September 25, 2006

Clinton On "Fox News Sunday" Fox "News" invites Former President Bill Clinton to talk about his recent Global Initiative conference. Very quickly though, the interviewer uses a variant of the Faux News tactic of "some people say" to blame Clinton for 9/11 ("Why didn't you kill Osama? Why didn't you stop this?") It's clear from the record that BushCo dropped the ball on anti-terrorism, but this is Fox's job - to obfuscate the facts and make the far right wing look good. Clinton tells them to STFU.

CLINTON: No, because I didn’t get him. WALLACE: Right. CLINTON: But at least I tried. That’s the difference in me and some, including all the right-wingers who are attacking me now. They ridiculed me for trying. They had eight months to try. They did not try. I tried. So I tried and failed. When I failed, I left a comprehensive anti-terror strategy and the best guy in the country, Dick Clarke, who got demoted. So you did Fox’s bidding on this show. You did your nice little conservative hit job on me. What I want to know is… WALLACE: Well, wait a minute, sir. CLINTON: No, wait. No, no… WALLACE: I want to ask a question. You don’t think that’s a legitimate question? CLINTON: It was a perfectly legitimate question, but I want to know how many people in the Bush administration you asked this question of. I want to know how many people in the Bush administration you asked, Why didn’t you do anything about the Cole? I want to know how many you asked, Why did you fire Dick Clarke? I want to know how many people you asked… WALLACE: We asked — we asked… CLINTON: I don’t… WALLACE: Do you ever watch Fox News Sunday, sir? CLINTON: I don’t believe you asked them that.

posted by petebest 17 years ago
  • Fox News: Asking Democrats the Tough Questions! What about Republicans, you ask? Well, the GOP isn't in bed with the terrorists. Do you want us to call the FBI on you?
  • I didn't have a chance to watch it yet, but I read the transcript last night... Now if only the rest of the spineless Democrats would could take lead. Well-played by Bill. *wipes tears*
  • Silverback filter?
  • The guy on the radio last night was all, "Why does Clinton insist on giving interview after interview lately? He needs to figure out that he is no longer the president." The implication being that Clinton is a media whore. Of course, it stands to reason that, now that the Iraq situation is becoming undone, and the Bush administration is looking more and more like a gaggle of morans, those same morans would start looking at how Clinton might have fucked this up so that they can lay some of the blame on him. I just see it as the guy just trying to defend himself.
  • Lemur on radio: Why does Clinton insist on giving interview after interview lately (he is a media whore that is trying to cover his ass for destroying america with that blowjob) Smarter Monkeys: Former US President Bill Clinton's global initiative conference wound up in New York on Friday with 215 commitments from companies, governments and non-profit groups totalling $7.3bn, nearly three times its inaugural 2005 level. The pledges mostly concentrated on the four themes of the fight against global warming, disease, poverty and religious conflict. They varied from Rupert Murdoch and the singer Barbra Streisand jointly backing an effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to a planned future summit between African women to Sir Richard Branson's $3bn promise over a decade to reinvest proceeds from his transport groups into alternative fuels.
  • Just because he's taking money doesn't mean he has to take the blame.
  • Mo' money, mo' problems.
  • "Why does Clinton insist on giving interview after interview . . " One would think a radio person would understand that Clinton is granting interview requests and that his question might possibly be why are his peers requesting interviews, or perhaps why he insists on attacking Clinton for nothing? Does radio guy need to understand the fundamentals of the press? Or is he just willfully being an asshole? Is it because he voted twice for a warmongering idiot who's spent us into the ground and turned the rest of the world against us for no good reason other than his blanket refusal to listen to opposing viewpoints and a smug fratboy attitude? Is the radio guy a little defensive there? Got a little guilt at being so extraordinarily wrong in the face of a mountain of evidence and simple common sense? Got a big mouth and a tiny mind and a little unthinking Clinton-bile built up from years of listening to Rush Limbaugh there? FUCK. Good for you Bill, call 'em out.
  • Sifted from the comments on the thinkprogress link: There is an ass-puckering feral “flight” response to having a very large, very pissed-off former President of the United States stop smiling, come out of his chair and physically lay hands on you while he calls you out for being a lying shill and gives you an unblinking, machine-gun history lecture inches away from your face that I HOPE Chris will re-experience every night before he falls asleep, and every time he faces another seated human being…even if it’s at the local deli. Hear hear!
  • ... feral “flight” response to having a very large, very pissed-off former President ... ...except there was no feral flight response. I saw the confrontation video and thought Clinton did good. But the thing was, that Matthews dude was cold, he didn't blink once. that was kinda scary actually.
  • Wallace. "60 Minutes" anchor Mike Wallace's son, Chris. Which is too bad kinda, 'case I always sorta liked the curmudgeonly Mike. via Das Blu: Of the verious Republican hatchet-men, Chris Wallace is one of the odder and scarier ones. Most of em--O'Reiley would be the chief example--are full of bluster and anger, whereas Wallace is creepily uninvolved in the interviews he gives, his only expression the smirk he puts on not becuase of any inner smirking, but only becuase it's his chosen expression for rattling and provoking his subjects. His technique is to rattle through question after loaded question, until he finds one that makes his interviewee stumble, and then keep pressing and pressing on that one, pushing the subject into paniced confusion. There are other smirkers out there. . .say, Stossel or Kristol, but all smirkers aside from Wallace at least occasionally betray their own involvement in the arguments in which they participate. Wallace on the other hand seems to stand behind some distant window, paring his fingernails, treating his subjects like fish on the cutting-board. Even when embarassed and bested as he was in this instance, Wallace is untouched. You can bring out the next interview subject and he'll do exactly the same thing again. He's a scary dude. But I'm glad to see Clinton take the bait. Better to take it than run from it, imo. Better to be angry than to play Wallace's rather pathological game of lets pretend nobody's angry here. posted by washburn at 12:21 PM PST on September 24
  • ...except there was no feral flight response. I saw the confrontation video and thought Clinton did good. But the thing was, that Matthews dude was cold, he didn't blink once. that was kinda scary actually. That's a terrible disappointment. As I said, haven't watched the video yet, but I was all excited to see Wallace grimace. Pffffbbt... Wallace has always appeared to be the living embalmed to me.
  • CLINTON: And you’ve got that little smirk on your face and you think you’re so clever. Totally. Worth. It.
  • Just because he's taking money doesn't mean he has to take the blame. Oh I agree. I love the big old silverback! I was stating that the stupid lemur is trying to smear Bill by claiming he is making these interviews to try to protect himself. I am suggesting that Bill is trying to promote the Clinton Global Initiative and that is a totally responsible and wonderful thing.
  • Wallace. "60 Minutes" anchor Mike Wallace's son, Chris. Which is too bad kinda, 'case I always sorta liked the curmudgeonly Mike. Read this and then you can continue to like Mike while still thinking his son is a douche.
  • You provincials and your colonial politics!
  • Asked about DNC chair Howard Dean's recent prediction that the U.S. would lose the war in Iraq, Wallace told Carr: "We are in a war. We do have 150,000-plus American soldiers over there. I mean, it's Tokyo Rose, for God sakes, going on radio saying we can't win the war." Well it's not a war, for one. But kudos to the WWII theme. Nicely koolaided.
  • Sorry, MoFli. I've just heard so much about Clinton "taking Murdock's money" and badmouthing Fox, the implication being that he is a hypocrite. Musta heard you wrong.
  • SMT is on the money. The Dems need to follow Clinton's lead, stop being on their heels all the time, and start getting pissed off and striking back at the righties' crap. Howard Dean needs to call Wallace "insane" or a "deluded wingnut" for his Tokyo Rose comment. And so on. Loudly. Be aggressive. People are attracted to aggression.
  • Someone got Owned. Repeal the XXII Admendment!
  • I was surprised when i found out that Wallace is Mike's son. But maybe i shouldn't be - in Canada, Barbara Frum, a solid liberal, spawned one David Frum, a Bush speechwriters who coined the phrase "Axis of Evil". Is this adolescent rebellion max'ed out or what?
  • MonkeyFilter: An unblinking, machine-gun history lecture inches away from your face.
  • SMT is on the money. The Dems need to follow Clinton's lead, stop being on their heels all the time, and start getting pissed off and striking back at the righties' crap. Howard Dean needs to call Wallace "insane" or a "deluded wingnut" for his Tokyo Rose comment. And so on. Loudly. Be aggressive. People are attracted to aggression. I am so tired of this "in the spirit of tolerance" attitude these things play out like. I am no Dem fan, but Jesus stop arguing with these people. He knew this crap was coming when he was going to do the inteview. He should have had some intern study the tapes and cover the questions Mike Wallace asked the neo-cons when he interviewed them. He should have facts and figures to throw back in his face. He should have been smug and arrogant because this reporter is an idiot, and the questions are not worth his time. He should have a series of cut to the point responses that undermine the entire argument and the discussion. He should have quotes from the book and the 9/11 commission. He should have made a fool of them on their own forum and then publicly dress him down in front of the audience, for being a moron and not even close to a journalist. There will be a negative reaction to that but a series of responses like that get the ball rolling in the right direction. The talking points are stupid and these neo-cons keep the ball in their field as long as the Dems cannot just nip it in the bud and chastise these children for their anti-illectualism as soon as it comes out of the gate. It is funny though that the neo-cons took the idea of a subjective reality (an idea spawned in liberalism) and run with it to this extent. NIP THAT SHIT IN THE BUD!
  • Oh, the transcript alone does not do this exchange justice! More power to Bill. This is what listening to a president should sound like. Sadly, we are far far from it now...
  • He should have had some intern study the tapes and cover the questions Mike Wallace asked the neo-cons when he interviewed them. Wasn't it Chris Wallace who performed the interview? Dammit, now I'm getting them mixed up.
  • “WALLACE: But, President Clinton, if you look at the questions here, you’ll see half the questions are about that. I didn’t think this was going to set you off on such a tear.” That there is right where he broke. Interesting. This ‘silverback’ commentary is apt. One of the (many) things I did not like about Clinton was the cult of personality he created(s). A president should be right regardless of charisma. ...of course, he’s right about this, so moot point really. “And all this business about Somalia — the same people who criticized me about Somalia were demanding I leave the next day. The same exact crowd.” Again, very true. It was hard being a conservative, liking more than a few things Clinton did (disliking some of course) but recognizing that the Lewinski thing was complete B.S. and his foreign policy actions were cogent moves. Took a lot of flak for that. This, of course, completely pisses me off because it seems people have no memories. Or indeed, principles beyond party loyalty. But such people are of low character and relatively easy to break in half when confronted. As is evident here.
  • ON O'Reilly they were just oging on about "I can't beleive how angry he was!" He seemed passionate, not angry to me. If that is what passes for "angry" in politics, then I must be a raging lunatic. Then, the people O'Reilly were tlaking to kept saying things about how it was wrong for Clinton not to declissify things. What? How can they protest keeping things classified with a straight face? The current administration would keep everything classified if they could. Funny how when the Republicans keep things classified, declassifying them would risk national security, but when the Democrats keep things classified, NOT declassifying them is a national security risk...
  • He seemed passionate, not angry to me. This is pretty close to the key to understanding the divide between the pro-Bush and the rest of us. Those for Bush actually see anger. The rest of us see passion (and someone who can actually string some words together, see, it's impossible to avoid saying that)
  • What I want to know is, why does Osama bin Laden have at his constant beck and call an entire global network of martyrdom aspirants and still let these politicians, media pundits, pseudo-journalists and so on walk the Earth? Could it that he's in on it too?
  • I just wanted to high-five Clint at the end. I'd also enjoy hitting Wallace with a folding chair, but that's beside the point.
  • As a monkey myself, I affectionately called Bill a Silverback up above. Is The Daily Show's Samantha Bee a Monkey too? (I figured her for a bee)
  • This is pretty close to the key to understanding the divide between the pro-Bush and the rest of us. Those for Bush actually see anger. The rest of us see passion (and someone who can actually string some words together, see, it's impossible to avoid saying that) Meanwhile, in Bush, they see sincerity and strength, where you and I see idiocy and delusion (or deceit). It's fucking depressing.
  • Samantha bee, Samantha bee toils like a worker but is a queen bee HawthorneWingo, many folk seem unable to distinguish truth from what they think they see. Used to appal me how many people -- and especially the US media - were taken in by Ronald Reagan's sincere guy performance as president, which to me consistently reeked of phoniness.
  • ON O'Reilly they were just oging on about "I can't beleive how angry he was!" He seemed passionate, not angry to me. If that is what passes for "angry" in politics, then I must be a raging lunatic. These are the same people who crucified Howard Dean for yelling too loudly at a political rally. At a RALLY, for Smog's sake!
  • Bush's cult seems to be one of personality, at times, too. If I had a nickel for every time I've heard, "Sure, he's made some mistakes, but he's a good-hearted, decent, God-fearing man," I could... OK, well I couldn't buy MUCH in this economy. Maybe half a gallon of gas?
  • Yeah, TUM, you're not allowed to be emotional about anything when you're in politics, else it robs you of your credibility. I mean, look at how cool and calm Bush was when they whispered in his ear that planes had flown into the WTC: the country was under attack, and he didn't even blink.
  • Hey- HE'S heard the talk and HE'S Read the papers, but HE'S the Decider! Bush tucked away the file on Osama, went on vacation / sacking and pillaging environmental and business regulations for eight months and were as prepared for the 9/11 attacks as they were for Hurricane Katrina. Heck of a job, Bushie. (On watching the Olbermann clip - Daaaaaamn! You go Keith! I may have to start watching that guy. "This administration has been given the greatest pass for incompetence and malfesance in history" - that was hard core boyyyy)
  • Yeah, that Olbermann clip is great stuff. It starts out a little shaky (with some gratuitous insults of Wallace) but then homes in on Bush like a Stinger. The rallying cry against Bush: "You Did Not Try".
  • We need more of this [watching the Olbermann clip]. Something to put the current administration in-check. It gives me a glimmer of hope. Are yours the actions of a true American? Oh, SMACK! Dead on my boy... dead on...
  • “Bush's cult seems to be one of personality, at times, too.” Yeah. But it’s predicated on jingoism and an almost religious loyalty to cause. Bush has a sort of infinite blank behind his eyes that is easily taken for steely eyed self-assurance. That sort of certitude, even based on ignorance, fanaticism, etc. - is very seductive. It’s not real personal magnetism. Clinton, whatever his flaws, is one very charismatic individual. And he’s not an unattractive man like, say, Lincoln (although I’d take Lincoln over Clinton in wrasslin’). And, indeed, he has a great deal of character. Very unlike Bush, who to my knowlege, has never faced any real adversity. I’d level some of the same ‘charisma’ charges at Reagan. One of the things I didn’t like about him either. They both got away with things simply because they were so charismatic. But as far as Clinton/Bush the lesser comparisons go - no contest. They might both have dominant traits, but Clinton is far more dangerous. I wouldn’t play poker with him. Bush I think I’d take to the cleaners.
  • I’d take Lincoln over Clinton in wrasslin’ Smart money. he has a great deal of character. Very unlike Bush, who to my knowlege, has never faced any real adversity. Well, to be fair, the a Presidential election is no coked-up, drunk-driving, fart-on-your-date frat party. Um, as I understand it.
  • Shit! We'd better get on this and crank up the rolling shit machine of spin, lies, propaganda and half-truths! "What we did in the eight months [between Bush's inauguration and 9/11] was at least as aggressive as what the Clinton administration did in the preceding years," Rice told the New York Post in comments published Tuesday. *cough*Bullshit!*cough* That this (current flap) *started* on Fox is ironic at least.
  • I've often wondered if some of the Daily Show writers were monkeys. So many times, I'll see something that seems so close to what we've been discussing. Or maybe it's just that Bandaid-Hasslehoff syndrome thingy.
  • Just how agressive were they? Richard Clarke on 1/25/2001: "We urgently need...a Principals level review on the al Qida network." According to page 212 of the 9/11 Commission Report: "The Principals Committee had its first meeting on al Qaeda on September 4." We report, you decide!
  • Clinton TV Interview Energizes GOP, Dems . . . Not so, countered Democrats. They argued the former president's feisty dressing-down of Fox News' Chris Wallace is just the wake-up call the party's liberal base needed six weeks before the election, a pointed criticism of the Bush administration's bungled search for bin Laden. Either way, don't expect the furor to subside any time soon. "We should replay that interview as often as possible," chortled Republican strategist Nelson Warfield on Tuesday. "In this election there's been a lot of worry among Republicans about whether our base is motivated and is going to turn out to vote," Warfield said. "Nothing motivates the Republican base more than some puffy pontification from Bill Clinton. When he has a little fit on TV, it reminds us of the future that awaits if the Democrats should ever win another national election."
  • Q: How do you know when a republican talking head is lying? A: His lips are moving. Midterms are about nothing but energizing the base. This video is making the rounds on the internets and the Dem base is eating it up, while GOP puppets like Warfield are desperately trying (and failing) to spin it in their favor. Simply asking Clinton to appear on Fox News is a sign of GOP desperation, and as a Dem I enjoyed watching it blow up in their faces. I can't wait to vote in November.
  • Nice to see that the GOP is talking about style matters rather than addressing the substance of Clinton's arguments. When all else fails, feign the righteous indignation...
  • Well!
  • Which makes it even more blackly comic. Their main focus was on a hugely expensive weapons system that would never work.
  • These are the same people who crucified Howard Dean for yelling too loudly... On the other hand, can't put my finger on it, but there was something wrong about Dean's yelling back then, something amiss ...
  • Please, please, Bill, show the Dems the way! Why are Dems just sitting on their tails? Everytime I think of Starr and that damn dress, and how 'merikins were so outraged, I wonder why there's no one willing to take on BushCo with all the lies and deceit. Wake up, America, Bush is creating a generation of new terrorists. You ain't seen nuthin' yet.
  • You go girl GramMa!!
  • MonkeyFilter: When all else fails, feign the righteous indignation... 404, Hommy--what am I doing wrong?
  • Try this. Looks like they changed "till" to "to" in the url.
  • olbermann is impressive.
  • Yeah huh. I diggery his ass-kickery.
  • I've never watched MSNBC before, but I'm quite tempted to tune in to Olbermann. Does this ass-kicker extraordinaire broadcast nightly?
  • It's only a matter of time before the black helicopters come for Mr. Olbermann. Enjoy him now while you can.
  • Too bad less than 1% of Americans will ever see or hear Olbermann's report.
  • It's only a matter of time before the black helicopters come for Mr. Olbermann. Enjoy him now while you can. Oh yeah, right, and the administration is going to get a Republican controlled congress to rubber-stamp some kind of pro-torture legislation that eliminates the writ of habeas corpus as guaranteed by the Constitution! Ha! Wait, what?
  • It's only a matter of time before the black helicopters come for Mr. Olbermann. Well, he's already getting white powder mailed to him.
  • wow. the new york post is a scummy operation.
  • That the NY Post is bottom-barrel rag stock is quite evident with their swipe at Olbermann. It's dumbfounding that this cheap NYC daily would poke fun at someone receiving white powder in a mailing; considering the NY Post has first-hand experience with anthrax mailings; and that human lives were lost during the 2001 anthrax incidents. HA. HA. What fuckwads!!
  • Lunchtime yesterday, two PR company VPs and two drones (one of them me) enter into discussion: one of the VPs likes to gather the braintrust (I'm there for comic relief) and ask questions on various events, company direction, blahblah. One of the questions was: Clinton's outburst on Fox: Bad or Good? Unanimous: Bad. Clinton, who is widely seen as a moderate and, as an ex-president, sort of above the fray, loses it (sorta), fails to get his message out, to the general detraction of image and reputation. VP: Yes, but: Clinton is no dummy, but a rather clever man and undoubtedly highly savvy media practioner. He was well aware of Wallace's reputation as an attack dog, and well aware that Fox News is not the most friendly arena for discussion. (yes, undoubtedly so). That assumed, why then would he agree to go on Fox with Wallace and be interviewed? (to talk about his foundation work?) Sure - but he *had* to know that the conversation would turn to other areas. In fact, he would surely have been certain of it. Ergo, he planned the outburst. (but why?) to enter a refuation of current administration policies and criticism of his administration into the discourse via an unfriendly medium, and galvanize Democrats to action. (why "lose" it?") Because had he simply discussed these items in polite conversation, he would have been ignored. By getting loud about it, the Clinton/Wallace interview was national news on all four networks and an immensely popular topic throughout the web. With this as his aim, Clinton then would have consciously chosen the least friendly source (Fox) and the least friendly interviewer (Wallace), because he would KNOW that, at some point, Wallace would say something provocative, and thus Clinton could enact his tirade. *satori*
  • *spits fuckwads through straw at clock*
  • Could be, Fes, could be. He's smart enough, and doggonne it, people like him. However, it could also be that the existence of Fox as a right-wing propaganda machine doesn't necessarily bother him, but coming right out and brazenly pulling that shiat with him personally, does. That's my take. Five cents please.
  • I doubt it. He's damn smart, and is (with the press, anyway) fully capable of exercising self-control. He did NOT just find himself in a chair across from Chris Wallace, yakking about this and that. It doesn't work that way.
  • No it doesn't, and I'd bet Clinton prepared for exactly what happened. But that's a different thing than either wanting it to happen, or manipulating events for them to fall like they did. (Sending secret sock-puppet emails to Chris Wallace, "Ask Clinton about not killing Osama! signed, S. William from Big Rock. hee! hee!") Wallace could have just talked about the Global Initiative stuff as he'd said he would. But nooooooo . . gotta fling the poo don't 'e?
  • I think Clinton counted on EXACTLY that. Wallace isn't Soledad O'Brien, you know. It makes sense for Clinton to want it to happen and to, well, manipulate is a strongish word, but create an environment where it was likely to happen. People of Clinton's stature do not go into these things without SUPERIOR preparation. Typically, 4-6 times the length of the interview of intensive mock interviewing, plus background. That's industry standard for the knuckleheads *I* help prepare for press interviews. Clinton's people are going to be that much more better. Clinton *knows* how to handle the press far and away better than nearly anyone in this country, and almost certainly has some of the best media and public relations people in the WORLD at his beck to boot. He used Wallace. Deftly.
  • Ahh I think you're ascribing too much to Clinton & Co. Firstly, it was Wallace's environment from lights to carpet tacks. He was the interviewer and as such had the controlling hand for both the tone, the length and the direction of the conversation. Wallace went there. Just because Bill was ready for it and took him to the mat doesn't mean he planned it or somehow "made it happen" through the magicosity of his Clintonness. The idea that Clinton somehow "set up Fox News" for some kinda Democratically-charging boo-yah is great, hilarious and not just a little poetic-justice-y but I seriously doubt it. Shit, if he was that good, the "activist" Supreme Court wouldn't have had to stop democracy from working and appoint Shrubya.
  • Wallace went there. Just because Bill was ready for it and took him to the mat doesn't mean he planned it or somehow "made it happen" through the magicosity of his Clintonness. Bingo. *tosses a nickle*
  • Pfui! I don't think Clinton controlled the environment per se, but I think he counted on Wallace and Fox to do certain things: to be aggressive, to be increasingly antagonistic, and to eventually ask something akin to the Osama question. I teach people to have their messages ready well before they go in to an interview - this is standard media training 101. Clinton would have had the same, tuaght to him by instructors far FAR better than I and honed over two presidential terms, etc. Clinton knew going in exactly what he wanted to say and exactly what sort of environment he was likely to say it in. This is BASIC. Two term ex-presidents who were governors and political operatives before that, are lawyers, have lawyers/senators for wives, and have been nearly impeached do NOT freak out and fly off the handle during interviews with fartass bulldogs like Chris Wallace. It's simply unpossible. And I'm a little surprised that I, a republican, give Clinton more credit for intelligence, forethought and political savvy than you guys do! You guys are endorsing the idea that somehow Clinton let his feelings run away with themselves under Wallace's questioning and he just couldn't take it anymore, and these subsumed anti-administration feelings and indignation over criticism (hee!) came burbling up uncontrolled to the surface? This is a guy who kept his cool while the entire world pried into his pants during the impeachment hearings, but CHRIS WALLACE at Fox gets under his skin? Over bin Laden??
  • *spends it in one place*
  • i agree with fes's veep's analysis. imo, clinton was trying to achieve two things: - make the "it was the previous administration that caused 9/11" meme explode in the republicans' faces - set up talking points for the democrats in the run up to november elections i think he did a good job on the first point. he has asked loudly and on national television the question people have been giving dubya a pass on for years: "why the fuck isn't osama caught or dead?" the second point is more difficult; the democrats can't criticize the administration for invading iraq as too many of them supported the invasion. so they have to attack the administration's record on other points. the handling of afghanistan, the general security situation, and the continued failure to catch osama are issues where they are on safeish ground. to what level of detail this was planned, i'm not sure. i reckon clinton's team expected wallace to come out with something about "not doing enough"; they decided that the most correct reaction was outrage and turning the accusation back to fox's ideological core. i don't think clinton spent enough time rehearsing; if he had the performance would've been better.
  • You guys are endorsing the idea that somehow Clinton let his feelings run away with themselves Well now, last I heard he *was* a human being. Could be he has since been taken over by alien life form of course. *gives the man due respect*
  • He's also a politician, and a damn good one. If I was Clinton (and I fancy myself a human as well), I wouldn't waste this sort of media opportunity on just shootin' the shit - I would use it to my party's advantage. Especially in a time when my party was in the minority, and needed any advantage it could get, what with elections coming up in about 6 weeks or so.
  • I don't think I disagree Fes - I'm in complete agreement that Clinton is wired to expect these kind of questions and had his answer ready to launch. I disagree that somehow he did anything to provoke or otherwise cause the question to be asked when and how it was asked. Fox/Chris Wallace stepped in it and got their ass handed to them. Plain and simple. I think that focusing on Clinton's "planning a response to potential questions" tells of how bad the right got stung - that they can't even talk about the central point: which is that BushCo was asleep at the wheel and terrorist networks got in a big attack. They want to blame Clinton because they can't face the facts that Bush is incompetent. When Clinton himself says "Fact(a), (b), (c)" they start yapping about anything else - his socks! his socks! Gay marriage! Typical Fox News, shilling for the right wing, pretending to be objective.
  • I agree with you to an extent Fes. Even if your scenario is on-the-money, what's the point? I can only imagine what goes on behind doors to squeeze out party advantages on *both* sides, aside from an interview on national television. And on preview, what pete said.
  • I disagree that somehow he did anything to provoke or otherwise cause the question to be asked when and how it was asked. Well, I'd agree to that, in principle. What I'll bet happened is that, leading up the interview, Clinton's people reviewed Fox's recent storylines and Wallace's interviewing style in detail, and from that advised Clinton that, at some point, Wallace was likely to ask Clinton about getting bin Laden. In service to the overall idea of refuting Fox's assertions and galvanizing democratic inaction, they probably decided that this would be the point to go ahead and let fly with the bomb. They would have had backup plans, but you play percentages in this game. Clinton's savvy enough to improvise well if he had to. Which he may have been doing - I don't know Wallace's inetrviewing style otehr than on the very basic level. Clinton's advisors would know it intimately. Fox/Chris Wallace stepped in it and got their ass handed to them. Plain and simple. I think they less "stepped in it" than "got pwned". Fox had a strategy too - Clinton used it against them. Think Judo. I think that focusing on Clinton's "planning a response to potential questions" tells of how bad the right got stung - that they can't even talk about the central point: Short-term apolitical thinking. You're thinking like a citizen; they're thinking like politicians: long-term success of myself and my party, overall control of the lawmaking process. Power. The rest - war, economy, law, right/wrong, the people - is by and large incidental. Even if your scenario is on-the-money, what's the point? The point is winning seats in the House and Senate in November, with the side point of rebuilding the house of straw that is the Democratic Party.
  • > galvanizing democratic inaction galvanizing democrats into action?
  • Short-term apolitical thinking. Well, I don't see where we disagree - Clinton undoubtedly knows his actions as a (first time?) interviewee of Fox News will help or hurt the Democrats in November. go ahead and let fly with the bomb I think we should make allowances that Clinton maybe was just human-ly fed up with a right-wing network blaming him (and Democrats) for being "soft on terror" when their own feted leader was the one who dropped the ball. Maybe he "let fly with the bomb" as theatre. But I believe he was justifiably outraged that Wallace (and Fox) would invite him on to throw that shit at him. Intelligent people know the score, and spinning it for Bush is just wrong. To get Clinton to help with that spin? Intolerable. Outrageous. Somebody ought to give them an on-air asskicking and he's just the man to do it. And he did it, too.
  • *shrug* It's all opinion and belief anyway. You all could be dead on the money and I could be out in left field with the tinfoil hats. To we small fry in the provinces, it's pretty much academic.
  • Even if the outrage (and c'mon, it was pretty mild outrage compared to most of the political outrage we see on TV these days) was planned, it doesn't take away from the fact that it was appropriate. I didn't see a man whose emotions were running away with him, but a man who was expressing justified indignation at a silly question, even if the question was anticipated. The right-wing press can spin it all they like, and maybe they'll succeed in doing to Clinton what they did to Dean. But I just can't see it as a bad thing. My hope is that it will galvanize Democrats who may have been sitting on the sidelines, too afraid to speak up themselves.
  • Clinton's way too smart to "lose it". This is a guy who's held how many press conferences over how many years? Anyone who could ride through the Lewinsky affair without losing it is made of some pretty tough stuff. I'd say he was ready to drop da bomb, and Wallace gave him a big old bullseye. Hardcore Bush fans may think Clinton lost it. But to the rest, who are tired of the b.s. it was a call-to-arms. Without his performance, we would not have had that Olbermann piece amongst others. So, in the end, i think it was a pretty canny move... November's shaping up to be butt-kicking time.
  • The right-wing press can spin it all they like, and maybe they'll succeed in doing to Clinton what they did to Dean. Here's the difference between the Dean incident and the Clinton incident. The Clinton incident inspired an Olbermann editorial. The Dean incident inspired ?
  • ... ridicule.
  • >>November's shaping up to be butt-kicking time. Shhhh! You'll totally jinx it! I just get nervous when statements like that start flying around. I remember the surety of the few weeks before the 2004 election, etc.
  • The Dean incident inspired mp3 remixes. The difference is that the "Dean Scream" had no content. (okay other than "Yeaahhrrrgh!")
  • Clinton is a Rhodes Scholar. Like a lot of egos, he's got a problem with his pecker, but at least the man's got balls AND brains. As opposed to the pretzel sucker, I mean.
  • The State Department's disclosure Monday that the pair was briefed within a week after then-National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice was told about the threat on July 10, 2001, raised new questions about what the Bush administration did in response, and about why so many officials have claimed they never received or don't remember the warning. Well . . . /Reagan
  • what's that grief cycle? shock -> denial -> anger -> bargaining -> depression -> testing -> acceptance
  • -> exposed by Woodward -> defeated in election.
  • -> appointed by Supreme Court anyway
  • Clinton's becoming so awesome, I'm expecting to soon see Fox News label him (R-FL).
  • Zing!
  • If it starts off with, "Sen. John McCain has skidded his Straight Talk Express off the highway into a gopher's ditch of slime. " you know that's an article on the fast track to Buttkickistan.
  • Oh, come on. Somehow, you know, this has to be Clinton's fault. Just like everything else. Someone told me they heard that Clinton even sent bin Laden a year's supply of In 'N Out burgers back in '99.
  • The right wing talk-radio circuit should qualify as it's on special form of mental illness. I've watched people go a little off listening to it all day every day.
  • Waitwaitwait -- Islam is angry because of liberal Hollywood, so by crushing Hollywood we completely capitulate to the whacked-out demands of the terrorists and surrender the very freedoms we seek to preserve win the War on Terror? Come to think of it, that's pretty standard right-wing logic. Move along, nothing to see here...
  • Dinesh D'Ickwad. I'd like to slap that fucker.
  • But his commentary on the Aliens DVD was awesome.
  • Classic.
  • I went to school with Mr. D'Ickwad, and Laura Ingraham too. They were just annoying, sophomoric wannabes back then. Who knew that there was a world in which they could go so far, and that we were so unlucky as to be living in it?
  • *gurgle*
  • But Alan Wurtzel, head of standards and practices at NBC, said it is network policy not to accept ads on issues of public controversy — like abortion or the war. It's not like it's the people's airwaves they're using. Cable? Yeah bring that up in the TV Turnoff thread. A whole other ball o' wax.
  • Condoleeza "love[s] every single one" of her Fox News guys. She also plans a one-on-one with CBS's Harry Smith even though he's like 55. In the ratings.
  • I heard Clinton was interviewed by a goat on a pole re: the joy of pigs. In my opinion he was bought off telling the whole ghastly truth by the offer of free potassium iodide, some poop from Milwaukee (probably beer), and an anal massage. Am I up to date now?
  • that was one messed up interview. That guy's nuts even. Comfortably Nuts.
  • Enjoy your facts, folks. That's all you get.