I guess we could do a comparison: Eisenhower threatened to use nukes on N. Korea and at Dien Bien Phu. Clinton bombed a medicine factory. Eisenhower only threatened, while Clinton acted. Etc. But that kind of accounting would be fruitless, IMHO.
In today's L.A. TIMES, there's an excellent article by Bruce J. Schulman, who argues that Clinton's "major achievements -- reforming welfare, balancing the budget, shrinking the federal government -- completed the work that President Ronald Reagan began and that hard-line conservatives like House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) could never have achieved on their own." (Once I find this article on-line, I'll post it to the list.)
Clinton's been protecting us from the Gingriches and Chernoweth's of the world. But he also helped create them and their power. He instituted "more moderate" versions of their program. But the definition of "moderate" has shifted far to the right, with Clinton leading the way.
There is a big difference between the Clinton and the Party of the Elephant. It's summed up by a slogan that was used to mobilize the Right against McGovern: Acid, Abortion, and Amnesty. Clinton still has a veneer of 1960s life-style radicalism (which is not "didn't inhale, pro-choice, and avoided the draft to promote his own career.") . And that puts a lot of fervor into the Starr Search for details in Clinton's life. (It should also be mentioned, however, that there's also standard partisan politics at work: if we can weaken Clinton via investigations, he'll be even more willing to accept our program. Anyone who gets into politics should expect this kind of attack.)
Clinton's big plus is his support for a woman's right to choose abortion. But we should remember that until 1980 or so, the GOP supported this. At the same time that the political spectrum has shifted radically to the right, there's been a role reversal. The Democrats are the Party of Business, whereas the GOP is the Party of Intervention by Government (PIG), specifically into our private lives.
Some of the left's lesser evilism on this question seems more and more reminiscent of a discussion in Phillip K. Dick's MAN IN THE HIGH CASTLE. It's about an imaginary world where Hitler won WW2. People in a restaurant in that part of the US that wasn't occupied by either Japan or Germany are discussing the succession issue: now that it's pretty clear that Hitler is going to die, who will succeed him? who would be better, Himmler or Goebels? maybe this guy Heydrick?
Now that that's all said, I want to reiterate: I'm sorry. I'm very sorry, No-one could be sorrier than I am. I have sinned...
Jim Devine jdevine at popmail.lmu.edu & http://clawww.lmu.edu/Departments/ECON/jdevine.html "If heartaches were commercials, we'd all be on TV" -- John Prine