Jump to content

Wallace v. Clinton


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 187
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I don't think Clinton was being an asshole at all. he has every right to defend his administration as adamantly as he wants to. every president wants their legacy to be a good one.

I do believe him when he says that he did the very best he could. he had his hand in many military actions throughout his administration. Bin Laden is pretty elusive and protected. unless he's dead, then he's really being elusive.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I think the lady doth protest too much.

 

That's what all Republican sleazes would love for their opponents to be wary of. Republicans are willing to take every cheap shot that there is, and Dems. look like idiots for not wanting to dignify the Reps. macho assertions (like claiming ownership of Christianity). To America, it looks like quiet submission.

 

And Fox News is only publicizing parts of the interview that meet their cut-and-paste bastardization/portrayal.

 

It's like when Homer Simpson gets interviewed to defend himself against accusations of groping.

 

Here's the full transcript for people who don't have the brains:

 

WALLACE: Mr. President, welcome to Fox News Sunday.

 

CLINTON: Thanks.

 

WALLACE: In a recent issue of The New Yorker you say, quote,

 

I

Link to post
Share on other sites
It was a refreshing example of seeing a real person. Not the scripted out talking points bullshit that we are forced to see on a regular basis from both democrats and republicans.

 

Good for him for getting angry and being himself.

 

agreed.

 

kinda reminded me of when Armen Keteyian interviewed Vince McMahon

Link to post
Share on other sites

Reputations are funny that way.

 

It depends on who's the decider of whose reputation gets damaged because of lies.

 

To answer your question, though, if your amoral, then, no you wouldn't protest; also, if you're amoral, you'd scorn or manipulate someone's legitimate protest.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Clinton made some very good points, but his demeanor was totally un-presidential and, frankly, embarrassing. Clinton acted like a high-school kid in his defensive-ness.

 

And I disagree that it was unscripted. Clinton has been waiting a long time to use the line "right-wing hit job" and to rip Fox. Too bad he picked Chris Wallace as his target. Fox is indeed very conservative, but Wallace is a fair and very good reporter. Clinton should have saved his Fox rant for O' Reilly....should he ever do an interview with him.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Bill has been as cool as he could be over the years.In general,forgive & forget.Christ,he even let bygones be bygones & teamed up with Senior for tsnunami relief,etc..Does anyone remember the'92 campaign? Those cheap shot artists did all but call him a commie fag or something similar.They even were low enough to go after him for getting a BJ! But the insinuations regarding 9/11 was going too far,imo.

 

As I said last night on the RTT,for a moment there I thought he was going to reach over & throttle Wallace.

Judy said it made her day...I tend to agree :thumbup

Link to post
Share on other sites
The "wipe your smirk off your face" line was totally un-called for.

 

I subscribe to the belief that any smirk is fair game for requests to "wipe your smirk off your face."

 

Now, whether you want to append ", you smug bastard" to the end is up to you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Clinton totally cleaned Wallace's clock on that interview. It reminded me of two other interviews. First, when Pete Rose was asked about apologizing for betting on baseball and the outcry against that reporter was terrific. Why? Because Rose was there for a totally different reason and he was ambushed. Clinton was on Wallace show for a particular reason and was ambushed. He was prepared for the ambush, but ambushed nonetheless. It would have been more appropriate for Wallace, by the way

Edited by John Smith
Link to post
Share on other sites
Now I ask this, Fox advertised this interview using terms such as Crazed Clinton.

 

Consider also how Bush voters (even regretful ones) always say "I may think that Bush is a terrible President, but he deserves respect for being elected to that position."

 

I guess this takes care of that faux-point. Everyone's fair game.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Clinton totally cleaned Wallace's clock on that interview. It reminded me of two other interviews. First, when Pete Rose was asked about apologizing for betting on baseball and the outcry against that reporter was terrific. Why? Because Rose was there for a totally different reason and he was ambushed.

Jim Gray, who did that interview, walked in front of my car at a stop sign not too long after that. I had to seriously restrain myself.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The "wipe your smirk off your face" line was totally un-called for. And that finger-waggin' he does makes my skin crawl.

 

He came across like an arrogant, big bully.

 

And was Clinton drunk? He was kinda stumbling over his syllables.

 

I for one didn't feel Mr. Clinton came across as being bully-ish at all. I think the man had simply had enough. As for his "stumbling" erratic speech I think you can simply chalk that up to him being good and pissed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Had O' Reilly asked the question, I would more understand Clinton's heated response.

 

Wallace even prefaced his question by saying he'd been getting tons of emails about the subject.

 

 

Clinton was out to get Fox. Plain and simple. Wallace just happened to be the guy in the way.

 

Clinton WAS a bully. Leaning over into Wallace. Touching Wallace. Finger wagging. Almost insulting Wallace (Wallace....like his Dad...ALWAYS has a smirk-ish look on his face).

 

Clinton's true colors came through brilliantly.

Edited by jakobnicholas
Link to post
Share on other sites
Way to categorize and stereotype an entire political party. Both the current and past Presidents Bush have great relationships with President Clinton, and I doubt he'd refer to either of them as "sleazes."

 

Actually, I didn't stereotype the whole party, just the sleazes, who happen to be the loudest voices.

 

the "doth protest too much" was simply a short and shakespeare-borrowed way to assert that sometimes when people go overboard in their reactions it suggests that they may actually hold some culpability.

 

No shit.

Link to post
Share on other sites
the "doth protest too much" was simply a short and shakespeare-borrowed way to assert that sometimes when people go overboard in their reactions it suggests that they may actually hold some culpability.

 

Of course he has some culpability. He says so in the interview, that he regrets not getting bin Laden, that he tried and failed. It's the assertion that all of this is totally Clinton's fault that has him in a lather. There's really only so much one person, president or not, can take when it comes to lies. That's where the sleaziness is in all this. The current incarnation of the Republican party (read: Karl Rove) will lie their ass off to meet their needs. And from where I sit it looks to me like they feel that's ok because they've got God on their side, so we can do whatever we want. Those other heathens deserved it.

 

I didn't see the interview, I only read the transcript here, but if he came across as a bully, then I say good for him! It's time for the Democrats to stop being such a bunch of wussies.

Link to post
Share on other sites
When someone with his well-honed public image gets that bent out of shape, no matter who the person, it makes me a little suspicious. I have no idea whether Clinton did all he could do with regard to bin Laden, etc. But if he didn't, and he feels bad about it now, I doubt he'd come forward and own up to it and talk about it. In case you haven't noticed, coming clean and telling the truth aren't necessarily this man's strong suits. Still, I could be wrong, which is why I reserve judgment on this whole issue.

 

It didn't strike me as wrong for him to get bent out of shape in this interview. If anything, I found it a refreshing change from the "Slick Willie" P.R. persona that he displayed during his years in office, where nothing got him bent out of shape.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Clinton WAS a bully. Leaning over into Wallace. Touching Wallace. Finger wagging. Almost insulting Wallace (Wallace....like his Dad...ALWAYS has a smirk-ish look on his face).

 

Clinton's true colors came through brilliantly.

 

Yeah, he was being a bully. He's being interviewed upon request by Fox News with the expectation of talking about his civilian fundraising endeavors via the CGI last week. Did he somewhat loose his sense of decorum? Yes. Was he way out of line? No, God no and I wish there were more of this in politics.

 

Chris Wallace is a highly paid reporter. It is irrelevant to discuss if his opinions and objectives are clouded by political bias. He asked those questions to illicit a response. He got one. That aint being bullied.

 

You kick an old dog you might just get bit.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...