Huh?
Okay, I've got my bearings. You see, Clinton fans thought Clinton ruled. He stuck it to Fox News, you know. They're celebrating. And Arianna's the nerd at the party who wants everyone to sit down and have a serious conversation about what it all means. She begins with the assumption that Bill's been in a "bipartisan love-in," which I take to mean that he's been circumspect and presidential.
I'm glad the Chris Wallace interview is flying all over the internet, but I really hope that one person who will watch it over and over again is Bill Clinton. And that on the fifth or sixth viewing it might occur to him that the more cover he gives Bush and his cronies, the more they're able to increase and entrench their power.Isn't it disturbing to picture Clinton watching himself on TV over and over again and becoming more and more convinced that he played it just right? Arianna assumes he lacks the intellectual complexity to see in it what people who aren't predisposed to love him find offputting, even shocking. He'd just replay and replay and chortle I rule.
Now that I've seen the reaction on the left, I'm convinced that Clinton went on the show planning to act the way he did. It wasn't Chris Wallace's specific question that set him off. He decided in advance to go on Fox News and unleash an attack on Fox News as soon as when he saw an opening. But he jumped too eagerly at what wasn't really an opening and he jumped weirdly. That he thought he was doing well suggests that he has surrounded himself with people who are pulling him out of the calm, rational center -- what Arianna mocks as a "bipartisan love-in."
But this country is full of people who aren't hotly partisan, who are put off by that strong stuff, and who need to see a demonstration of calm rationality. Now his over-the-top performance is being praised by those people who crowd around him -- that's the real love-in -- and he may succumb to their fawning inducements to hardcore partisanship.
And where is Hillary in all of this? Will she fall into the open arms of the hot partisans too? I'd like to think she's less susceptible to seduction. But it won't help in the long run if her husband inanely cozies up to the kind of people who watched him on Fox News and thought he was just great.
Posts
29 comments:
Right now Bill is trying to provide cover for Hillary. Just like he has for the last 6 years. Give the Clintons their due, they are shrewd politically, and they both know that if Hillary caves into the Kossack nutroots she has no chance of becoming president. So Bill goes on Fox and throws some red meat to the moonbats. Look for much more of this in the future.
Finger pointers have one towards the other guy and three back at themselves. The Sociopath in Chief, having to cite books rather than his own record. He started the partisan attacks on President Bush, his wife even held up a headline on the floor of the Senate "Bush Knew." Well Bill, you were ready to attack AQ and have the audacity to claim he couldn't act? It has always been about you and that is why you only bring scrutiny to yourself.
George,
as an aside, the key indicator of pilot error in plane crashes are the last words of the pilot. In multiple languages, (e.g merde, $hit, scheisse, etc) awe $hit is a clear indicator that the pilot realizes he has made a bad mistake.
Haven't seen it yet, but was it at all like that famous interview on CBS in 1988 when "Bush came to shove" with Dan Rather?
verification word: isgnat
Jim,
This is just an example of why traditionalists don't like this guy. He broke the long standing tradition not to involve themselves during a successor's Administration. The moonbat crowd will love this red-meat behavior, but it is below a President. He even chewed out his staff after the interview. The only justified criticism for his staff would have been that he wasn't warring knee high socks.
Clinton is the Republican's best friend. Every race in 2002 and 2004 that Clinton got involved in, his candidates lost by surprising large margins.
The Republicans have to keep him in the limelight until the November elections. This should not be a problem as Clinton always seeks the limelight no matter how it damages everyone around him.
It's definitely all about legacy for him, which is a different interest from the Democratic party.
Sadly for Clinton though, his legacy was never going to be great. We remember wartime presidents (Washington, Lincoln, FDR). Nobody remembers peacetime presidents, even those that serve during good economic times.
At worst he'll be remembered as a Nero or Louis XV. It probably isn't completely fair, but I suspect that that's where it'll end up. And the current discussion isn't what will do it. In 50 years, the end of the Clinton presidency and 9/11 will appear to be simultaneous. It's inescapable, an nothing he says now will matter.
I sort of had the feeling that Bill seemed a little more real and sincere than usual (as opposed to scripted, smarmy and vetted) in his rant, up to the point where he started tapping his finger on Wallace's knee. At which point my only thought was "I could never be a professional interviewer because it would be totally unacceptable to swat an ex-president's index finger away from my knee." If Wallace had come up with bob's "Monica finger" connection, the buzz would be at a whole 'nother level this morning, and HuffPo would be hearing champagne corks popping in Karl Rove's office.
"Now that I've seen the reaction on the left, I'm convinced that Clinton went on the show planning to act the way he did. It wasn't Chris Wallace's specific question that set him off."
Just watching the interview I thought that Clinton had planned it. Clinton plans things like this, and a good deal of his answers seemed scripted (or very well reseearched). Also, by saying that he failed, and by making news, he pre-empts the slow drip of attacks. Also, he points to the authoritative book, a la Chavez, that one should read. You can also see him thinking, and tempering his answers, but circling back around to a core of information and key phrases. He also taps the clipboard, which is something an impression management specialist would recommend to show dominance. In other words, he wasn't really angry. It looks like a staged event that Clinton planned out after researching his answers and meeting with a debate prep person. To the extent he winged it, he simply modified what he had prepared to the moment. Why would Clinton want this in the news? Why would Clinton want to cast light on the Republican's best issue? Why would Clinton want the Democrats to lose in November? Wait, which Clinton are we talking about again, Bill or Hillary?
Do you really think Hillary Clinton didn't sign off on this "outburst"?
Please, people.
Word verification: "bshbu"
Lusty Bill's only legacy is introducing a new word into the vocabulary of middle schoolers that the kids now use to describe oral sex,i.e. "Last night, Susie gave Johnnie a clinton."
In 50 years, Clinton will be studied in schools as an example of someone with a dysfunctional character, a person void of courage whose desires and appetites ruled over him. Lesson: "Kids, you don't want to grow up to be like this guy."
A friend of mine described him best: If Clinton had been on the Titanic, he would have been one of those men who dressed up as a woman so he could make it onto one of the lifeboats.
Clinton certainly knows how to entertain the political class. It was interesting how so many focused on the pure theatrics of the interview -- the purple face, the finger wagging, the reprise of the "vast right wing conspiracy theme," etc. Ann took special delight in pointing out the ill fitting suit, the ever increasing Clintonian bulk, and those unsightly white patches of leg above his socks. For political junkies, it never gets better than a full blown Clintonista event. Love him or hate him, he's the most talented politician from Dixie since Huey Long and there's no one else like him.
Of course Clinton planned the whole thing in advance. His greatest skill was always the campaign mode, and he enjoys trying to turn the tables on his political enemies in unexpected ways. Fox News provided the perfect combination of straight-man and voice of the opposition. And Chris Wallace is not the Dan Rather sort who would take a real shot back at Clinton during the interview itself.
But theatrics, even including those white legs and too short pants, don't amount to much anymore in terms of impact, either politically in the short term or in longer term for Clinton's legacy. I doubt that many people actually watched the interview. Among those who really reacted to it made up their minds a long time ago on the subject of Bill Clinton.
On the merits of Clinton's terror fighting record while in office, I don't think there are many politically informed folks who haven't formed a pretty firm opinion of what Clinton did or didn't do. But it was wonderful seeing Clinton shifting responsibility to the military (they were all against vigorous action in the 90s), and the CIA/FBI (couldn't play well together or ever agree on much of anything). Perhaps a little leadership might have helped, back when he was in a position to provide some.
"bipartisan love-in"
Does that mean former President Clinton has been fooling around with both Republican and Democrat interns?
Ah how the mighty Republican Party has fallen in 12 years huh? From the clear, sweeping Contract with America in '94; to a squandered mandate, a stalled adventurist war, and now back to sniffing Clinton's crotch in '06.
I've still to see any rebuttal to any of his facts, to this day. And of course we won't see any, just more ass-biting.
It was nice to hear a complete sentence in English from a President though. Poor George. Born on 3rd base, and thinks he hit a triple. Perhaps in hinsight he should have stuck to being a cheerleader at Yale, and left the tough stuff to grownups. Showing up a week later to our nations disasters for a photo-op, with your sleeves rolled up isn't impressing anybody.
Wingnuts - You have nothing. Unless scaring people in N Dakota, and more tax cuts is your plan. Maybe I would run on Clinton's crouch too.
I've still to see any rebuttal to any of his facts, to this day.
I suspect the problem there is either where you're (not) looking, or your unattainable definition of "facts."
Actually, I suspect it's both.
Unless scaring people in N Dakota...
Any word on Bush's secret plan to bring back the draft? No? How about rescinding social security and sending Gramma to live in the streets? No? Then I guess I have to concede that it's only the Republicans that practice scare tactics.
Ok, you don't believe there's a terrorist threat and the whole thing is made up to keep us scared and voting Republican. Fine. Honestly, I'm sure there may be some measure of exaggerating the threat, but I don't go so far as to completely discount the idea that there are those out there that would quite happily blow us all to hell. When given a choice between a party that may be going too far versus a party that won't even recognize the threat, I have to hedge my bet and go for the more serious party. Allegations of crotch sniffing are surprisingly ineffective in swaying my opinion.
The farther we get from the interview, the more it does look planned, and there are two things that could have been driving his planning: his legacy, and Hillary's presidential asperations. My guess is that both are in play.
Concentrating on the later, it very nicely lets her continuing to play the moderate in the area of national defense, etc., while giving the message to the left that when the Clintons come back to the White House, they will go back to where he was while in office.
the facts.. Where are Sandy Berger's pants when you need them?
Now that I've seen the reaction on the left, I'm convinced that Clinton went on the show planning to act the way he did.
Wallace called in to Fox & Friends this morning and said that after the interview Clinton was still going off, chewing out his own staff. That would suggest he didn't plan it.
I finally saw the video rather than just the transcript, and I'm impressed by how Wallace was able to stay calm with that finger wagging at him and Clinton getting all close into his face. The way Clinton looked also suggests it wasn't planned. He's always been a man who loses control pretty easily.
As far as Arianna, she was recently on Fox News herself, and when played a clip of Kurdish Iraqis saying thanks to America she said they were liars. When it was mentioned that Saddam had been trying to ethnically cleanse them off the face of the earth, the lovely "liberal" Arianna said, "So what!"
Professor A: "hotly partisan" "succumb to their fawning inducements" "hardcore partisanship" "open arms of the hot partisans" "susceptible to seduction" "husband inanely cozies"
I am getting a strong politics=sex vibe, sure, but are you practicing for the next Bulwer-Lytton contest of purple prose?
Clinton mentioned the "wag the dog" speculations in the '90s and I see lots of left blogs running with that.
Why doesn't someone ask Clinton more about the Sudan strike? People seem to mostly talk about the strike on the Afghan camp, which seems to have been a legit target, the timing of which had a legit basis. (The problem was allowing the Pakistanis to tip Bin Laden off.) But what about the strike on the Sudan medicine factory?
The Clinton administration blew it up rather than sending inspectors, and after they blew it up they said both Al Qaeda and Iraq, together, were using the facility for nerve gas.
Which may or may not be true. We'll never know because it was blown up rather than inspected. If it's true, the Democrats should apologize to Bush for saying he "invented" concerns about Iraq being a growing threat to work with terrorists with respect to WMD.
I remain confused why Clinton had to blow up the Sudan facility on that particular day. I believe he wanted to add another target to hit in tandem with the strike on the Afghanistan camp and went down a list and chose one, and that may very well been about wagging the dog.
If I'm wrong, someone explain why the Sudan facility had to be hit on that day. While you're at it, also note whether you think Clinton was wrong to have been worried about Iraq working on WMDs with terror networks.
I don't hate Clinton but I deplore how his cynical tactics poison civil debate and cheapen the value of truth. So count me as a member of the Half-Vast Right Wing Conspiracy.
Does converting Southern Democrat women from your past into Republican enemies qualify as a bipartisan love-in? If not, I'm stumped by the phrase and how it applies to Clinton.
Unlike the Bush haters who will follow W from the White House to his grave and then peck his eyes out, I don't derive any kind of satisfaction -- sick or otherwise -- from Clinton's reappearance, no matter how much his meltdown may help my political party retain leadership in the Congress. Get him off my screen and hand me the Lysol.
Can any Dems actually believe the way back into the White House is to take a sociopath and then turn left?
In a polity in which one is defined by what one isn't, Bill Clinton has been very good for Republicans, much better for Republicans than Bush has been for Democrats.
His being on camera, Fox News no less, only helps to remind Republican voters what's at stake in November. Thanks Bill!
However, irrespective of Bill Clinton's enduring contributions toward building what may very well become a lasting Republican majority the likes of which hasn't been seen since the postbellum era, the truth of the matter is no Democrat since Lyndon Johnson in 1964 has won more than 50% of cast votes in a presidential election. Not Carter once (exactly 50%), not Clinton twice (and for too many Democrats with bad math skills and an inability to understand butterfly ballots, Gore won a plurality of popular votes, not a majority...).
But Clinton didn't do it alone - he had help! Toss in the 30 year old Democrat sacrament for killing off their voters in utero, and the natural proclivity of faith-based voters to out-breed "reality based" voters, as well as Democrat-sponsored policies to maintain a permanent, non-voting underclass through union controlled public schools, and no one should be surprised by Republican majorities as far as the eye can see. And all of this without even discussing national security issues!
But liberal Democrats, being just plain smarter than the rest of us (just ask them...), surely recognize this and will make changes any moment now...
Just don't hold your breath.
I don't think it matters if Clinton came off looking like an insecure and emotionally unstable man-child, because most people are only going to hear of this story through other reporters in other media outlets -- almost all of which are, after all, Democrats (or, in the case of foreign media, left-wing).
So you get stories from the AP, CNN, the Guardian, and Newsweek that focus almost exclusively on presenting Clinton's side of the story -- Wallace's side is given three sentences in the first story, one in the second, and none at all in the other two. The all-too-typical media attitude is "if Clinton says Fox attacked him as part of a right-wing hit job, who are we to question him?".
It doesn't matter what the actual truth of Clinton's performance is, because few people will ever bother watching the interview to learn what the truth is. They'll just get the leftie spin from the rest of the media. So while you or I might watch the video and think "eesh, I can't believe this guy was President for eight years", the rest of America is just going to hear mangled watercooler gossip -- "hey, I heard on CNN that some guy from Fox tried to blame Clinton for 9/11".
Of course Clinton wants an opportunity to try to clear his reputation following the recent 9-11 made-for-tv-movie-flak, and he's going to take that opportunity if he gets a chance.
Great thing about the DocuTruth Path to 9/11 is that it finally told us the real story.
Clinton is responsible for 9/11. Not negligence, or distraction. I mean Clinton literally attacked America. He of course is the leader of Al Clinto-Qaeda, and the DemoFacsists/NYT/AP/Reuters/Newsweek/Chavez/CNN/MSNBC/France/Germany can try to comfort our enemies and Al Clinto-Qaeda types all they want, but Republicans have been on to this for a long time.
My favorite scene in Path to 9/11 was Bush on top of WTC swatting down enemy Al Clinto-Qaeda planes/drones like King Kong, riding the collapsing rubble down w/ an AK-47 in each hand blasting away the thousands of killers that Clinton ordered. That was great.
I had you booked as a centrist blog. Something's pushed you over the edge
I don't think she's ceased being centrist. But if she spends more time criticizing the left than the right these days, it might have something to do with the fact that the left have been acting like a bunch of feces-flinging howler monkeys to her for quite a while now.
"a bunch of feces-flinging howler monkeys"
Hey:
I got called that once here by "PaddyO". He by chance a good friend of yours? #;-)
But she's always gotten along with Instapundit, so the pull may have overwhelmed her as well.
Glenn Reynolds is not a right-winger either. He's a pro-war libertarian.
That his blog gets classified as "right-wing" is just another example of the left-wing blogosphere's tendancy to lump everyone who disagrees with them on *anything* in with The Enemy.
Hillary's biggest problem pre-NH primary is with the fiery left.
It would be difficult--at best--for her to now go wobbly on Iraq.
What better way to endear her amongst the Kos'sites that via a planned series of say, lunches and missile attacks on Fox News by her attention-starved husband?
just because you say something is so, ren, doesn't mean it comes true.
He's not a pro-war libertarian because I "say it is so", he's a pro-war libertarian because those are the positions he holds and defends. The notion that someone who is pro-choice, pro-immigration and harshly critical of the "indecency" crackdown, the war on drugs, and police use of force is a "right-winger" doesn't pass a laugh test.
I'd be curious to see if you can name three right-wing, non-libertarian positions he holds on issues unrelated to the war on terrorism. But I rather suspect you can't name ANY positions he holds unrelated to the war on terrorism... and odds are you'd get a few of those, like torture (he's against it) and the Padilla detention (he's against it) wrong.
That he can't defend the postions he has taken says a lot about him
Bored now. Give examples next time.
Post a Comment