Comments on: Interview with President Clinton.

Interview with President Clinton.

rxrfrx — Sun, 24 Sep 2006 11:17:51 -0800

By: pwedza

pwedza — Sun, 24 Sep 2006 11:32:51 -0800

There is a French term for that interviewer: "petit con"

By: brownpau

brownpau — Sun, 24 Sep 2006 11:35:24 -0800

He totally smacks down Chris Wallace on his own territory so thoroughly it's amazing. Kudos, Bubba. I'd like to see if Richard Clarke's book sells better than Chomsky's now.

By: interrobang

interrobang — Sun, 24 Sep 2006 11:39:12 -0800

Current headline on the Drudge Report: "PURPLE FACED RAGE", plus a nicely color-corrected screenshot.

By: Astro Zombie

Astro Zombie — Sun, 24 Sep 2006 11:40:19 -0800

He's angry! Liberals are angry! Why would anyone elect someone who is angry?

By: 2or3whiskeysodas

2or3whiskeysodas — Sun, 24 Sep 2006 11:42:04 -0800

...sigh. Unfortunately, I don't have time to watch the entire clip right now. But what I've seen simply makes me depressingly nostalgic for a time when we had a Commander in Chief who could speak articulately when not following the teleprompter. Seriously.

By: Baby_Balrog

Baby_Balrog — Sun, 24 Sep 2006 11:42:59 -0800

I watched this this morning. I cheered. We miss you Bill.

By: docgonzo

docgonzo — Sun, 24 Sep 2006 11:47:35 -0800

I'm sure Chris' Daddy is real proud of him this morning.

By: Brian B.

Brian B. — Sun, 24 Sep 2006 11:51:31 -0800

They must have believed their own hype about Clinton's incompetence, and now they have confused the children.

By: bshort

bshort — Sun, 24 Sep 2006 11:51:42 -0800

Clinton totally owned him.

By: matteo

matteo — Sun, 24 Sep 2006 11:53:48 -0800

He totally smacks down Chris Wallace on his own territory yeah, a two-term President of the USA smacking down some nobody, a GOP TV hack. next time, he'll beat up some drunken bigot in a redneck bar! rock on! actually, it's shockingly amateurish of him, and I'm sure he's deeply regretting it. they tricked him into thinking that the interview would be about global warming? please... like he never thought FOX was in bad faith until now? in his position, you just never lose your shit like that, certainly not in front of a TV hack. Clinton got the most savage presidential press coverage of the 20th century and he loses his shit for this? he must know his OBL talking points by heart now ("I almost killed him", "the GOP didn't care about him back then and they accused me of wagging the dog", etc). stick to them, and poke fun at the little fucker in a classy way wagging finger at that guy? Clinton took a cheap troll's bait. and the GOP is laughing all the way to the (stuffed) ballot boxes. he's trying to act as elder statesman, and then this? bad, bad show. I'm sure Lucifer/Hillary is furious, and she'd be right to be

By: photoslob

photoslob — Sun, 24 Sep 2006 11:53:59 -0800

I love how Wallace asks a queston that is more politcial statement than something he wants answered and then when Clinton tries to answer the disingenuous little shit keeps interupting him. It would be nice to see Fox News drones take this tone with the president who believes Bin Laden is no concern to him.

By: matteo

matteo — Sun, 24 Sep 2006 11:55:15 -0800

(and mind you, I say this as a HUGE fan of Clinton the politician/media guy -- I'm less of a fan of his work as President, but still he's the most gifted American politician of the 20th Century, together with LBJ, that other flawed Southerner)

By: eriko

eriko — Sun, 24 Sep 2006 11:55:44 -0800

when we had a Commander in Chief who could speak articulately when not following the teleprompter 1) When we had a President, who understood that the job was much more than "Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy". (emphasis mine.) Hint: Bush is not my Commander in Chief. Neither was Clinton. Your commander may vary. 2) Bush doesn't even speak clearly when he's following a teleprompter. The only time you'll hear him speak clearly is when he's advocating violence or anger. Period. Go through the tapes. When he's acting pissed, he's as clear as any literate soul. When he's not, he talks as if he's drugged.

By: tippiedog

tippiedog — Sun, 24 Sep 2006 12:00:32 -0800

I will not be at all surprised if we see more of this behavior leading up to the mid-term elections. I've said for some time that Clinton is perfectly positioned to become the Democrats' attack dog. He has nothing to lose, and a lot of left-leaning folks still like him at lot (see above in this thread). He holds the potential to really fire up the base and even, possible, some people who might have otherwise sat this one out. Plus, he can be a good attack dog. He's certainly got the skills and knowledge.

By: tippiedog

tippiedog — Sun, 24 Sep 2006 12:01:33 -0800

eriko: I have no idea what you're trying to convey.

By: sonofsamiam

sonofsamiam — Sun, 24 Sep 2006 12:05:17 -0800

tippiedog: Many Republican suckers will counter slander against Dear Leader with something along the lines of "Well, he's the Commander in Chief", which means nothing to civilians.

By: brundlefly

brundlefly — Sun, 24 Sep 2006 12:12:18 -0800

Wow. A Prez who admits to mistakes?

By: Skygazer

Skygazer — Sun, 24 Sep 2006 12:13:34 -0800

Matteo: actually, it's shockingly amateurish of him. No. No it's not. He was forceful, but never anything less than articulate and polite. More of this is necessary. I judge the effectiveness of what he said, not only by how well he made his case (and made Wallace look like the slimy little GOP hack that he is), but also by the reaction from Drudge and LGF et al. They're in a tizzy. This one stung (and fuck'em). Look at Drudge's hyperbolic headline: "Purple faced rage". WTF? That's just nonsense. This is no Dean and no Kerry we're talking about here. Democrats must learn to stop letting the GOP fuck with them and frame the "terror" debate. They have to show the proper amount of indignation and clarity and resolve and fight back effectively when the Roves and swift boaters and propaganda outlets/Fox News come with their misinformation and spin and destructive lies. It was a deeply satisfying interview. Too long in coming. Chris Wallace must've had one of those moments where it's like "Oh fuck. I didn;t expect this." He kicked a sleeping dog (or at least benevolent dog) and he deserved everything he got. More of this please. Goddammit.

By: jeffburdges

jeffburdges — Sun, 24 Sep 2006 12:13:55 -0800

mmmm... brains.

By: docgonzo

docgonzo — Sun, 24 Sep 2006 12:14:45 -0800

in his position, you just never lose your shit like that, certainly not in front of a TV hack. Clinton got the most savage presidential press coverage of the 20th century and he loses his shit for this? Exactly. Which leads me to believe that this attack was v. calculated on Bubba's part, in service to a political strategy not yet apparent.

By: gfrobe

gfrobe — Sun, 24 Sep 2006 12:19:07 -0800

That was great. It's just amazing (and thoroughly depressing) to see the style and substance of Clinton compared the Gomer Pyle of a president we have now. And that's an insult to Gomer Pyle

By: four panels

four panels — Sun, 24 Sep 2006 12:20:21 -0800

Clinton owned that interview. No wonder Drudge has to spin it. I guess the Fox guy thought he had a gotcha, and rudely kept interrupting when Clinton began to sink the facts in like claws.

By: washburn

washburn — Sun, 24 Sep 2006 12:21:18 -0800

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.

By: jimmythefish

jimmythefish — Sun, 24 Sep 2006 12:22:37 -0800

OMG WALLACE PWNED!

By: furtive

furtive — Sun, 24 Sep 2006 12:23:35 -0800

I miss competent and astute Americans like Clinton. 300 million potential candidates for president and you had to pick ol' shit for brains as a replacement. The mind boggles.

By: delmoi

delmoi — Sun, 24 Sep 2006 12:25:33 -0800

Chris Wallace was reduced to a blubbering idiot. It was awesome to see Clinton lay the smack down, and attack the bullshit premise of the question. Wallace had no defense, and wasn't able to articulate anything in reasonable at all. It's interesting though, by ambushing Clinton and actually pissing him off he actually did Clinton a lot of good by giving him the chance to vigorously defend himself in somewhat less then polite terms. Clinton was obviously trying to be diplomatic, which was nice. This is the first time that I've seen him actually complain about way bush-handled terrorism before 9/11.

By: jimmythefish

jimmythefish — Sun, 24 Sep 2006 12:27:21 -0800

PS I fucking love Bill Clinton.

By: sonofsamiam

sonofsamiam — Sun, 24 Sep 2006 12:28:14 -0800

300 million potential candidates for president and you had to pick ol' shit for brains as a replacement. Well, last election both major candidates (who agreed together to not debate any third party candidate) were both from the same frat, which has only about 400 members worldwide. Wallace had no defense, and wasn't able to articulate anything in reasonable at all. The neocon position is entirely unprincipled, it's just a web of talking points strictly adhered to. The only danger in debating it is forgetting this fact and mistaking their frames for the actual situation.

By: squidfartz

squidfartz — Sun, 24 Sep 2006 12:35:29 -0800

Niiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiice. You GO Bill.

By: sveskemus

sveskemus — Sun, 24 Sep 2006 12:35:54 -0800

Wow, Clinton really did pwn that guy. Look at Clinton's body language during that interview. He's good.

By: Alvy Ampersand

Alvy Ampersand — Sun, 24 Sep 2006 12:37:00 -0800

Damn, that was like a cat playing with a lobotomized mouse. Nice. Someone get that man a blowjob.

By: mkultra

mkultra — Sun, 24 Sep 2006 12:38:29 -0800

Fucking awesome interview. If my successor were trying to drop his miserable failures at my feet (and make no mistake, matteo, THAT is what he's reacting to), then "purple faced rage" would be a kind, kind euphemism for my reaction. That aside, what a fucking lazy post this is.

By: anthill

anthill — Sun, 24 Sep 2006 12:50:16 -0800

Yep, sveskemus... he looks amused, smiling and lounging back in his chair, interspersed with emphatic finger-jabs in Wallace's chops... No loss of temper, just good old phashioned pwnage.

By: riotgrrl69

riotgrrl69 — Sun, 24 Sep 2006 12:50:29 -0800

If telling the truth now qualifies as "losing his shit", I'm all for him losing his shit. He was utterly convincing.

By: parmanparman

parmanparman — Sun, 24 Sep 2006 12:54:43 -0800

Do you think Mike Wallace can get his kid canned as quickly as he got him the job? It's sad to me, as a journalist, that people like Chris Wallace can make it in news without ever really even trying to sound intelligent. Ask your own questions, Chris! You're giving broadcast news a bad name. I wonder if Clinton is still talking about his climate initiative, because I have pages of questions for him about that.

By: oneirodynia

oneirodynia — Sun, 24 Sep 2006 12:55:15 -0800

in his position, you just never lose your shit like that Since when does articuate anger = "los(ing) your shit"? From where I sat, Clinton was entirely in control of the situation. He never missed a beat. It's puzzling to me to think that Clinton's passionate response was somehow less appropriate than the current administration's pose of smug dissembly. As far as his position goes, he's a private citizen, who remains a far more genuine, diplomatic, and engaged statesman than the ape in the oval office.

By: matteo

matteo — Sun, 24 Sep 2006 12:56:31 -0800

THAT is what he's reacting to man, they accused his wife of killing a guy, and they accused him of raping a woman. one might expect some sort of sang froid from the old statesman at this point of his career

By: pyramid termite

pyramid termite — Sun, 24 Sep 2006 12:57:53 -0800

in his position, you just never lose your shit like that, matteo, compared to what? ... a president who can't string together two good english sentences without screwing them up? sure, he was angry ... but he didn't spazz out, he articulated his facts and views in a coherent manner, something bush can't seem to do on his best day without resorting to cliches or written speeches Clinton took a cheap troll's bait. and the GOP is laughing all the way to the (stuffed) ballot boxes. clinton isn't running for office, so it's irrelevant ... and yet the republicans continue to run against him as if he is it's getting too old for them and they'd be better off talking about the people who are actually running against them i thought it was a pretty good smack-down ... and i'm no fan of clinton, who i think earned his name of slick willie ... for example, this whole thing about he couldn't use uzbekistan because the fbi and the cia wouldn't certify ... that smacks of bureaucratic thinking there ... "i don't have certification, so i can't demand use of air bases" ... hey, you were president of the u s, bill, you can damn well demand what you like ... look at your successor ... perhaps there's more to it than that, but he didn't do a good job of explaining that part

By: BuddhaInABucket

BuddhaInABucket — Sun, 24 Sep 2006 13:04:57 -0800

praymid termite: I think a key point that wasn't explicitly stated is that he didn't demand things to fight terrorism, he actually followed the laws in place at the time, something that I'd love to see our current president do.

By: Blazecock Pileon

Blazecock Pileon — Sun, 24 Sep 2006 13:08:10 -0800

Which leads me to believe that this attack was v. calculated on Bubba's part, in service to a political strategy not yet apparent. I agree: This interview is a solid and necessary opening salvo in making the 2006 and 08 elections a referendum on Iraq and terrorism. Bush and the GOP Senators and Representatives fucked up repeatedly, plain as day, but the voters need to made angry about that fact. A masterful stroke by Clinton.

By: dbiedny

dbiedny — Sun, 24 Sep 2006 13:12:22 -0800

I just finished watching this, and man, while I was not exactly wild about Clinton during his presidency, it really is refreshing to see actual intelligence and conviction in a president, instead of the mindless drivel that emerges from the piehole of our current moron-in-chief. If a few blowjobs are what it takes to get the brain juices flowing, someone ought to tell Condi to get on her knees and give 'ole Boozie BushBoy a lick or two.

By: delmoi

delmoi — Sun, 24 Sep 2006 13:14:09 -0800

matteo thinks a Washington insider. He reads Too much of people like David Broder and takes their vapid inanities as the reality of American politics.

By: five fresh fish

five fresh fish — Sun, 24 Sep 2006 13:14:31 -0800

I watched The Daily Show interview with Bill. And I wished he were still President.

By: five fresh fish

five fresh fish — Sun, 24 Sep 2006 13:15:53 -0800

(OTOH, it's quite possible Clinton is going to do one helluva lot more as a highly influential citizen than as President.)

By: matteo

matteo — Sun, 24 Sep 2006 13:16:15 -0800

and yet the republicans continue to run against him as if he is $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ and here you prove my point. they do. he has the responsibility to keep acting like he did these last 6 years, ie responsibly. lacking an opposition party (they're too terrified), he's almost all non-Republican America has (well, he, some college professors, Richard Clarke and y2karl). the team's pretty small, Clinton's the leader at this point (Dean is invisible, Kerry is just, frankly, lame, Hillary is silent waiting to announce her run, Gore is busy preaching the imminent eco-apocalypse, a definite vote-getter) From where I sat, Clinton was entirely in control of the situation. maybe. the fact is, he took the bait. he cheapened himself taking that bait, it was more eloquent (but no more dignified) than Bush hissing "who cares what you think" at the guy who had told him he was disappointed). remember the guy who yelled "fuck you" to Cheney in front of the cameras? even an incompetent (media-wise) politician like Cheney knew better than yelling back (you just ignore the trolls) re: the FOX thing. the rightwing noise machine seems overjoyed. see, the real damaging stuff, they try to smother in silence. this thing? they're beating the drums -- "Clinton unhinged", like that Al Gore "brownshirts" speech, they love it. it's Drudge's first item since, like, 24 hours ago -- they're loving it. the dangerous stuff, they ignore it or simply downplay it. it's a rightwing meme already -- "Clinton unhinged", "Clinton helped Osama". as I said, I doubt Clinton is very proud of that performance. his talent is not the brawl. what he's great at is, the elegant hit, like the Coretta King Funeral speech, and I paraphrase, "here's why we Democrats are the only friends of the black people". or, his post-Katrina interviews ("when I was in charge, FEMA was run by people with working class origins who understood that the poor are the first victims of natural disasters", again I paraphrase). re: righteous anger. we all remember how yelling helped Howard Dean. I'm not sure the undecided voters like it that much, really. and, strangely, Clinton is still running, in some way -- his wife is. and he's still the best, most clearheaded mind in the party. this time he wasn't.

By: fire&wings

fire&wings — Sun, 24 Sep 2006 13:22:46 -0800

I actually think he didn't go far enough.

By: Busithoth

Busithoth — Sun, 24 Sep 2006 13:24:26 -0800

matteo, I think you should spend a moment to crawl into his position. It's kind of obvious that Wallace just wanted to reiterate the talking point since Clinton was on screen, then got flummoxed as Clinton didn't sit and take it. But I don't think Clinton came close to losing it, he was just defending himself against the badgering. And he did it forcefully enough to get Wallace to shut up, since the standard move on their part is to fluster their victim more, so no comprehensive defense is ever made. and how exactly would you respond to someone pissing on your life's accomplishment on national television?

By: matteo

matteo — Sun, 24 Sep 2006 13:27:37 -0800

and how exactly would you respond to someone pissing on your life's accomplishment on national television? and how exactly would you respond to someone pissing on your life's accomplishment in a bar? by decking him?

By: Blazecock Pileon

Blazecock Pileon — Sun, 24 Sep 2006 13:27:38 -0800

re: righteous anger. we all remember how yelling helped Howard Dean. Are you saying that Dean's unhinged yell and Clinton's controlled — if narrowly directed — anger are in some way similar? I really don't see the comparison, though I suppose in some right-winger's addled mind that might be possible, if only because the hate is so deeply ingrained. I think people who watch the interview will take away a markedly different impression of Clinton's performance from those who will only get to read "choice" excerpts on Drudge or FOXNews.com.

By: j-urb

j-urb — Sun, 24 Sep 2006 13:28:36 -0800

I approve of Clinton's conduct during the interview. If youre going to fight dogs, be prepared to use your teeth. The other choice: 'Paul Krugman' types who get eaten alive.

By: delmoi

delmoi — Sun, 24 Sep 2006 13:31:07 -0800

maybe. the fact is, he took the bait. he cheapened himself taking that bait, it was more eloquent (but no more dignified) than Bush hissing "who cares what you think" at the guy who had told him he was disappointed). The problem with the democrats is too much "dignity". Politics isn't a dignified profession, it never has and it never will be. If you want to be dignified go be a priest or a monk or something. People don't follow dignified people who never get angry. They might vote for them if they're bored and not paying attention, but people follow people who fire up their emotions. Being out of control means doing something that you don't want to do. Look at Clinton's face. He's smiling. He knows exactly what he's doing, and he's totally in control the entire time. Did he take the bait? Yes, but if this was an ambush it backfired entirely. Wallace ended up being made the fool of, not Clinton.

By: pyramid termite

pyramid termite — Sun, 24 Sep 2006 13:31:23 -0800

maybe. the fact is, he took the bait. he cheapened himself taking that bait if this was just one heckling jerk in a crowd of people, you'd be right ... but this has been a long campaign of lies and distortions by the republican media machinery and like it or not it HAS to be answered by someone and forcibly ... being polite and civil hasn't worked and what better person to do it than the one who is not only the main target of the accusation, but who is not actually running for anything? we all remember how yelling helped Howard Dean. i remember how mixing down the audience noise made howard dean look ridiculous and angry, when he was more exuberant and trying hard to be heard over a rowdy audience (it's not as if he was saying anything of substance then anyway ... clinton did, in this tape)

By: Gungho

Gungho — Sun, 24 Sep 2006 13:33:06 -0800

Keep drinking the Koolaid. Clinton was pwoned. He should have never agreed to the interview. Wallace should be accused of bear-baiting. Clinton's excuse for not killing OBM...'Well the next guy had 8 months'. Puleeze. And I suppose Buddy ate his homework too.

By: delmoi

delmoi — Sun, 24 Sep 2006 13:33:13 -0800

and how exactly would you respond to someone pissing on your life's accomplishment in a bar? by decking him? When Buzz Aldran punched that moon landing conspiracy theorist everyone cheered. And with good reason. You just have this warped view of what people want in their leaders: people who are always above the fray and never get offended. In reality, people like that just come across as cowards (see John Kerry not hitting back at the swift boaters, a decision you were probably cheering on)

By: stenseng

stenseng — Sun, 24 Sep 2006 13:33:24 -0800

Matteo, your analysis is so ass backwards, it's as if you'd watched Bizarro Clinton in another dimension. This interview was handled Masterfully. He played the game of masculine dominance perfectly, while remaining on point, and in control of the dialogue. Notice the little physical cues, like reaching into Wallace's space, tapping his knee to make a point, etc. It's a masterful display of righteous indignation and alpha male dominance, which plays really well to the Fox News demographic. At NO point is Clinton out of control. And he's masterfully playing the game of Masculine politics, which has been for the last six years, solely GOP territory.

By: Brian James

Brian James — Sun, 24 Sep 2006 13:35:54 -0800

I'm not a huge fan of Clinton, but he seriously kicks some ass in this interview. Nice to see a president that can form a sentence, not to mention a cogent train of thought.

By: delmoi

delmoi — Sun, 24 Sep 2006 13:37:17 -0800

re: righteous anger. we all remember how yelling helped Howard Dean. Dean wasn't yelling in anger. He wasn't upset he was exhilarated, the way you might yell while riding a roller coaster. Of course it sounded and looked really funny, which is what killed him. None of his "angry" stuff ever cost him any votes, quite the opposite.

By: matteo

matteo — Sun, 24 Sep 2006 13:40:54 -0800

are in some way similar? I quote,

And you ask me about terror and Al Qaeda with that sort of dismissive theme when all you have to do is read Richard Clarke’s book to look at what we did in a comprehensive systematic way to try to protect the country against terror. And you’ve got that little smirk on your face. It looks like you’re so clever…

"little smirk"? "you're so clever"? here we have a former President of the USA and a no-name TV hack. do you really think they're on the same level? I think that stuff is beneath him, you guys don't, fine. At NO point is Clinton out of control opinion. he certainly looks angry. And he's masterfully playing the game of Masculine politics, which has been for the last six years, solely GOP territory. Gore kicked ass with those anti-GOP speeches, huh? really helped the Democrats

By: you just lost the game

you just lost the game — Sun, 24 Sep 2006 13:44:53 -0800

Gore kicked ass with those anti-GOP speeches, huh? really helped the Democrats It probably would have, if the election hadn't been stolen.

By: delmoi

delmoi — Sun, 24 Sep 2006 13:49:01 -0800

Gore kicked ass with those anti-GOP speeches, huh? Really helped the Democrats Gore ain't Clinton. Look matteo, you obviously have your own model of human behavior, which is clearly different then all of ours. You can pick and chose anecdotes from recent politics to back yourself up all you want, but that will never prove anything. You can spout all the DLC hyperbole you want about how voters think and feel but it's ultimately based on nothing other then an opinion. Day in, day out, people like Ann Counter, Rush Limbaugh, James Dobson, Tom Delay, Newt Gingrich and all the way up the republican food chain spout the angriest nonsense you could imagine. it hasn't hurt them a bit. If you're view of American politics is right, why haven't the republicans suffered for being so angry? Honestly, tell me, I want to know why you think anger and passion can hurt democrats, but don't seem to affect republicans. The truth is the opposite; democrats have been cool and inoffensive while country shifts evermore towards demagogues on the right. People like you demand that the democrats fight with one hand behind their backs while the republicans lash out with vitriolic attacks. It's an absurd view and entirely untenable.

By: delmoi

delmoi — Sun, 24 Sep 2006 13:50:04 -0800

opinion. he certainly looks angry. No one is saying he's not angry they're saying he's not out of control. There is a huge difference.

By: five fresh fish

five fresh fish — Sun, 24 Sep 2006 14:01:47 -0800

God, he powned Chris Wallace, and he did it with grace and style. He was lucid, calm, factual, and mostly stayed focused on his message. There was simply no spin, no bullshit, no acting: it was just straight-out truth. Pretty remarkable. It stands in very sharp contrast to the slick manipulation that has been going on for so very long and with such horrible consequences. I think this video needs to be spread. Everyone should be seeing it.

By: five fresh fish

five fresh fish — Sun, 24 Sep 2006 14:02:44 -0800

Also, I think the American people need to do precisely two things this fall: (a) vote for the leading non-incumbent candidate regardless your political views. (b) encourage everyone to do the same regardless their political views. Why? Because it is absolutely essential to flush the system. The corruption and incompentency are so deeply engrained that this is essentially your last chance to fix it. You'll need to follow up this "shock to the system" with two things: (a) get involved with a party and help choose quality people for the important positions; (b) encourage everyone to do the same, regardless their political beliefs. Your democracy only works when the people are engaged in it.

By: zennie

zennie — Sun, 24 Sep 2006 14:07:51 -0800

matteo is right about how Clinton's opposition will talk about this. They view Clinton as a pathological liar who isn't used to being stringently questioned by the Liberal Media, and will hold to this view regardless of how the current administration compares. Clinton is very well-spoken; they will say he came with a scripted agenda. However, I doubt that the average citizen would look at this video and see anything less than a former President putting a "TV Hack" in his place.

By: delmoi

delmoi — Sun, 24 Sep 2006 14:07:54 -0800

fff: that's rediculous. What's the point of "flushing the system" of some of the good democrats who are fighting bush in order to replace them with cronies? You seriously would vote against John Murtha? or someone like Russ Fiengold? Idiotic.

By: Nquire

Nquire — Sun, 24 Sep 2006 14:15:56 -0800

To be fair, the lefties commented on Bush's anger, and bullying, finger in the chest response, when Matt Lauer asked him pointed questions on torture. So, while Clinton did remain relatively calm, he couldn't hide the rage in his eyes. Why? Because there really does seem to be a concerted effort to rewrite history, especially with ABC's path to 9/11. Fox News claimed that Clinton had 8 separate opportunities to kill OBL. What Clinton hinted at this morning, and could have explained more clearly, is that the "CIA did not certify". At the time, it was the policy of the CIA to "double-source" their intelligence. They were never able to able to get a second source verifying OBL's location. The CIA *never* came to Clinton with actionable intelligence with which to take out Osama.

By: Chuckles

Chuckles — Sun, 24 Sep 2006 14:17:28 -0800

There was a point in the interview when Clinton really did become unhinged, but it was pretty brief, and he recovered pretty well (well, first impressions and all that..). I'd really like to see how it ended, this clip is cut off. I think his mistakes were the off topic points about media bias and neo-cons. No problem making a point about the current administration, no problem if he had said the Republicans wanted him out of Somalia the next day, and no problem raising the fact that the lead question was designed to take him off topic.. Talking neo-con and Fox News bias is not going to work on a general audience, and especially not on a Fox News audience. But, even more importantly, angrily raising those arguments is going to open him up for dismissive propaganda, like "leftwing lunatic".

By: blucevalo

blucevalo — Sun, 24 Sep 2006 14:20:37 -0800

in his position, you just never lose your shit like that George W. Bush loses his shit in front of journalists all the time, and you don't ever see anyone saying that about him.

By: blucevalo

blucevalo — Sun, 24 Sep 2006 14:22:45 -0800

I would agree, though, with matteo and Chuckles that Clinton using the loaded term "right-wingers" in the interview isn't exactly going to win him brownie points for being ex-Presidential/statesmanlike.

By: DOUBLE A SIDE

DOUBLE A SIDE — Sun, 24 Sep 2006 14:26:47 -0800

When Bush makes it possible for the President to serve a third term could Bill Clinton run again?

By: pyramid termite

pyramid termite — Sun, 24 Sep 2006 14:40:46 -0800

Gore kicked ass with those anti-GOP speeches, huh? really helped the Democrats you don't get it ... gore generally came off as a professorial, middle management type of person ... as did john kerry guess what? ... a good part of our electorate doesn't identify with that ... they identify with a guy like bush who'll drawl things like "we're going to hunt the folks down that did it" ... they identify with a clinton who talks in a folky, kind of informal way ... they didn't identify with the first bush, until he blew off at dan rather on national tv ... THAT won him votes i don't really need to explain why the way reagan handled himself made him so popular, do it? carter wasn't that good at it ... ford? ... phooey ... nixon, blah ... but now i believe we're getting into times when the media coverage and the expectations of the american people were quite a bit different passion doesn't lose elections, it wins them ... it makes the politicians look like people who care and can take charge, instead of the middle management drone one works for, giving a powerpoint presentation ... the american people like to see some fight in the people who ask for their votes ... they want a person who can stand up to the heat and give it back, not drone on in cool, rational tones about policy those who are ridiculing clinton about "purple faced rage" would have found another reason to ridicule him ... he may as well be hung for a wolf as a dog ... at least people expect a wolf to bite back

By: pyramid termite

pyramid termite — Sun, 24 Sep 2006 14:41:58 -0800

"do i" not "do it" ... man ...

By: Chuckles

Chuckles — Sun, 24 Sep 2006 14:47:11 -0800

I can't help thinking about the Amy Goodman interview from a few years ago: Bill Clinton looses his cool on Democracy Now!

By: Chuckles

Chuckles — Sun, 24 Sep 2006 14:50:36 -0800

PRESIDENT CLINTON: I am, can you hear me? AMY GOODMAN: Yes, we can. You are calling radio stations to tell people to get out and vote. What do you say to people who feel that the two parties are bought by corporations, and that they are ... at this point feel that their vote doesn't make a difference? Awesome!

By: ericb

ericb — Sun, 24 Sep 2006 14:53:35 -0800

"[Howard] Dean declares that 'President Clinton did exactly what Democrats need to do in this election. Democrats need to stand up to the right-wing propaganda machine and tell the truth.' 'ashington Republicans' attempts to twist history and recast the truth do not help us win the war on terror or bring us closer to capturing Osama bin Laden, the mastermind of the September 11th attacks,' an continued. 'President Clinton stood up to the misleading tactics of the right-wing propaganda machine,' said Dean. 'As the National Intelligence Estimate that was reported on today showed, the Iraq War and the Bush Administration's failed policies have hurt our ability to win the war on terror,' the Dean statement continued. 'As President Clinton said, Democrats stand for policies that are both tough and smart and we remain committed to winning the war on terror.'"

By: Bookhouse

Bookhouse — Sun, 24 Sep 2006 14:54:05 -0800

Phrase no journalist will ever say to Bush: "There's a new book out, I assume you've already read it ..." Clinton didn't fall into a trap there. That's the Muhammad Ali of politics you just saw, and if he's positioning himself to be the attack dog so Hillary can keep her hands clean, then it's a smart move. You won't lose much money betting on Clinton.

By: verisimilitude

verisimilitude — Sun, 24 Sep 2006 14:55:04 -0800

Its the content of the interview that matters. It doesnt matter whose face goes the most purple.

By: srboisvert

srboisvert — Sun, 24 Sep 2006 15:09:17 -0800

Clinton is still the most powerful man in the United States. Look at the things that go wrong that he is still responsible for.

By: DenOfSizer

DenOfSizer — Sun, 24 Sep 2006 15:10:39 -0800

Yeah, Bill Clinton - he's my favorite Senatorial Spouse this month. NYer, John Stewart, Wallace...at this point I wouldn't be surprised to see him on the cover of Cosmo. He can't just be gearing up for the Initiave, right? This is all part of some vast Centrist conspiracy, right?

By: edverb

edverb — Sun, 24 Sep 2006 15:11:47 -0800

Clinton's response GUARANTEES that Fox will play this interview ad nauseum. And their koolaid drinking viewers will hear the message -- maybe some of them will actually buy Richard Clarke's book. That is a good thing. I remember Bill Clinton getting angry in public only once before. It was during the 1992 debates, when George H.W. Bush questioned his patriotism. We all know how that turned out.

By: Mikey-San

Mikey-San — Sun, 24 Sep 2006 15:11:53 -0800

By: DenOfSizer

DenOfSizer — Sun, 24 Sep 2006 15:16:19 -0800

PS What was with the socks?

By: bardic

bardic — Sun, 24 Sep 2006 15:20:33 -0800

Remember what it was like to have a real President? It literally feels like it was a lifetime ago instead of six years.

By: bardic

bardic — Sun, 24 Sep 2006 15:26:48 -0800

And as for "losing control," I'm kind of on the fence. I see what matteo is saying, that Clinton could have reigned it in a bit, but I'm inclined to think he was actually pitch-perfect. He mentioned Murdoch's name early on, and he hit on all the points he needed to regarding the recent effort to blame him for 9/11 (most importantly the "Path to 9/11" propaganda). There are moments about 2/3 of the way through where he doesn't look very presidential -- no doubt Malkin and Coulter will be streaming those for awhile -- but overall it was a fine performance. I'd like to think that even a Republican would watch this and think to themselves, my god, we used to have a guy in office who could speak and think on his feet, and as someone noted, was willing to take responsibility for failure. And while I'm not a fan of Hillary, I'm sure someone in her camp must be thinking that the way to get her elected is to just put Bill out there, 24/7 (the opposite of what Gore did in 2000), and remind people that, hey, you might not have liked the guy personally (I think he's an utter sleazebag myself, but he was a pretty good POTUS), but damn if you weren't making more money, gasoline was cheaper, and you didn't have family and friends serving or dying or being horribly injured in Iraq. Great performance, with some rough patches IMO.

By: Dasein

Dasein — Sun, 24 Sep 2006 15:41:13 -0800

That was awesome. I wish I had appreciated how good we had it when Clinton was around, because I'm afraid it will be a while before we have someone else like him in power. It's really worth comparing Clinton when he gets annoyed at a journalist and Bush when he does - Clinton articulately takes the other guy apart, Bush sputters and fulminates. Bush does it when a reporter asks a tough question; Clinton does it, quite justifiably, when he gets the same old right-wing shit thrown at him by the Clinton-haters and Bush cheerleaders.

By: five fresh fish

five fresh fish — Sun, 24 Sep 2006 15:45:45 -0800

What do you say to people who feel that the two parties are bought by corporations, and that they are ... at this point feel that their vote doesn't make a difference? You say "Vote for someone who isn't bought, then." The important thing is to vote. If you can't vote for a party, vote for a person. At least then there's a measure for opinion. If a greenie, f'rinstance, ever captured a substantial vote, it'd sure as hell be a wakeup call to leading contenders that they'd best pay attention to green issues at least somewhat. If you don't vote, you don't have any voice at all. That's much worse than having a quiet voice.

By: gsteff

gsteff — Sun, 24 Sep 2006 15:59:05 -0800

I can't help thinking about the Amy Goodman interview from a few years ago: Bill Clinton looses his cool on Democracy Now! Holy crap, I'd never seen that before. That might be the best political interview I've ever read.

By: evilcolonel

evilcolonel — Sun, 24 Sep 2006 16:03:47 -0800

I chuckled when I heard Wallace say "with respect". That's the phrase his dad always used to use when he seemed to be terrifed by the question he was about to ask the Ayatollah, or whoever.

By: o0o0o

o0o0o — Sun, 24 Sep 2006 16:08:07 -0800

I fail to see the "anger" here. I think that was handled quite well. Just think what would happen if Bush was given a hard hitting question.

By: weapons-grade pandemonium

weapons-grade pandemonium — Sun, 24 Sep 2006 16:08:42 -0800

That interview was a head fake and slam dunk. Clinton knew exactly what he wanted to discuss, for how long, and with what emotion--all the while pretending he was set up. Nobody since Kennedy can think on his feet like Bubba.

By: ericb

ericb — Sun, 24 Sep 2006 16:11:38 -0800

"Vote for someone who isn't bought, then."

By: ericb

ericb — Sun, 24 Sep 2006 16:13:13 -0800

Which leads me to believe that this attack was v. calculated on Bubba's part, in service to a political strategy not yet apparent. That interview was a head fake and slam dunk. Clinton knew exactly what he wanted to discuss, for how long, and with what emotion--all the while pretending he was set up. I agree. Methinks this wasn't mere happenstance.

By: HTuttle

HTuttle — Sun, 24 Sep 2006 16:21:17 -0800

Fox is just turning the same tactics used for decades onto the other political slant. STFU with all your whinning.

By: sonofsamiam

sonofsamiam — Sun, 24 Sep 2006 16:25:51 -0800

Go wank it to some gitmmo piccttures.

By: bardic

bardic — Sun, 24 Sep 2006 16:33:04 -0800

HTuttle, why do you hate spelling?

By: pyramid termite

pyramid termite — Sun, 24 Sep 2006 16:35:38 -0800

its a terorist plut

By: four panels

four panels — Sun, 24 Sep 2006 16:41:58 -0800

Bush on Wolf Blitzer: "Excuse me, I was making a brilliant point."

By: moonbird

moonbird — Sun, 24 Sep 2006 16:47:52 -0800

Bubba: I'd hit it.

By: Brian B.

Brian B. — Sun, 24 Sep 2006 16:52:16 -0800

Richard Clarke's book sales: Sept. 19th Amazon.com Sales Rank: #4,449 in Books (from Google cache) Sept. 24th Amazon.com Sales Rank: #38 in Books

By: ClaudiaCenter

ClaudiaCenter — Sun, 24 Sep 2006 17:02:22 -0800

Bill Clinton, Secretary-General of the United Nations -- sounds good to me.

By: bardic

bardic — Sun, 24 Sep 2006 17:03:40 -0800

Tristero via Digby gets it: More importantly, it must be carefully studied by the leadership of the Democratic Party. This is exactly how to respond to the right wing's attempt to load the questions and manipulate the debate to their advantage. Notice how Clinton responds immediately to the rhetorical framing* of the question by challenging its honesty. Notice how he reinforces that assertion of opinion - the question is loaded, biased and cheap - by literally overwhelming Wallace with clear, detailed, assertions of fact. Wallace expected evasion and bluster. But he clearly had no idea who he was dealing with. And to respond to, ahem, the ever perspicacious HTuttle once again, I think the point here isn't what Fox News tried to do to Clinton, it's that Clinton did something liberals are usually afraid to do -- challenge the framing of the question, even if he has to be "rude" to do it. Yeah, so I watched it again. Clinton was impressive. The wingnuts who hate him will see what they want, always. People who voted for Bush in 2004 and are now realizing the error of their ways will see a guy who's thoughtful, articulate, and passionate, and they'll remember that the best economy and foreign policy record in their lifetimes came under a Democratic POTUS.

By: lodurr

lodurr — Sun, 24 Sep 2006 17:08:01 -0800

Come on, guys. This whole thing stinks of setup. To me, it looks like the Republican power brokers are setting up Clinton to do their dirty work for them. They can't attack Bush, so they recruit democrats to do it for them. If you're somebody as smart as Bill Clinton, you've figured that out going in and you've decided the prize (harming Bush) is worth the cost (doing a favor for the monied elite in the Republican party).

By: delmoi

delmoi — Sun, 24 Sep 2006 17:27:43 -0800

To me, it looks like the Republican power brokers are setting up Clinton to do their dirty work for them. They can't attack Bush, so they recruit democrats to do it for them. That's idiotic. First of all bush is doing a fine job on his own of self destructing. Secondly bush and his cronies are the republican power brokers.

By: bardic

bardic — Sun, 24 Sep 2006 17:35:11 -0800

I thought Clinton handled the Bush question well, i.e., he didn't take the bait. Attacking Bush was what the Fox News programmers obviously wanted to see, but Clinton stuffed it back in their face and aimed his criticisms at the press itself, IMO.

By: fluffycreature

fluffycreature — Sun, 24 Sep 2006 17:44:05 -0800

Well, aside from the drama, is Clinton right? I have not read Clarke's book and have been inclined to believe Bush did squat considering the 9/11 report findings. But, can Fox 'News' call him out or was Clinton correct.

By: Skygazer

Skygazer — Sun, 24 Sep 2006 17:46:42 -0800

Bill Clinton, Secretary-General of the United Nations -- sounds good to me. posted by ClaudiaCenter at 8:02 PM EST on September 24 [+] [!] Screw that. More like Secretary of State. At this point I don't know who else could save this country's standing in the world.

By: pyramid termite

pyramid termite — Sun, 24 Sep 2006 17:47:53 -0800

now here's something interesting, even if it is about those freepers we love to hate ... freepers rewrite history Wag the dog! Wag the dog! they said in 1998 when clinton bombed sudan and afghanistan ... (from web.archive.org) good luck finding it on their website now this is the kind of thing we're up against ... orwell wouldn't have been surprised

By: NationalKato

NationalKato — Sun, 24 Sep 2006 17:53:34 -0800

I'm sorry: 'losing control?' I know I'm late to this thread, but until we get more emotional representatives on national television talking clearly and concisely about the failure of this country in the past to get bin Laden or al Qaeda or the bogeyman or whatever we're in some trouble. We need to face the reality of the situation, do it clearly and logically, and start making policy changes so that people won't want to kill us.

By: palancik

palancik — Sun, 24 Sep 2006 18:04:34 -0800

Re "was Clinton correct": See Washington Post from June 20, 2006 (review of The One Percent Doctrine by Ron Suskind): The book's opening anecdote tells of an unnamed CIA briefer who flew to Bush's Texas ranch during the scary summer of 2001, amid a flurry of reports of a pending al-Qaeda attack, to call the president's attention personally to the now-famous Aug. 6, 2001, memo titled "Bin Ladin Determined to Strike in US." Bush reportedly heard the briefer out and replied: "All right. You've covered your ass, now." That pretty much sums up the question of whether Bush did anything. Now watch this drive.

By: interrobang

interrobang — Sun, 24 Sep 2006 18:09:49 -0800

By: zennie

zennie — Sun, 24 Sep 2006 18:10:49 -0800

Screw that. More like Secretary of State. Interesting thought. Can a former President who has served two terms fill a position that is fourth in line for the Presidency? (Do only full terms count?)

By: four panels

four panels — Sun, 24 Sep 2006 18:15:05 -0800

pyramid termite, that's interesting. I would suggest posting it to freerep but: Suitability of Posts: Free Republic does not edit or censor user posts but does reserve the right to remove what it deems to be (in its own judgment) inappropriate posts or materials.

By: Nquire

Nquire — Sun, 24 Sep 2006 18:20:21 -0800

Wow. Excellent find, Pyramid. What I think's interesting is the concern for international foreign relations and collateral damage that the freepers expressed in that thread. Admittedly, it did seem politically convenient that Clinton was bombing terrorist targets in Afghanistan during the impeachment hearings, and "wag the dog" did come to mind. But now, it's all Clinton's fault because he didn't do enough to go after the Taliban. I'm getting more impressed with Clinton calling bullshit on Wallace by the moment.

By: hangashore

hangashore — Sun, 24 Sep 2006 18:27:28 -0800

Can a former President who has served two terms fill a position that is fourth in line for the Presidency? Well, Madeleine Albright was born in (the former) Czechoslovakia, so you don't have to be eligible (I guess they'd just skip you, then).

By: zennie

zennie — Sun, 24 Sep 2006 18:31:06 -0800

Ah, thanks for the illumination hangashore.

By: markulus

markulus — Sun, 24 Sep 2006 18:46:46 -0800

Clinton is very articulate and clearly an excellent verbal warrior....kudos. However, no one here has commented on the substance of what he's saying. I've watched it only once but here is a glaring inconsistency: Near the beginning of the clip, Clinton says that ABC states 3 things that directly contradict the 9/11 report...leading us to believe that he trusts in what the report states, as many of us do. Then a few minutes later when Wallace quotes from the report something to the effect of "Clinton and Bush took the threat seriously but didn't muster anything like the kind of effort necessary to effectively......." Clinton then says, "....that's not true with us and Bin Laden". So it seems like he's criticizing for not staying true to the report yet disagrees with the report at the same time. A little selective? He does, however, do a good job of blocking the bum rush. But I do think he was well prepared for and expecting it.

By: four panels

four panels — Sun, 24 Sep 2006 18:47:53 -0800

It's frighteningly Freudian, the Republican method of self-delusion. I posted the 'Wag the Dog' archive to Free Republic and was banned in around 5 minutes: Your posting privilege has been revoked. I suppose I should have posted something like this: While watching Slick's meltdown - I came to the conclusion that since he was never on Fox before - they offered him a platform to grandize himself about his Global money raising achievemnts. Being that there is nothing he loves more than talking about himself - he accepted. He never expected Chris Wallace to ask him 'the question!!' He was totally unprepared and went nuts.

By: tonygarcia

tonygarcia — Sun, 24 Sep 2006 18:57:45 -0800

clinton owns...

By: oraknabo

oraknabo — Sun, 24 Sep 2006 19:11:04 -0800

That Wag the Dog link is one of the reasons I love the internet. When they first announced OBL's involvement in 9/11, I recalled that incient and all the talk radio hosts complaining that it was all just diversionary politics.

By: Pinback

Pinback — Sun, 24 Sep 2006 20:09:00 -0800

markulus: I'm re-watching it to check, but doesn't he then go on to explain coherently why he disagrees? ... yup, he does. After a bit of distraction about Richard Clarke & George Tenet, which Clinton handles by reiterating their bipartisan credentials, he goes on to explain how the sticking point was confirmation of intelligence information. Or, in simpler terms, "didn't muster anything like the kind of effort necessary" = "didn't rush in with half-arsed unconfirmed information". Not like all that good, solid, confirmed intelligence detailing mobile chemical weapons plants we saw in PowerPoint presentations to the U.N....

By: homunculus

homunculus — Sun, 24 Sep 2006 20:19:11 -0800

Wag the dog! Wag the dog! they said in 1998 when clinton bombed sudan and afghanistan I remember that. This sudden collective Republican amnesia about that has been one of the lamer aspects of this latest 'blame everything on Clinton' campaign. Pathetic.

By: IshmaelGraves

IshmaelGraves — Sun, 24 Sep 2006 20:36:12 -0800

Man, this is depressing. I hated Clinton when he was president, and I don't like him now, but god damn that was bracing. I remember all the fuss in the media about his "legacy," about how he'd been a fairly solid president but needed something dramatic to seal his place in history. Little did we know — Attila the Hun would've come out looking like Winston fucking Churchill if he'd been succeeded by the incumbent clown. How pathetic is it when the ability to competently deflect a hostile but moronic interviewer and present a coherent and impassioned argument is enough to rank one as an exemplar of statesmanship? Which is not to say Clinton didn't acquit himself admirably in this interview; he was superb: lucid, convincing, informed, and charismatic. I just wish those were the minimum qualifications for the office, rather than signs of extraordinary achievement. The fact that we all look back at the Clinton era (which wasn't bad, but wasn't great, either) with such overwhelming nostalgia is proof, if such were needed, of just how fucked we currently are.

By: markulus

markulus — Sun, 24 Sep 2006 20:37:41 -0800

Actually, if I'm understanding him correctly, he's saying that he's dissapointed that he didn't just go in with the information he had. He began his statement with "If you have to criticize me for one thing, you can criticize me for this". Then he goes on to say the CIA and FBI didn't certify that bin laden bombed the Cole....so he would have had to send in special forces. So he regrets not doing it, understandably.

By: SeizeTheDay

SeizeTheDay — Sun, 24 Sep 2006 21:06:54 -0800

Sad, but true, IshmaelGraves. Nice insight.

By: ubnya

ubnya — Sun, 24 Sep 2006 21:26:44 -0800

The beauty of tag-team politics is that no one bothers to think further back than 4 years to see how much the other guys sucked too. We really need to get out of this two-party rut.

By: xammerboy

xammerboy — Sun, 24 Sep 2006 21:27:00 -0800

I really don't give a shit whether he was angry or what - he answered the question, which is more than I've gotten from Bush in any mood.

By: anthill

anthill — Sun, 24 Sep 2006 21:42:22 -0800

Awesome find, pyramid termite. I went undercover at Free Republic but I doubt my comment will last any longer than interrobang or four panels'. I wonder about all the stuff that archive.org never picks up... down the memory hole it goes. (memoryhole@FreeRepublic was taken, ironically)

By: anthill

anthill — Sun, 24 Sep 2006 21:42:45 -0800

Gone! (that was quick)

By: Astro Zombie

Astro Zombie — Sun, 24 Sep 2006 21:44:20 -0800

The failing of the left is not their anger, it's their politeness. A war was declared on us a decade ago, and, for the most part, we've responded to it like a nervous Victorian gentleman, pleading for politeness while they mounted every attack possible. They are torturing people. They are eroding civil rights and human rights, and stand in the way of progress and justice. They are amassing and centralizing power and using it to funnel fortunes into the pockets of the already wealthy. If they had their way, there would be prayer in school, homosexuality would be met with a prison sentence, English would be the national language, and speaking out against the president would be treason. They sabotage and submarine the necessary processes of democracy, such as a government that operates transparently, an informed electorate, a free press, the constitutional system of checks and balances, and fair elections. Make no mistake about how seriously they take the culture war they started, and how utterly ruthless they will be in pursuing victory. Anger is justified, welcome, and necessary in response to this. Change starts with outrage, and if the behavior of this administration and its supporters doesn't generate that outrage, then we deserve to live in the tinpot dictatorship this country is turning into.

By: oraknabo

oraknabo — Sun, 24 Sep 2006 22:18:53 -0800

By: ztdavis

ztdavis — Sun, 24 Sep 2006 22:26:30 -0800

I don't know about you all, but I'm having fun modifying the keywords over on Free Republic.

By: ztdavis

ztdavis — Sun, 24 Sep 2006 22:32:32 -0800

anthill: I'm already banned as well. I left comment #159 which was already removed. Was your comment one of the many deleted right above me?

By: Chuckles

Chuckles — Sun, 24 Sep 2006 22:36:40 -0800

That Free Republic stuff is pretty funny, but I'm not sure how much we should be distracted by them.. Lets not exclude the possibility that the attacks on Afghanistan, Sudan, Iraq, and Kosovo may have been BOTH reasoned foreign policy AND wag the dog..

By: pyramid termite

pyramid termite — Sun, 24 Sep 2006 22:37:05 -0800

just think of how utterly obsessed that guy must be to monitor each and every thread for evil liberal trolls at 1.30 am ... maybe it's some poor bastard who's doing it for minimum wage by the way, your keywords are still up ... good job

By: Chuckles

Chuckles — Sun, 24 Sep 2006 22:40:50 -0800

Ah forget it.. That Free Republic stuff is really hillarious! What is the content of the messages you guys are posting though? I was thinking something like:

I'm lead to believe that you guys are censoring links to this old Free Republic thread. Apologies if links to the wayback machine are against forum policy.

By: ztdavis

ztdavis — Sun, 24 Sep 2006 22:56:16 -0800

Mine was literally just a link to their old thread, without text. The problem is that their policy is defined as posting pro-conservative content, not actually debating issues. To whomever: nice try with the tinyurl link, it's too bad it didn't allow symbols.

By: anthill

anthill — Sun, 24 Sep 2006 23:54:43 -0800

Mine was posing as a genuine enthusiastic reply, with a tinyURL redirecter tucked away in a link... Shouldhad guessed, nobody posts links at FR.

By: dreamsign

dreamsign — Mon, 25 Sep 2006 02:55:20 -0800

And you’ve got that little smirk on your face. Big difference between just reading about this and seeing the interview. If he was outraged, snarling at an interviewer's expression, it would have been game over. But what was Clinton's tone at this point? Humorously admonishing. Like talking to a child. Exactly what was deserved. The problem is that interviewers like this need the smackdown every time -- until you just can't have a Democrat on your show because you'll look like an idiot. But few can work on their feet like Clinton, and so the timid reply is the default for Democrats under the gun.

By: Skygazer

Skygazer — Mon, 25 Sep 2006 05:00:59 -0800

Those guys over at free republic sure are obsessed with Lewinsky and it's all they've got, cos you know it's not like any republican ever had an affair.

By: anthill

anthill — Mon, 25 Sep 2006 06:29:53 -0800

Nquire , I had a revelation about that interview in my sleep last night... Bush is right, Saddam did try and kill his dad. Still don't see what that has to do with the interviewer's family (or Al-Quaeda) though.

By: jaronson

jaronson — Mon, 25 Sep 2006 06:48:08 -0800

Couple of follow ups: In the article in my local paper this morning, Wallace was quoted in a phone interview that the question was legitimate. It bothers me somewhat that the "interviewer" and the question and Clinton's "feistiness" will become the issues, and not the substance of what Clinton said. Also, President Clinton said that Wallace et al. had not asked the same question to any in the current administration. I'd like to follow up on that. Anyone?

By: NationalKato

NationalKato — Mon, 25 Sep 2006 06:54:19 -0800

jaronson, you're correct. This morning, CNN was covering it with the title "Clinton Fumes." Apparently, his emotions are more newsworthy than what he was saying.

By: psmealey

psmealey — Mon, 25 Sep 2006 07:05:15 -0800

Apparently, his emotions are more newsworthy than what he was saying. These are the times we live in. The Administration and Republicans in general can say whatever they want because they know that the correction gets buried on page 5 four days after the accusation was printed on page 1. On the other side of the coin, liberals are too "angry" and "unhinged" to lend creedence to anything they say. If you're not disgusted, you're not paying attention.

By: jikel_morten

jikel_morten — Mon, 25 Sep 2006 07:38:57 -0800

Wow, I just registered at freerepublic to post a link to that archive.org link—INSTABANNED! posted by interrobang at 9:09 PM EST on September 24 [+] [!] I tried last night as well - banned in under two minutes. Unbelievable. Gross, actually.

By: jikel_morten

jikel_morten — Mon, 25 Sep 2006 07:47:37 -0800

Ah forget it.. That Free Republic stuff is really hillarious! What is the content of the messages you guys are posting though? I was thinking something like: I'm lead to believe that you guys are censoring links to this old Free Republic thread. Apologies if links to the wayback machine are against forum policy. posted by Chuckles at 1:40 AM EST on September 25 [+] [!] I feigned agreement. I said something about how Clinton is trying to warp history, and that the link on freerepublic was currently down (likely system problems I said) but thankfully archive.org had the forum to fall back on. Obviously I wasn't convincing.

By: fungible

fungible — Mon, 25 Sep 2006 07:53:56 -0800

The keywords are still up. That's fucking funny.

By: Chuckles

Chuckles — Mon, 25 Sep 2006 08:11:16 -0800

Also, President Clinton said that Wallace et al. had not asked the same question to any in the current administration. I'd like to follow up on that. Anyone? Interesting thought, but in practice I think it wouldn't be informative. The issue here was all about how Wallace framed the question, and how he aggressively attempted to force the response, when it wasn't going how he wanted.

By: toastchee

toastchee — Mon, 25 Sep 2006 08:22:18 -0800

Well done, Mr. President.

By: kirkaracha

kirkaracha — Mon, 25 Sep 2006 09:42:52 -0800

President Clinton said that Wallace et al. had not asked the same question to any in the current administration. I'd like to follow up on that. Anyone? ThinkProgress:

By: Benny Andajetz

Benny Andajetz — Mon, 25 Sep 2006 09:51:55 -0800

Also, President Clinton said that Wallace et al. had not asked the same question to any in the current administration. I'd like to follow up on that. Anyone? Think Progress did the follow up. Links can be found here:http://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/24/clinton-video/ Clinton was right, of course. His dismantling of the framing of the questioning is what every Dem should be doing right now - these "journalists" should be shown for the craven shills they are at every opportunity. I miss Bubba.

By: Benny Andajetz

Benny Andajetz — Mon, 25 Sep 2006 09:56:13 -0800

Kirkaracha beat me to it. My reaction time ain't what it used to be. Just say No to Drugs.

By: pyramid termite

pyramid termite — Mon, 25 Sep 2006 10:03:01 -0800

keywords STILL up ... this IS amusing

By: Brian B.

Brian B. — Mon, 25 Sep 2006 10:14:46 -0800

Richard Clarke's book sales: Sept. 19th Amazon.com Sales Rank: #4,449 in Books (from Google cache) Sept. 24th Amazon.com Sales Rank: #38 in Books Sept. 25th Amazon.com Sales Rank: #13 in Books

By: unwordy

unwordy — Mon, 25 Sep 2006 10:55:02 -0800

VERY late in the game...but i just want to say that Clinton is the man.

FOX News is pathetic and transparent and Drudge is a deuchebag.

By: rough ashlar

rough ashlar — Mon, 25 Sep 2006 11:12:29 -0800

(a) vote for the leading non-incumbent candidate regardless your political views. posted by five fresh fish at 2:02 PM What if it is Ron Paul or Russ Feingold?

By: DenOfSizer

DenOfSizer — Mon, 25 Sep 2006 11:27:05 -0800

I'm so glad to know that there are other peole out there getting banned from the Freeper shithole. I've assumed oh, 10-15 fake identities over the last coupla years, and they always manage to sniff me out and ban my ass. Curses! They're so chickenshit.

By: five fresh fish

five fresh fish — Mon, 25 Sep 2006 12:09:36 -0800

What if it is Ron Paul or Russ Feingold? It doesn't matter. The very important thing is to get a majority of the population to vote out everyone. This requires a single message: can the incumbent. Yes, some nice people are going to get turfed. They'll have another, better chance, soon. The American public needs to be re-activated. A complete overthrow will do that. The result will be scores of Ron Pauls and Russ Feingolds running in the next election with a real chance of winning broad support.

By: five fresh fish

five fresh fish — Mon, 25 Sep 2006 12:11:34 -0800

As an aside, wtf is with caring about the Free Republic forums? Is that site really of any consequence at all? 'cause from my pov, it looks like a dozen or so fruitcakes who count for nothing. Why give them our attention?

By: dwarfplanet

dwarfplanet — Mon, 25 Sep 2006 13:36:07 -0800

I think the criticism of Clinton is probably unfair. Then again, I think it serves him right for the many crooked things he did do, and got away with. In the end, I sympathize with Clinton in this interview -- but not because I like him. Only because Bush is so much worse, that it seems irrelevant to concentrate on Clinton now.

By: psmealey

psmealey — Mon, 25 Sep 2006 13:45:17 -0800

it serves him right for the many crooked things he did do, and got away with. Some of those things he did and got away with, he actually did do, right?

By: ericb

ericb — Mon, 25 Sep 2006 14:20:51 -0800

Clinton interview a big hit on the Internet.

By: pyramid termite

pyramid termite — Mon, 25 Sep 2006 15:08:28 -0800

As an aside, wtf is with caring about the Free Republic forums? it's not that i care about "a dozen or so fruitcakes who count for nothing" or what they say ... it's that the tactic they've used of deleting awkward things they've once said is relevatory and fits in well with the revisionist 9/11 movie abc put on ... it's not so much that they foam at the mouth, it's that they're actively trying to rewrite not only their personal history, but our history as a nation i've been noticing more and more of this lately and it's quite dangerous ... do we really want to deal with a political culture in which one side rewrites the record by "documenting" it, so they can "refute" anything we say with "proof" this is where things seem to be going ... and that's why i posted those links, because it's a perfect illustration of the games that are being played i didn't know that it would become so popular to see how quickly posts linking to that deleted discussion ... and it's amusing and educational to see how quickly those posts are nuked ... but it's a little scary, too ... because that's probably how they'd like the country to be run, too and those keywords are STILL up

By: five fresh fish

five fresh fish — Mon, 25 Sep 2006 16:13:12 -0800

If the freepers are of any consequence, I'll agree with you. Could be that they are influential or powerful or somesuch. If they aren't, why worry about them? There are bigger things to deal with.

By: X-00

X-00 — Mon, 25 Sep 2006 16:39:44 -0800

Fox News 'Opinion' on the interview.

By: aaronetc

aaronetc — Mon, 25 Sep 2006 16:40:36 -0800

What if it is Ron Paul or Russ Feingold? If it's Russ Feingold, you're probably voting with some kind of novelty ballot, since he's not up this year. Feel free to vote against Herb Kohl, though.

By: pyramid termite

pyramid termite — Mon, 25 Sep 2006 17:23:17 -0800

Fox News 'Opinion' on the interview. well, it must be opinion, cause there sure aren't many facts there

By: fullerine

fullerine — Mon, 25 Sep 2006 17:54:03 -0800

Angry, purple-faced political assasin. The real payoff will be the next time Bush is allowed anywhere near a question.

By: ericb

ericb — Mon, 25 Sep 2006 18:02:26 -0800

Keith Olbermann: Bill Clinton was sandbagged.

By: brundlefly

brundlefly — Mon, 25 Sep 2006 18:08:29 -0800

Fox News 'Opinion' on the interview. You can tell someone's running on rhetorical fumes when they resort to the old draft dodger routine.

By: lodurr

lodurr — Mon, 25 Sep 2006 18:52:59 -0800

Chris Wallace Never Asked .... Chris Wallace Has Never Asked ....Wallace Doesn't Ask .... Holy crap. Now there's an apple that fell a long, long way from the tree. Not that Mike Wallace is a gleaming shining knight, but still, you'd think he'd have taught the boy not to pass up a good chance to piss off somebody powerful. On the other hand, when you've got Mike Wallace to live up to, maybe you're willing to cut a few corners to stay in the public eye.

By: Brian B.

Brian B. — Mon, 25 Sep 2006 19:02:01 -0800

Wag the Dog: "Instead of putting off the impeachment vote, the House should have voted to impeach him that very day. A President who uses his duties as Commander in Chief to bomb foreign countries every time he wants to change the subject ought to be removed with alacrity," according to Ann Coulter (Human Events, 12/25/98, p. 6).

By: [insert clever name here]

[insert clever name here] — Mon, 25 Sep 2006 22:54:45 -0800

The interview was beautiful. Echoing what so many people said here; this is the anger the democrats need. Kerry never got indignant about the attacks on his character and it made him look weak. The left needs candidates that are willing to stand up and say "sir, you are completely and entirely full of shit."