Clinton smartest president ever

Wasn't it Alan Greenspan who said in a recent interview that Clinton (and Nixon) was one of the smartest Presidents? He might have been talking about fiscal policy.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(lefat1 @ Oct 12 2007, 09:47 AM) [snapback]524651[/snapback]</div>

Just what makes him so smart? Not discussing his horrible morality, I never liked his policies and I didn't ever think he did good for our country. For the economy, he knew what not to change from the Reagan era. Both Clinton's are losers and I will NEVER support hillary. She's so fake it's incredible, what's even worse is ppl can't see through her. :angry:

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Ichabod @ Oct 12 2007, 01:06 PM) [snapback]524760[/snapback]</div>

Sad and true, but it sure is funny to watch his screwups!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(smithBYU @ Oct 12 2007, 09:43 PM) [snapback]524947[/snapback]</div>

Ah, I finally understand why people voted for him: There just wasn't enough slapstick comedy on TV!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(lefat1 @ Oct 12 2007, 08:47 AM) [snapback]524651[/snapback]</div>

"Clinton has been found to be the smartest..." I would ask by whom, and by what criteria?

Well now that I've read the whole thread and understand that to you it's purely a matter of your opinion, I guess if you think so, it must be so. OTOH -- Who in hell cares -- Lots of smart people have done really stupid things, and some pretty not so smart people have done some really good things.

 

From what I've read about Clinton, he is VERY intelligent and intellectually curious - Rhodes scholar and a voracious reader. I do respect that and admire those traits.

But it has always amazed me how someone who could be so smart could also be so stupid. Maybe it's hubris - I'm so smart, I couldn't possibly get caught doing the nasty! Or he thought he could smart his way out of it.

It takes so little to bring someone down once you know their weakness. Obviously, Clinton has a few problems with fidelity.

 

Clinton is an extremely intelligent person. I think he is not as intelligent as Thomas Jefferson was, so I disagree with the OP. We've had some intelligent presidents, even in my lifetime. I do not regard Nixon as one of those.

I also agree with the posters above who have pointed out that you can assess (subjectively) the intelligence of a person, living or historical, by the way he/she expresses himself/herself. W is a certifiable moron. Since he has probably never written anything, one must judge by how he speaks when not reading from a script. Jefferson wrote volumes, books and endless correspondence. Note that in modern times one must be careful not to judge a person's intelligence from a book ghost-written in their name by someone else.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(lefat1 @ Oct 13 2007, 09:38 AM) [snapback]525096[/snapback]</div>

Typical excuse - It isn't my fault, it's in my genes. No, the problem is, it didn't stay in his jeans . How smart can a person be be that cripple's his own Presidency because he can't control himself? How, exactly, was his intelligence measured?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Oct 13 2007, 10:14 AM) [snapback]525088[/snapback]</div>

A Charge To Keep: My Journey to the White House, by George W. Bush, 'co-written' by his then-communications director Karen Hughes.

From the majority of reviews, it's appears to be nothing more than a long, boring propaganda brochure released in 1999 specifically for the 2000 presidential election campaign. Typically, the few that claim to overwhelmingly love the book lambast anyone who doesn't as fanatical, anti-American liberals.

I strongly doubt The Chimp has it within himself to write anything (well, anything remotely readable) without a ghost-writer.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(05_SilverPri @ Oct 13 2007, 11:05 AM) [snapback]525100[/snapback]</div>

It's measured in INCHES.

I think every one of us can attest to the fact that our intelligence is completely out of the picture when it comes to sex. A pretty girl can make the best of us lose it completely. So if you're immune to that, maybe you'll have to do some introspection as to exactly why you're immune.

Again, that's not that I agree with the OP because I don't. Another point I have to bring up is the "modern times" part... I don't know, but the last 200-odd years seems pretty modern. I don't know where the cutoff would be otherwise. 50 years? 100? Why?