I think Bill Clinton may be different. Read these comments about Clinton and speechwriters from his former speechwriter.
JB You may be right from a political POV. Nixon was as good or better a diplomat than Clinton. OTOH Clinton presided over more prosperous times. But if you are boiling this comparison down to a burglary vs a sexual pecadillo, which really should only be Clinton’s family’s business, then I really do not see a comparison.
@Marianne
I guess there is, strictly speaking, a small difference between a ghostwriter and a political speechwriter?
I think virtually all top political leaders have speechwriters. But as a rule they work together for the final draft (at least when it comes to really big set-piece speeches!)
@Dooo
It’s not so much the sex-act per se which is problematic. If Clinton had been seeing a professional whore, for example, then you could make an argument that it was a private thing. But casual sex at the workplace with a junior employee? Can that be possibly be appropriate?
The biggest issue is that he went on TV, looked the American people in the eye (so to speak) and said: “I did not have sexual relations with that woman, with Monica Lewinsky”.
When he was later forced to admit the whole thing, his position became quite untenable, IMO.
“If Clinton had been seeing a professional whore, for example, then you could make an argument that it was a private thing.”
No, that would have been an illegal act in Washington DC. That would be much more conducive to comparison to another illegal act, such as burglary.
What Clinton did with Lewinsky was not illegal. What he said on the stand was borderline, but he was given a particular definition to base “sex” on. In the end his impeachment was overturned in a senate trial.
Let’s face it, there is lots of circumstantial evidence that Lewinsky was a willing participant. One could just as easily argue that Clinton’s mealy-mouth on the stand was because he did not want to compromise Lewinsky.
TO me the Lewinsky thing was the true flowering of the Social Conservate Right in the US. We cannot get rid of that soon enough.
Not trying to play devil’s advocate… but I thought that it was not all that bad, and somewhat funny and entertaining. It seemed improvised so good on the octogenarian for sticking his neck out.
ad Jay: (…) No matter where one stands politically, there are surely only two words that need to be known about William Clinton: “Monica” and “Lewinsky”. (…)
While I am certainly not advocating the kind of “affair” Clinton had with Lewinsky, I also remember that Lewinsky said that there was never any element of force (be it physical or psychological) involved. I believe that - based on the information I have (and I might be wrong) - this was still an act between consenting adults.
And I am sure Clinton will be remembered for the millions of people he helped get basic medical insurance, and for the fact that when he left office the US budget showed a major surplus which then unfortunately was spent on America’s war machinery, major tax cuts for huge corporations (especially oil companies) etc. and plunged the country into one of the biggest financial crises of its history (yes, I know the worldwide economic situation was a different one, but two terms of Bush junior did their part to bring the country to the verge of financial collapse and I also know we won’t agree on the political agenda, Jay 
Clinton will also be remembered as a president who understood the importance of environmental protection and was intelligent enough to at least try and make it a tiny bit more difficult for Americans to buy automatic or semi-automatic weapons over the counter.
As for the lying part, I guess we all remember the “Read my lips, no more taxes” of George W. Bush senior and the “fairy tale” of mass destruction weapons in Iraq propagated by his son and marking the beginning of a terrible and bloody war which still haunts the people of an entire region. When it comes to lies, I guess it is easier for people to live with the “Lewinsky” lie than with the lies of the Bush administration(s) which have cost thousands of lives.
And, coming back to the usefulness of Clinton’s speech, I think he is a great orator and while he certainly is not a perfect human being I doubt he is the “devil” he is portrayed as sometimes based on the Lewinsky affair. I remember that some of my American colleagues (both religious and Republicans) were outraged at the Lewinsky affair but had no problem accepting the “collateral damage” (their words) the Iraq invasion caused. A sexual affair between consenting adults (no matter how “immoral” the circumstances may have been) against full-scale war for oil …I sure know who I’m going to remember for what
On a final note, I can hardly think of any German speaking politician who is as eloquent as some of the English speaking ones are. Richard von Weizsäcker is one that comes to my mind. As for Austrian politicians, I can’t think of a single speech by any politician that I found linguistically interesting. I wonder if American and/or British etc. politicians have better ghostwriters or if they are better trained when it comes to delivering a speech.
P.S. The way he talks about the Republicans in his speech is in stark contrast to the hateful speeches most Republicans give about Democrats. That is a great speech to be used here on lingq 
@ JayB
I find political speeches easier than speeches for company execs, especially in the cases where you have to formulate the company strategy for them… Yes that happens.
Politicians do not like to get involved with the writing part I find. In fact they are grateful when you do it for them and they normally just reel it off - but obviously not at Clinton’s level.
I have found the better speakers are the ones who are good at acting/interested in theater. I guess Clinton could go down as a good actor as demonstrated by JayB’s example…
ad Marianne10: (…) I find political speeches easier than speeches for company execs, especially in the cases where you have to formulate the company strategy for them… Yes that happens. (…)
Wow, your job must be very challenging. I have never met anybody before who works as a ghostwriter. As for the recognition, I guess you share that fate with a lot of other people who do outstanding jobs without being given proper credit for them. Sad, but true.
From an interpreter’s point of view, I must say I love working with people who are as eloquent as Clinton. I had the opportunity to interpret some of his speeches (not while he was president but during one of his tours through Europe as a guest speaker) and I found his way of speaking both a nice challenge and a welcome change to the dull presentations you sometimes get from company executives. But there are lots of politicians who only produce hot air, especially at a press conference once they are on their own without their meticulously prepared written speeches
@ Lovelanguages - Ghostwriting is just part of the job. When you do events, you often have to write the speeches for people and at the very least you have to brief them. Speakers include politicians but obviously also and mostly company execs. I love the creativity I am able to apply. I am not worried about getting the credit though. A full slop chit is recognition enough!
Your interpreters comments are interesting. I always make a point of briefing them one week in advance, providing them with all presentations which I hope also serves as motivation. I have found that really improves quality. There must be nothing worse than arriving somewhere and not knowing what the heck they are going to say.
Incidentally, I was wondering if you could shed some light on the best way to do this: I often have to give presentations with an interpreter doing consecutive interpreting.
I deliberately speak at a very very slow pace, pronouncing every word so that the people in the audience might catch something and not necessarily hear everything through the interpreter. I have a theory people like to be able to just understand a little bit even thougt it is being translated anyway. The languages in question are Korean, Vietnamse, and Japanese.
"I can hardly think of any German speaking politician who is as eloquent as some of the English speaking ones are. "
Maybe German speakers learned to distrust great orators.
With regards to eloquent German politicians, I have often asked that question and it would appear that they are few and far between. The name though they tend to repeat is Joschka Fischer.
@Dooo
I am not asserting that what Clinton did was actually illegal. Ultimately our political leaders are not prevented from telling lies to voters by law or statute. Perhaps the world would be a rather better place if they were?
Obviously we are not going to agree about Clinton. It seems that you are somewhat relaxed about the fact that he is a proven liar - I am not not.
I am not saying that what Nixon did was okay. Clearly his position was untenable too. (He did, however, pay a big price for his wrongdoings - both personally and politically.)
@Robert
I think it’s important to remember that there were quite a few people on the Right (myself included) who were entirely opposed to George W Bush’s Iraq-war. Equally there were some on the Left (Tony Blair anyone?) who were among the loudest cheerleaders for war.
Apropos automatic weapons: did you know that in Switzerland an automatic weapon must by law be kept in almost every home? All men of military age have to be army reservists there! :-0
(Oh yes, and they also happen to enjoy some of the very lowest figures for gun-crime in the entire world…!)
ad dooo (…) Maybe German speakers learned to distrust great orators. (…)
If by “great orators” in this context you mean demagogues, I am afraid we still have a fair share of people who feel attracted by them.
ad Marianne10: Joschka Fischer is an eloquent and intelligent guy. One doesn’t have to agree with all he did as a politician to see that. He certainly is an interesting and courageous person.
(…) I always make a point of briefing them one week in advance, providing them with all presentations which I hope also serves as motivation. I have found that really improves quality. There must be nothing worse than arriving somewhere and not knowing what the heck they are going to say. (…)
You are every interpreter’s dream then
Excellent thinking with regard to the quality aspect.
(…) I often have to give presentations with an interpreter doing consecutive interpreting.
I deliberately speak at a very very slow pace, pronouncing every word so that the people in the audience might catch something and not necessarily hear everything through the interpreter. I have a theory people like to be able to just understand a little bit even thougt it is being translated anyway. The languages in question are Korean, Vietnamse, and Japanese. (…)
Basically, a natural flow of speech is best. For consecutive interpreting, you should stop after a few sentences and not go on for five or ten minutes before pausing.
Speaking very, very slow is just as difficult a situation for an interpreter than having to work with somebody who speaks super fast. Especially when interpreting from German, slow speakers can cause a lot of problems for the interpreter because we need the verb right away in most other languages while in German the verb usually comes last in a sentence. Without the verb I can’t start interpreting, however, so I need the speaker to speak at a normal speed.
I don’t know to what extent your theory about people wishing to hear at least parts of the original is true or not. To be honest, I find consecutive interpreting in general quite bothersome for both the audience and the interpreter (and, of course, also the speaker). It always disrupts the natural flow of speech and is certainly just the lesser of two evils (only not understanding at all what someone says being worse). The only scenario where I think consecutive interpreting is useful is during negotiations. When there is an actual dialogue going on, with quick answers and questions.
It is a terrible method for presentations. Simultaneous interpreting should be the only working method for these cases. However, it is much more expensive and that is why people sometimes try to avoid it.
If you have simultaneous interpreting you can listen to the translation and at the same time to the original. Actually, quite a few people do that (in case they have at least some knowledge of the source language) by keeping one of their ears free and using the headset only on the other one.
Interpreting into Korean, Japanese and Mandarin is particularly difficult with an Indoeuropean language as the source language. At least that is what I have been told by my colleagues working with these language pairs and I can readily understand why. Still, I think speaking too slow may be a problem. I would try to speak at a normal speed.
There are other things to consider though: Avoid using puns, they hardly ever work in another language and you create a lot of stress for the interpreter if you use them without having him given an opportunity to prepare for them.
ALWAYS finish your sentences. If you quote, make sure you give the interpreter a copy of the original text you are going to quote. I’ve had people read entire pages from scientific papers - that is ridiculous. Written language is not made for simultaneous interpreting. The structure of the sentences is totally different and the least you can do is give the interpreter a chance to have a look at the text before you quote it.
Don’t rattle down numbers as if somebody were chasing you. And if you work with a consecutive interpreter, give him a smile or a friendly nod from time to time so he/she knows he is doing ok. Stern looks are quite uncomfortable.
ad Jay B: Yes, I know about the Swiss law and I also know about their social policies which seemingly have helped to avoid those enormous social divides American politics have created (and we have similar situations in other countries as well). I also know that Switzerland is not as gang-ridden as some parts of the US. It is well known that Mexican drug cartels buy their weapons in the US because it is easy and cheap. Laws need to be adjusted to the actual situation in the country. While in most cases I can extinguish a fire with water it is not a good idea to try and do so in the case you have an oil fire. What I am trying to say is that just because the Swiss have their arms at home this does not mean it is a good idea for every country to follow the same policy. You need to have the right social setting for that and I doubt this is the case in the US or would you compare any of the Swiss cities with some of the inner city areas in the US?
As for the warmongers, yes, Blair was one of the biggest disappointments for me and an excellent example of the fact that it is not your party that counts but what you as a person do and say. I would not vote for the Republicans on a national level, but I think they have some really good politicians too. Giuliani was one of them. A decent guy with a clear political agenda - but to be honest, he is totally different from people like The Boston Tea Party that now seem to exert quite an influence on the Republican party. Bloomberg used to be a Republican too, and I think he is doing a good job.
At the end of the day, it comes down to what you actually do but there is a general direction a party wants to go, and just like I don’t vote for the “People’s Party” (Volkspartei, similar to the Republicans but for American standards still quite liberal) I wouldn’t be voting for likeminded political parties in another country.
As for the crime rates in Switzerland. Ours are still lower and our gun control laws are much stricter than theirs. I would not attribute this entirely to the gun control regulations, but I think it shows that having a weapon at home does not automatically make for a safer country either.
JayB: Clinton is not a “proven liar” in any greater sense than any other US president in modern history is a proven liar. He biggest problem was that he offended social conservative base of the Republican Party.
“I am not saying that what Nixon did was okay. Obviously his position was untenable too. (He did, however, pay a big price for his wrongdoings - both personally and politically.)”
Umm… Nixon got a presidential pardon, and enjoyed elder statesman status. Not to mention the fact the he never admitted to any wrong doing on his part.
“It seems that you are relaxed about the fact that he is a proven liar - I am not not.”
JayB, sorry, you seem to be relaxed about being illogical and uninformed.
@Dooo
Whatever. We are not going to agree on this issue anytime soon, methinks
@Robert: “…What I am trying to say is that just because the Swiss have their arms at home this does not mean it is a good idea for every country to follow the same policy, you need to have the right social setting for that…”
I think it’s an entirely open question whether more gun-ownership implies more gun-crime.
If every single law-abiding citizen had a military assault rifle at home, and were trained how to use it, who would want to be an armed robber??
But of course you’re right that there are other factors at play too, and Switzerland cannot be lightly compared to (for example) Mexico City.
BTW I often think that Switzerland (in the German-speaking part) is exactly where I would have chosen to be born, if one were able to choose one’s country of birth!
ad Jay (…) BTW I often think that Switzerland (in the German-speaking part) is exactly where I would have chosen to be born, if one were able to choose one’s country of birth! (…)
It is a lovely part of the world, but I admit I prefer the place where I live. Today I accompanied two of my nephews on their first day of school. It was such a beautiful event and the best thing is that I met so many people who I used to go to school with and who are now parents. It just felt great to be part of a community and I very much believe in strengthening local communities to make this world a better place. This may sound hackneyed but I am confident that by building strong local communities you can avoid a lot of problems.
I still enjoy travelling very much but I also feel very much connected with my hometown and the people living in it. And I want to help make it a good place to live for everybody who chooses to come here and is willing to be part of this community.
I’m not a nationalist, but I sure love this country of mine
P.S. Will you be going to the polyglot conference in Budapest next year in May? It would be great to meet you there.
ad Jay:
The US has 5% of the world population and 50% of the guns. The last global Small Arms Survey showed there are 88 guns for every 100 Americans. Yemen is second at 54. Serbia and Iraq are among the other countries in the top 10.
@Robert
You know, I’ve only ever been to Austria once! I’ve lived in Southern Germany, but the only time that I have ever been over the border and into Austria was on a family holiday when I was about 12 or 13 (to a place called St Johann, if memory serves me correctly.)
It seems like a long time ago now, but the memories are good ones.
As Arnie said: “I’ll be back!” 
@Friedemann
Do you have a gun, buddy? (In Germany one can legally keep a hunting rifle or hand-gun at home, nicht wahr…?) Maybe more German folks should use their rights and pack some heat? Maybe it’s time to counterbalance those unfortunate ownership statistics?
If the statistics here are accurate, the UK has more than five times the rate of violent crime of the US, Austria more than three times, and Canada two times.