Oh no it doesn't! I, personally, despise Jimmy Carter more than Bill Clinton. I remember vividly the hatred the media showed for Ronald Reagan, which was astonishing in intensity...until GW Bush came around. There's never been anything like the animus the left shows this guy. You don't have to hang around too many news sites that allow commentary before somebody posts a picture of Bush morphing into a chimp, or asks plaintively where Lee Harvey Oswald is when you need him. This Bush-hating stuff is nuts.
But Clinton? He was just a smug, smarmy, good ol' boy who couldn't keep it in his pants. His soul belonged in Arkansas wearing a white patent leather belt and matching shoes and selling used Ford Torinos on the automile. If my feelings for him became worthy of the word "hatred" it's because I believed him when he shook that finger in my face and told me he didn't have sex with that woman. Everybody hates being duped.
You've got my second there, pal. But both did an enormous amount of damage to America. Carter gutted our intelligence agencies, especially the CIA via the Church Committee, along with huge economic and military hits and giveaways to America's enemies. Maybe his biggest sin was eliminating the Shah of Iran and opening the gate for the crazy Muslim Imams.
Clinton did much the same, especially with idiotic appointments like Hazel O'Leary to Energy, who opened secret files to the whole world; and his giveaways of military secrets for campaign contributions. This is just a tiny list for both.
It's not surprising the NY Times and its reporter don't recognize the "sleaze factor" when it's visible and smelling right in front of them. They think that's the way the world's supposed to be.