My argument is basically that a lot of these collapses we're seeing are a result of the dot com collapse. With the exception of Enron, most of these failing companies are telcos or telco involved. Too much infastructure and not enough demand led to Global Crossing, Northpoint, Excite@Home, Qwest, WorldCom, and even AT&T (to some degree) to implode. This in turn affected all their suppliers...Cisco, Juniper, Nortel, etc. Bascially dot com bomb caused telco bomb caused supplier implosion (no bomb yet though Nortel is teetering).
So to understand the collapse of Worldcom you have to understand the collapse of the Dot Coms. And the collapse of the Dot Coms can hardly be laid at Clinton's doorstep. It was the fault of the securities companies, the venture capatalists, and yes even the investors. The King had no clothes. He never had clothes. But nobody saw that he had no clothes until billions upon billions got tied up investing in the King. It could even be argued that they saw that he had no clothes but chose to ignore it. Alan Greenspan was right about the "irrational exhuberance" but nobody listened.
I certainly wouldn't lay the Savings and Loan crisis at Reagan's or Bush's doorstep. It was the fault of the bankers and the oversight and it cost us half a trillion to fix. Similarly I can't lay Worldcom at Clinton's doorstep. Although I'm sure lots of people will try because it makes for good headlines and keeps the Democrats on the defensive. Which isn't a bad thing, even if it isn't factually accurate.
Correct -- and I know some life-long Republicans who voted for Clinton because he seemed most likely to conceal the King's nudity. He did, therefore making everyone who was playing the game feel self-righteous, as in "everybody does it." The world is corrupt, why should I not feather my nest through corruption? and so on.
In that sense, Clinton made a very real contribution to corporate and market corruption, as well as to individual irresponsibility.