wasted potential with Bill Clinton's Presidency - too much DLC influence, kowtowing to the RW & self-indulgence with relationships. But frankly NAFTA, if managed, implemented and enforced properly by his successor, could have been much less of a disaster than it has been for both the US and Mexico.
Unfortunately, his successor-in-fact was Cheney rather than Bush II (although feckless dim son was no better than Cheney, if not as consciously and deliberately evil perhaps) and eight years of disastrous GOP economic policies exacerbated all of NAFTA's many flaws. This is just one of many reasons why abominations such as the TPP in its current form should not pass - we cannot trust who will be around to implement provisions. If it is any GOPer, it will be an unmitigated disaster for all but the One Percent - nothing less.
As for Clinton's becoming rich after his Presidency, there is certainly nothing wrong per se in that. In fact, there is nothing wrong in anyone's becoming rich, if their wealth is obtained honestly rather than by exploiting the vulnerable. And when those who are wealthy recognize that they have responsibilities towards the vulnerable and use their wealth and influence to help those who are vulnerable become less so in any way, then I certainly applaud that. They SHOULD do that. They should also realize, however, that private sector charity is simply not enough - that government policies should also be geared towards improving the lot of the vulnerable and disadvantaged. I believe that Clinton and others do realize that.
I believe that we agree about a lot more than we disagree about. But I do challenge you to explain to me exactly how Bill Clinton's becoming wealthy after his Presidency exploited anyone vulnerable. And I also return to my first comment: considering what he has done with that wealth, how can you honestly conflate him with Reagan in any way at all?