy; a president who would originally pursue a hands-off approach to dealing with the Israel/Palestinian conflict; a president who would champion a war against Iraq--who stated they have no ill intention towards the U.S.--while ignoring Iran and North Korea, who have both openly declared hostility towards America, while also demonstrating at least an elementary capability to produce nuclear weapons? Because that would be awful.

Of course, Bill brought disgrace on his family and country with his sexual escapades; has proven an adept political manipulator, and was MIA during the Rwanda crisis (which he cites as his greatest failure). But while I would characterize Bill’s tenure as successful, he was nearly impeached. George will never go to trial. I guess he has something in common with his friends at Guantanamo Bay.

*Whether you are or whether you aren’t, if millions of people worldwide think you’re stupid, clearly you’ve done something wrong.