Most Successful Clinton Presidency?

Pretty much in the title, but from what I can gather about Clinton's terms in office, it was marred by a failure in his first terms to get a health bill passed, the Republican Revolution and scandal later on. Was still able to accomplish a fair bit, but dragged down to miscalculations, ramped up opposition to the Democrat Presidency and the Lewinsky scandal.

So, what can be done to help avert at least some of these problems and succeed in getting more legislation passed while preventing the Republican growth to such an extent?
 
-Yassar Arafat accepts Clinton's proposed two-state solution in 2000. Bill Clinton is credited with achieving a final resolution and peace with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Combining this with successful interventions in Kosovo and Bosnia, the end of the Irish Civil War, and Bill Clinton's foreign policy would seem even more impressive.
 
Having not lost significant political capital during the Lewinsky scandal, they invade Afghanistan, get rid of the Taliban and Bin Laden and no 9/11. Not that anyone would understand or appreciate the counterfactual...
 
-Yassar Arafat accepts Clinton's proposed two-state solution in 2000. Bill Clinton is credited with achieving a final resolution and peace with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Combining this with successful interventions in Kosovo and Bosnia, the end of the Irish Civil War, and Bill Clinton's foreign policy would seem even more impressive.

The Irish Civil War that actually ended in 1923?
 
Bill Clinton is elected to Congress in 1974. Reelected in 1976. In 1978, he runs and is elected Governor. His career proceeds as it did OTL. He is elected President in 1992, with a much better understanding of how Congress works. He gets a health program passed in 1994. He then keeps his pants zipped.
 
-Yassar Arafat accepts Clinton's proposed two-state solution in 2000. Bill Clinton is credited with achieving a final resolution and peace with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Combining this with successful interventions in Kosovo and Bosnia, the end of the Irish Civil War, and Bill Clinton's foreign policy would seem even more impressive.

Bill Clinton is elected to Congress in 1974. Reelected in 1976. In 1978, he runs and is elected Governor. His career proceeds as it did OTL. He is elected President in 1992, with a much better understanding of how Congress works. He gets a health program passed in 1994. He then keeps his pants zipped.

Palestine is a definite a relative easy success. Having Lewinsky keep quiet could hide that scandal. And while we're on that subject, if you can get congress fail to pass the Independent Counsel Reauthorization Act of 1994 then you avoid that whole fiasco from the beginning. (though this passed with pretty decent support.)

I don't think you need him in Congress earlier, just have him have some Washington insiders on his team that can guide Clinton through the workings of Congress.
 
Bill Clinton...then keeps his pants zipped.

Isn't this the very definition of ASB? :p

Seriously, get the first term off to a better start the first two years. Things started very badly and the political losses of 1994 really hurt as the years went on.

Alternatively, a peace deal between Israel and the Palestinians would have been a huge achievement. He came close at the end, but couldn't close the deal. Somehow butterflying the Rabin assassination would be a huge help with that.

Killing bin Laden and breaking AQ in '98/'99/'00 would also be huge, but as noted, the achievement wouldn't be fully appreciated without knowing the counterfactual alternative.
 
If you can get SCOTUS to rule in his favor in Clinton v Jones, then you can probably do away with most of, if not all of, the damage from the Lewinsky scandal.
 
I was under the impression that the failure of Clinton's healthcare reform wasn't due to the amount of Democrats, as such, but that he and Hilary botched presenting it to Congress, trying to dictate it to them? Could this be fixed?
 
I was under the impression that the failure of Clinton's healthcare reform wasn't due to the amount of Democrats, as such, but that he and Hilary botched presenting it to Congress, trying to dictate it to them? Could this be fixed?
The problem was the Republicans -- they had initially been ready to make constructive counter-proposals on how to fix US healthcare, but ended up listening to consultants who told them to obstruct any kind of constructive action; had the Democrats held enough votes to even hypothetically push through their own proposal, I think they'd balk at that kind of strategy, and we'd get something to the right of Hillarycare, more akin to earlier Obamacare.
 

Deleted member 1487

-Yassar Arafat accepts Clinton's proposed two-state solution in 2000. Bill Clinton is credited with achieving a final resolution and peace with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Combining this with successful interventions in Kosovo and Bosnia, the end of the Irish Civil War, and Bill Clinton's foreign policy would seem even more impressive.
The only problem then is getting the Israelis to accept. Clinton made the offer without first getting the Israelis to agree and when Arafat rejected it the Israelis never were even asked if they agreed to it; ultimately it was the Israelis that walked away from the talks:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_Camp_David_Summit#Aftermath
Mid-October, Clinton and the parties held a summit in Sharm El Sheikh, resulting in a Sharm memorandum with understandings to end the violence and renew the security cooperation. From 18 to 23 December they had negotiations, followed by Clinton's presentation of his Parameters, in a last attempt to bring Middle East peace before his second term ended in January 2001.[25] Although the official statements told, both parties had accepted the Clinton Parameters with reservations,[26] these reservations in fact meant they rejected them on essential points. On 2 January 2001, the Palestinians put forward their acceptance with some fundamental objections. Barak accepted the parameters with a 20-page letter of reservations.[27] A Sharm el-Sheikh summit planned for 28 December did not take place.
Clinton's initiative led to the Taba negotiations in January 2001, where the two sides published a statement saying they had never been closer to agreement (though such issues as Jerusalem, the status of Gaza, and the Palestinian demand for compensation for refugees and their descendants remained unresolved), but Barak, facing elections, resuspended the talks.[28] Ehud Barak was to be defeated by Ariel Sharon in 2001.

Sharon then did not renew the talks and instead went for unilateral disengagement from Gaza, but reentrenchment in the West Bank, despite statements that he supported a Palestinian state there.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_settlement#History
In the Road map for peace of 2002, which was never implemented, the establishment of a Palestinian state was acknowledged. Outposts would be dismantled. However, many new outposts appeared instead, few were removed. Israel's settlement policy remained unchanged. Settlements in East Jerusalem and remaining West Bank were expanded. While according to official Israeli policy no new settlements were built, at least some hundred unauthorized outposts were established since 2002 with state funding in the 60% of the West Bank that was not under Palestinian administrative control and the population growth of settlers did not diminish.


In 2005, all 21 settlements in the Gaza Strip and four in the northern West Bank were forcibly evacuated as part of Israeli disengagement from the Gaza Strip, known to some in Israel as "the Expulsion".[2] However, the disengagement was more than compensated by transfers to the West Bank.[46]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_settlement_timeline#2005
2005


March

  • The Sasson report finds that that Israeli state bodies have been discreetly diverting millions of shekels to build West Bank settlements and outposts that were illegal under Israeli law. The report exposes the existence of at least 150 such illegal outposts that lack proper government authorization.

  • The Israeli government confirms plans to increase the size of the Maale Adumim settlement, in the West Bank near Jerusalem, by 3,500 homes. Chief Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat criticizes the move, saying "[This] sabotages all efforts seeking to get the peace process back on track," and "The Israeli government wants to determine Jerusalem's fate by presenting the settlements and wall as a fait accompli.".[7]
August


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Road_map_for_peace#Expanding_West_Bank_settlement
Israel did not withdraw to the positions of 28 September 2000, a key requirement of Phase I of the Roadmap. Instead, movement of Palestinians was heavily impeded by numerous roadblocks, earth mounds and checkpoints,[27][50] and movement between West Bank and Gaza was virtually impossible. According to Israel, the Palestinians did not fulfil their obligation to end violence and terrorism, and therefore they refused to withdraw.




Israel also did not freeze settlement expansion, nor dismantle outposts built since 2001, another requirement of the Roadmap. Instead, the number of settlers continued growing. Even during the Second Intifada the settler population kept growing at a high rate, in a remarkably straight line. From 2000 to 2004, the number of settlers in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem increased with more than 50,000. From 2004 to 2008, the Jewish population grew with some 70,000.[51]
Additionally, more Palestinian land was confiscated and annexed by means of the expanding West Bank barrier.[52] Despite a ruling of the International Court of Justice, who declared the barrier beyond the Green Line illegal, Israel decided to build the Wall up to 22 km inside the West Bank, east of Ariel, and east of other large settlement blocs. On the other hand, more than 1,500 Palestinian homes were demolished throughout the Palestinian Territories,[27] and build-up of Palestinian structures was virtually completely denied.
 
As others have said, butterflying the Rabin assassination seems a much better POD than 2000. There was real momentum for peace, which fell apart in the aftermath; by 2000 that was all gone. As an added bonus, it's earlier, which gives Clinton more time to try for other things.

As for domestic politics, you still have the problem that the Democratic Party in Congress is still largely a Southern party, which is one bad wave from getting knocked out. The South had been going increasingly Republican for some time; eventually that's going to spill over onto the congressional delegation. 1994 is when that particular trend crested, and I'm not sure how you could delay it.
 
Top