Knowing he was going to get mad, I watched him carefully before he got mad. He had a very relaxed and jovial manner as he mused about his new life of philanthropy. Then Chris Wallace changed the subject and asked this:
When we announced that you were going to be on fox news Sunday, I got a lot of email from viewers, and I got to say I was surprised most of them wanted me to ask you this question. Why didn’t you do more to put Bin Laden and al Qaeda out of business when you were President. There’s a new book out which I suspect you’ve read called the Looming Tower. And it talks about how the fact that when you pulled troops out of Somalia in 1993, Bin Laden said I have seen the frailty and the weakness and the cowardice of US troops. Then there was the bombing of the embassies in Africa and the attack on the USS Cole... And after the attack, the book says, Bin Laden separated his leaders because he expected an attack and there was no response. I understand that hindsight is 20 20.... [T]he question is why didn’t you do more, connect the dots and put them out of business?Now, Clinton has an answer to this question, and he could have just given it. But he aggressively inserts challenging complaints about Fox News.
I want to talk about the context of which this…arises. I’m being asked this on the FOX network…What Wallace asked just doesn't seem to be enough of a "hit job" to justify attacking the interviewer like that. For people who hate Fox News already, it might make sense, but he's on Fox News, being seen by the regular Fox News viewers. How is it a good strategy to rant on the assumption everyone knows Fox News is unfair? He gets irked at Chris Wallace in a personal way: "And you’ve got that little smirk on your face and you think you’re so clever." I hadn't been planning to think about Richard Nixon, but I got a Nixon vibe from this. He lets it show that he thinks about how his enemies are persecuting him.
So you did FOX’s bidding on this show. You did you nice little conservative hit job on me.
Clinton leans way forward into Wallace's space. He even jabs him in the knee a few times with his finger. Meanwhile, he seems unaware of his own ungainly body. He's gotten quite fat, and his suits -- which he keeps buttoned -- don't fit him properly anymore. He's sitting with his feet apart and planted on the floor, and the pantlegs get hiked way up so that a wide band of white leg shows above each sock.
In the second half of the interview, he gets back to his original relaxed, jovial style. Pants still hiked up though. Wallace ends the interview, saying "Mr. President, thank you for one of the more unusual interviews." They shake hands, and Clinton, says "Thanks." There's just a glimmer of an expression on his face that seems to say uh-oh, I might have exposed myself out there.
पोस्ट्स
७२ टिप्पण्या:
It must be stated that every time Chris Wallace tried to ask about the CGI, Clinton kept going back to the war on terror, and launching fresh attacks on Fox News and the right.
So the whole attack by the left on Wallace and Fox News because "they went back on their pledge to talk about the CGI for half the interview" is just typical liberal bullshit.
It is incredibly surprising that Clinton did this. He was the ultimate politician; I always felt when he was in office *everything* he did was politically calculated to the hilt. He is an opportunist who hid his more liberal "true" self in order to gain power. I think the interview shows that he doesn't want to be tarred with what are largely viewed as Bush's failures. For whatever reason, the question struck a nerve; it's also hard to know what conversation he and Wallace had before they sat down. Has anyone asked Bush the same question?
In a way this reminds me of his apology to the country for lying about Lewinsky. Although he was generally contrite in the first part of that speech, he did present an air of annoyance. Then, instead of leaving it at that and saying he'd get back to work, he used the second half to complain about Ken Starr and the GOP, leaving the appearance of simultaneously taking responsibility on himself and shifting it to someone else.
As most posters in yesterday's thread said, I am certainly willing to forgive Clinton for not taking terrorism more seriously in the 1990's. Nobody took them seriously enough, if there is a blame it should be shared. There is no need for him to go into attack mode.
I don't have cable and haven't seen the whole things, but a couple of things strike me as strange.
1. Clinton comes on Fox and then complains they are biased?
2. He doesn't expect questions about OBL, GWOT and The Path to 9/11?
3. Clinton is the most contrived and theatrical of presidents. When he does a sista soldjah moment, I expect it was planned. But this one seemed poorly executed
4. It reminds everybody on Monicia and his bold faced lies to the American people. "I did not have sex with that woman, Ms Lewinsky!!!"
A better tactic would have been for Clinton to have sat there, like a deer in headlights, saying nothing for 10 minutes. Worked for Bush.
"A better tactic would have been for Clinton to have sat there, like a deer in headlights, saying nothing for 10 minutes. Worked for Bush."
Clinton's deer in headlights look came with Monica's pro-bono services off of the Oval Office. His mistake was leaving evidence behind.
Can anyone say, "the buck stops here?"
downtownlad, how many people were killed in a terrorist attack just before Clinton had to make that huge ex-Presidential response to Chris Wallace? Tu quoque is really, really unattractive as an attempt at argument, don't you think?
I've said before that in 1992 I perceived Clinton as a coward in most all (probably all) the important areas. He also appears to embody most of the worst of (my) Boomer Generation proclivities. For instance, love me for who I am not what I do.
The worst part is that we'll undoubtedly have to put up with similar stuff from Clinton for the next 30 years or so and we may even (shudder) begin to long for the good old days when Jimmy Clinton was the worst example of an ex-Pres.
It is entirely possible for someone like Hoover to be a "great humanitarian" but have no concept of people as individuals. It is also entirely possible for someone to lift themselves up from impoverished circumstances and with time become unsympathetic with people who are now experiencing what they overcame.
FDR, who lacked some of Hoover's bonafides, was a great "Message: I care" type of leader, which the country clearly wanted to replace the cold, distant, "my plan will work" type of technocrat that Hoover was.
Taking this back to Clinton, what people love about him is his fulsome humanity. He might not be the most flawed president we've ever had, but he was the most publicly flawed. And many people loved him for it. Even his foes were constantly disarmed by it.
What's interesting about this Fox interview is the divided reaction to it. The left-wing blogs thought he hit a home run. The fat Clinton with ill-fitting clothes losing his temper and lecturing a reporter for being unfair and partisan -- that's the guy they fell in love with, and today they've fallen in love all over again.
The right obviously sees this more critically, as Clinton being "unpresidential," a position I can completely understand and endorse. His demonizing of Fox News comes off as childish, since Wallace's question seems completely fair.
But what the right doesn't get (and I'm not talking about you, Ann) is that Clinton's portrayal of himself as a victim almost always works for him. His supporters always rally to his side, and they bring many fence-sitters with them.
This has no relevance whatsoever to Hilary. She has none of these qualities. She is much more like Hoover -- big ideas, but unable to connect with people. If anything, Clinton's latest aria shows why Hilary is deficient as a presidential candidate.
Barley said: "Was it really necessary to knock President Clinton's appearance?"
The discussion of his appearance is part of the analysis of his behavior and his emotional state. Not realizing his pants were hiked up showing bare leg was quite telling, in my opinion. The fact that he's grown fat also means something. I'm certainly not going to let the prudes and scolds stop me from talking about how things look. I spent all last week standing my ground on exactly that and I'm sure as hell not going to back down now. How people dress, the expressions on their face, the stance they adopt when they are in a particular situation -- all these things have meaning, and I intend to write about it and strongly defend my decision to write about it.
I was under the impression that Chris Wallace isn't even a conservative... unless being on Fox makes one a conservative by definition.
Barley scolded Ann by saying:
"Was it really necessary to knock President Clinton's appearance? I actually thought that he looked quite good considering the fact that he has had major heart surgery."
Barley- if you visit here enough, you will learn that Ann notices "stuff" and her inquisitiveness about stuff makes her blog interesting.
I wish our politicians were more like Ann.
Ann wondered about whether it was good strategy to complain about Fox being unfair on Fox. You'd think regular Fox viewers wouldn't think Fox is, as a rule, unfair. Yet, many of the viewers of today's program may have been drawn by the pre-broadcast publicity. [I generally don't watch Fox News Sunday. (I find my Sunday's much more pleasant if I take the day off politics.) I suspect that many watching were not part of Fox' regular audience. It will be interesting to see the ratings the show gets.] Still, even if today's broadcast claimed a lot of new viewers, I still suspect this was bad strategy on Clinton's part. He simply came off as angry and that's seldom attractive.
I think most people are willing to give everyone before 9/11 a pass. No one took terrorism seriously enough. The problem with Clinton's rage about The Path to 9/11 and his behavior on Fox News Sunday is that it reminds voters of how our world changed on that morning: After 9/11 we had to connect the dots. We had to take the threat seriously. Etc. Clinton's actions highlight the fact that Democrats want to go back to a 9/10 mindset: We have to get a judge's permission to gather data. Dots have to be connected to a beyond-reasonable-doubt level before taking action. Terrorism is a law enforcement problem. Etc. I doubt that reminding voters of what happened on 9/11 -- and our failure to prevent it by not connecting the dots -- will serve to sell the public that now is the time to return to a pre-9/11 world view.
Jorg - Bush is just as much a coward as Clinton.
They are both disgusting human beings. Clinton abused his position to have sex. And Bush was a lowly drunk and now he's part of the Christian cult.
We deserve better.
Wasn't it strange how so many of the left-wing blogs, upon hearing about Clinton's tirade, assumed Fox wouldn't run it, because Clinton "stood up" to Fox News? Their paranoia on this was quite sincere and genuinely saddening.
how it should've gone:
Wallace: "I understand that hindsight is 20 20 ... but the question so many of our viewers ask is, 'Why do i solely blame the guy from the other side of the aisle? Is it because that in my gut, it just feels right for clinton to be 100% wrong and my guy to be 100% right?'"
Clinton: Wow, this is refreshing Chris. I mean, I've been attacked non-stop since that whole Disney propaganda film. i did what i could during my presidency, but before 9/11 there wasn't much political will in either party. During Kosovo, Tom Delay sounded like Howard Dean did in the run-up to Iraq. In any case, I'm glad Fox News didn't take this chance to encourage yet another "It's clinton's fault!" routines -- which seem to be so popular on the blogs.
Wallace: You're welcome. I keep just enough distance from my audience to appear respectable -- although the commenters on the blog are going to eat this stuff up! Some may even suggest it was "libs and passivists" who missed the opportunity to get Osama.
There's still one thing I don't get, Mr. Clinton -- why are your pants hiked up and and your legs so pasty white? I mean, we had a civil discussion and your appearance should ... reflect that?
thanks fenrisulven for keeping my caricature of "why didn't clinton/bush stop 9/11?!!" going.
"No goal, no objective, not until we have those things and a compelling case is made, then I say, back out of it, because innocent people are going to die for nothing. That's why I'm against it."
~ Sean Hannity, Fox News, 4/5/99, about Kosovo.
One side isn't right and the other wrong, we were all unprepared. Please stop the "why didn't he do more" arguments and start asking how we can do more.
mr. zrimsek-
yeah i guess my original question didn't make much sense ... haha
a very clumsy way to prove a point
Did Clinton help anyone with this performance?
Probably not.
He did not help himself, because he acted petulant, and was gratuitously nasty to Chris Wallace, who nonetheless, tried valiantly to maintain a respectful demeanor. His anger seemed feigned and stagey to me.
He did not help his wife if gerry's reaction is typical.
He did not help the democrats, because he dredges up fine points that are irrelevant to the situations in which they now find themselves.
This performance was all about him. I wonder if that is how history will view his Presidency.
if elected, the left would do the same thing we're doing now -- only with competence and accountability (i think the same if mccain gets elected too). i am excited to move on to leadership that does not award medals to those who fail us. i'm looking forward to a new pres, right or left, in '08.
fenrisulven -- people have tried to answer the "why didn't x do more?" question in many autobiographies, articles, military analysts' books and the 9/11 report.
yeah it's not wrong to ask, but there seems to be a clinton-is-the-problem thing going on lately, and it's sort of a cop-out. it was clear in your first post, when you said the left avoids the "why didn't YOU do more" question, when it really doesn't.
i agree with the first paragraph of your latter comment, although i must have missed that jessica-breast adventure.
Bush was a lowly drunk and now he's part of the Christian cult.
Er... Clinton is a Christian, too.
Also, calling the largest religion in the history of humanity "a cult" makes you look silly and childish. You might want to do something about that.
the left would do the same thing we're doing now -- only with competence and accountability
So the left would also engage in warrantless wiretapping, imprisonment of foreigners and US citizens without trial, and the use of aggressive, quasi-torturous interrogation techniques... but competently?
Good to know.
Ohhhh CLinton got mad!!
Look every body! Clinton's upset!
No matter how mad you think Clinton got, it pales in comparison to Bush's temper and angry disposition.
Did ya see the Matt Lauer interview with Dear Leader Bush?
Clinton may have gotten upset (and rightfully so) but no where near as upset or angry as Bush gets a reporters who ask tough questions like "why do you insist on connecting Iraq to 9/11 Mr. President?"
Did ya see Dear Leader go off on David Gregory?
That's our Bush, no one gets as mad as he does.
Polishifter:
Why is Clinton less of a Dear Leader to his claque than Bush is to his?
Sounds to me that Clinton is your Dear Leader. He like Bush will not be running again. Without a Dear Leader for anyone, what then?
(* backing away from polishifter's comments)
if the dem's competence cannot overcome the religious fanatics (the terrorists, not the methodists haha), then we slowly back our selves out of bush's mess. there's no other choice.
i like the left's emphasis on personal freedom (re revenant's "wiretapping, fair trial?" comment). it's morally right and pries away conservatives scared of bush's big gov.
despite that, i'm a huge proponent of torture (and a huge fan of 24!) it really helps our image abroad, and gets us useful, unbiased information.
seven machos: yep, the democrats (and repub moderates) would fix bush's mess better. they wouldn't do the "same things that Bush has done," because they wouldn't have gone into iraq.
the problem in '04 was that kerry wasn't forceful and articulate enough, and... the competency platform usually isn't too politically powerful.
however, i think '08 will be the exception. hopefully. if not, than mccain or virtually anyone else could do things better.
Clinton was terrific and he did what most of the spineless democrats should do if, and that's a big if, they ever appear on Fox.
I don't think any liberals or democrats should even appear on the network because it is such an obviously biased network it will never benefit any of them.
The thing with Fox is they generally get the wimpiest looking "liberals" on all of their programs (Allen Colmes) while the conversatives tend to be good looking and hold court. Also, some of the "professional" democrat consultants that go on any of their programs are a complete joke, again total wimps who tend to generally agree with the republicans.
I don't think there is anything wrong with have a network like this. It serves a purpose.
But if any of you actually think of Fox as fair and balanced you are unbalanced.
I thought it was interesting the segue into the interview was a quote from Falwell saying that a vote for Hillary Clinton would be a vote for Lucifer-and this was actually during a prayer breakfast that Falwell was having-nice.
Chris Wallace has never asked anyone in the Bush admin. why they didn't get Bin Laden before 9/11. Chris Wallace, also on many occasions, has gone off on Richard Clarke, who has served Reagan, Bush Sr., Clinton and Dubya.
During this interview Clinton proved while he was elected twice. He is smart as a whip, can speak at the same level as the "common man" without coming off as an idiot and knows public policy.
It would be nice to have someone like that in the oval office now but unfortunately we are left with Gomer Pyle for the next two years.
I also voted for Bush Sr. and Reagan so please don't accuse me of being some idealogue.
Let's face it Bush is an embarassment and is not actually making any decisions. He is the PR person.
Also, I haven't been on this site recently because of the recent boob thing which I found a complete turnoff.
But come on. What is up with going off on Clinton and his weight?
He had open heart surgery for recently.
Do you feel superior now that you belittled him for what you perceive as his getting fatter.
Sad commentary, really.
I still think President Clinton planned what he did to appeal to people like Boston70 and to help Hillary reinforce her bona fides with the extreme left. Bill's comments let Hillary plausibly deny she's anti-war while at the same time signalling (via her surrogate, Bill) that she's still part of the LLL.
Now BOTH Clintons remind somebody of Nixon. Isn't it ironic!
drj
I am not apart of the extreme left, sorry to dissapoint you.
If I was I would let you know.
I have voted for both republicans and democrats during my time and vote for the actual person not the party.
I also travel quite a bit in my job (far east and Europe) and is fascinating to see what has happened to the image of America throughout the rest of the world.
I realize this doesn't matter to any of you on here, but unfortunately, as we can see, we do need some allies in the world.
I think part of the reason many of the radical right wing, drj included, hate Clinton is because he is thought of a rock star throughout the rest of the world.
When Bush retires he will be a rock star at Focus on the Family, James Dobson rallies, Bob Jones University, Liberty University and Jesus Camps.
Speaking of Jesus Camp, you should all go see it. It has been released on the coasts already which means it will hit Jesusland by Christmas. It is a fascinating movie.
One last question how come all of the blue states have the cool cities and the red states have all the lame cities? Will take NYC, Seattle, Boston, Chicago, San Francisco, Madison (yes Madison), LA, Portland and Burlington.
You can keep Tulsa, Topeka, Nashville, Pensacola, Colombia, Dallas, Jackson, Birmingham and Ft. Wayne, Akron and the entire state of South Dakota.
Boston70: I've addressed that issue upthread, so I don't appreciate your not taking account of what I've already said on the subject. You seem like someone who drops by to spout off, not to participate in a conversation. Here's what I wrote:'
Ann Althouse said...Barley said: "Was it really necessary to knock President Clinton's appearance?"
The discussion of his appearance is part of the analysis of his behavior and his emotional state. Not realizing his pants were hiked up showing bare leg was quite telling, in my opinion. The fact that he's grown fat also means something. I'm certainly not going to let the prudes and scolds stop me from talking about how things look. I spent all last week standing my ground on exactly that and I'm sure as hell not going to back down now. How people dress, the expressions on their face, the stance they adopt when they are in a particular situation -- all these things have meaning, and I intend to write about it and strongly defend my decision to write about it.
Address that specifically or you are to be viewed as a rude intruder and you can just go back and bitch about me wherever people are having a good old time lying about me and making crap up.
Chris Wallace has never asked anyone in the Bush admin. why they didn't get Bin Laden before 9/11.
Could you link to the Chris Wallace interviews that you're comparing Clinton's to?
And I think Shanna has Bubba's number.
I have to post once more just to record the new verification word.
Clinton on Fox News Sunday --
wuddxcyo!
I agree with Shanna Boston -- ripping on red cities and spouting "Jesusland" -- but you're not an idealogue.
And I have to finally agree with Libs and the Clintons -- MoveOn -- if only they could get over themselves.
While he was President I sometimes would see him and think he was a small man in a big job.
Watching him trying to defend his record that vigorously and to that extent with so much anger left me with that same sense.
Am I surprised to see a drug burnout behave this way? No.
I love it when folks like Boston 70 feel compelled to add, "I also travel quite a bit in my job (far east and Europe) and is fascinating to see what has happened to the image of America throughout the rest of the world." Ahh yes the Far East where Bush's speech in Kyoto last year is being read throughout China and has given millions hope that the next time they take a chance for liberty they'll be supported. Where dissidents in North Korea are once again believing that the United States will stand with them instead of sending in Carter and Albright to appease the regime that has the caused the death of millions of their neighbors and family. Where the elections next year in South Korea will likely end the long rule of a far left government that is worse than Chamberlain, after all Chamberlain stopped appeasing as those killed by Hitler's regime climbed into the millions, whereas South Korea has done just the opposite: giving more money as the genocide increased, famously 500 million for a handshake from the Dear Leader- a photo-op at the airport a la Albright. The Far East where during the Clinton years the Ambassador to Japan, Mr. Mondale, on the record said he wasn't sure if America would defend just a few islands of Japanese territory if China attacked them, this causing the whole structure of the U.S.-Japan strategic alliance to be called into question and emboldened China as it was sent mixed messages. (Bush, of course, fixed this, as well as strengthening that alliance and linking it to Taiwan.) On a side note that is why Mondale retired from his post so abruptly. I could go on. But you're right Boston 70. America's image has changed around the world. For the better. I'm sure it is hard to understand this when travelling abroad. I mean you stay at hotels with people who all went to the same universities and were taught by professors all reading off the same page, you and all your foreign contacts read the same books translated into each others languages, get the news from the same pyramid of information (NYT, Guardian, etc..). "Bush has squandered the world's love and affection, Bush has driven away America's allies like France, Russia and China, the whole world hates America because of Bush and I hate Bush because of this, and I know, I really, really know, because I travel and meet real live foreigners" refrain is such a crock. Short version: my head is stuck in the same sand wherever I go and wherever I am. Can't see the wheat from the chaff. Though I do love lauding my ignorance over the heads of those I consider ignorant.
Sincerely,
A foreigner from the Far East (I can have hundreds of folks, friends of mine, send similar thoughts to you from Eastern Europe, Africa, the Middle East etc.. I travel too.)
Downtownlad spews:saying nothing for 10 minutes. Worked for Bush, and then wanks:Bush was a lowly drunk and now he's part of the Christian cult.
Downtownlad is quite the fixture at house Althouse.
Too bad, so sad Downtownlad. We have those pesky little annoying things like historical facts such as Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq and the security of Israel.
It must be hard to swallow, what with all that liberal bile lurching up in your esophagus all the time.
"One last question how come all of the blue states have the cool cities and the red states have all the lame cities?"
Plus, it's soo not true. Vegas is a cool city. Nevada went red.
And what would Spring Break be if not for red state cities?
The list can get pretty big really.
Indeed besides San Fran, Chicago, and New York what cool cities do blue states have?
It's the sort of comment that sounds biting and insulting on the surface but a moment of thought makes it rather silly really.
Nicky -
Was having dinner with my California colleagues, one of whom had been traveling in Europe and said gravely that 'the Germans' (this turned out to be based on a dinner with his wife's relatives) were 'quite concerned about Bush.'
I said, "That's rich. The people who brought us lampshades made from human skin are concerned about George Bush helping 8 million Iraqis get their fingers turned purple."
Another of my colleagues said, "Lampshades made from human skin? Don't be gross."
So there we have it. You can base not just a foreign policy, but an entire world view, on not being gross.
Simon,
Well done! And well related here (briefly too, a good lesson for me to learn). I'm always surprised at how those who are so quick to point out the "anti-Americanism" that Bush has engendered are so dense as to the anti-Americanism their side has created and continues to create. Someone like Kerry is loved by the communist party in Vietnam and its supporters but the hatred of him by Vietnamese in America and those in Vietnam who are still waiting for liberty is practically immeasurable. Is any President more hated in North Korea than Clinton? No. But those in the gulags get little air time on CNN. Some sophisticate takes a walk in Tokyo and sees three hundred of the usual suspects protesting HitlerMcChimpBush and voila--their reality based worldview is affirmed and one more story is added to the dinner table repertoire. Too bad they aren't able to understand the thoughts (alas, often subtly gray and not the stuff for polls) of the tens of thousands of folks walking past the protestors. I myself respect America, but I'm also very anti-American. When America isn't getting condemned by the Chavezs and the Mullahs of this world, when American leaders value more the applause at Davos than the cries for help from dissidents, when allies is a watered down word that has no relationship to responsibilites, when words are more important than deeds, then I and many of my friends, indeed much of the world that Boston 70 can't see through the wall of noise his beautiful Blue State cities creates, sincerely hates America. But this anti-Americanism, which is by far more important than the other kind, passes by unseen and unknown--doesn't fit the meme.
Pretty much everything has already been said, but I found it interesting that Clinton was going off on the "right-wing neocons" who didn't want to go after bin Laden prior to 9/11.
What Clinton doesn't get is that there WERE NO NEOCONS prior to 9/11, because 9/11 CREATED the neocons! I know, because I'm one myself. My politics prior to 9/11 were significantly different. I didn't much care for what Clinton did that brought discredit upon the Presidency, but I wasn't one of the "right-wingers" who was obsessed with him. I don't fit the left's caricature of neocons, since I'm not a Bible-thumper or gay-basher. I'm pretty much a libertarian, live-and-let-live kind of person, but if you attack my country, I'm a Jacksonian hawk, which is why I voted for Bush the second time but not the first.
And it's why I won't be voting for ANY Democrats unless and until their party comes to its senses, which I don't expect to happen anytime soon.
You were totally wrong about your impression of this interview.
At least the fatness portion. I thought he looked good.
Chris said... yeah it's not wrong to ask, but there seems to be a clinton-is-the-problem thing going on lately, and it's sort of a cop-out. it was clear in your first post, when you said the left avoids the "why didn't YOU do more" question, when it really doesn't.
Well, no. The left and the media have been in a Bush-is-the-problem mode for years, so this is just the beginning of restoring balance.
The point is, as has been said, that everyone made mistakes. However, Clinton did have 6+ years to get OBL. Bush only had 8 months.
If Clinton had gotten OBL and avoided 9/11, he would not have gotten a tremendous amount of credit. Prevention is dull and undramatic. For one thing there's no way to absolutely prove dire consequences would have happened if actions x,y,z had not been taken. But that's the way things work.
Haven't seen the interview, so can't comment on it specifically, but...
I think of Clinton as a very crafty politician, especially in his use of apparently 'emotional' ('unguarded', 'authentic') public acting. It's possible this is a misstep, or a revealing moment of defensiveness/touchiness, or genuine outraged reaction, but... I think it's plausibly much more strategic, planned, reasoned than that. Consider that this occurs just on the heels of 2 other recent Clinton moments: the 9/11 movie brouhaha (where he rather implausibly accused ABC/Disney & scriptwriters of being part of the 'vast right wing conspiracy'), and his meeting with the liberal bloggers (and the somewhat hysterical aftereffects manifest in the reaction to Ann's passing observations).
What's struck me most, in the context of these recent events, is just how extremely *protective* of Clinton liberals (e.g. blogs & blog commenters) have become. This isn't surprising, and it's not a negative thing per se: cf. the protectiveness of Bush on the right, especially when he's being assailed (unfairly & dishonestly, in their view) by the media. The comparison is illuminating, of course, because Bush does very little public self-defending against his harshest critics (and never complains of being 'victimized' by the media)-- though of course commenters on the right do that for him. Clinton, with these recent actions, is (I think) trying to tap into a similar dynamic-- e.g. trying to tap into the (surprising-- and surprisingly mainstream) surge of protectiveness & feeling for him during the impeachment saga. (And lest we forget, that was the origin of moveon.org, wasn't it.)
He accomplishes several things-- and remember, this is all in the context of Hilary's political problems. Of course he taps into the deep reserves of liberal Bush-hate-- feelings (IMO largely delusional) of victimization, paranoia, injustice, fear & loathing of the 'vast right wing conspiracy'. A lot of these feelings are actually grounded in the impeachment days (kindling for the later intensity of Bush-hate), but those feelings had become disconnected from the Clintons: because of Hilary's position on the war ("Bush's war"), she lost the sympathy & loyalty of the left, the grassroots, the base. The surest way to rally such a thing: to tap into their feelings of being unfairly victimized by the 'vast right wing conspiracy' (Fox Network is a perfect stand-in for that). Only Bill, not Hilary, can do this: he can do this for her. He has rallied the left & liberals back to feeling protective of & loyal to the Clintons.
(For this base, spotlight on 9/11, Dem weakness on nat. security, etc., is irrelevant.) By attacking FOX, ABC, etc., by playing up-- implausibly, ridiculously-- the right-wingness of the media, he justifies liberal delusions & borrows from the right's playbook, blunts the force of the right's critique of MSM ideological bias, discredits criticism by discrediting the source of criticism (cf. the attacks on the reputation of 'those women')-- e.g. smearing them for 'smearing' him (classic projection).
So Clinton shores up the left for Hilary. But does this hurt him/her with the mainstream/center right (or the average Fox watcher)-- especially on national security issues? Well: he is trying to offer a 'defense' of sorts (and demonstrating 'passion' on the issue-- even if it's self-serving...)... but even if the spotlight is unflattering, Hilary can herself, independently, demonstrate her nat. security bona fides (e.g. her position on an 'unpopular' war). They can triangulate between them. As Clinton knows, you can fudge on substance as long as you can harness emotion-- disappoint the left, as long you can rally their loyalty (e.g. by scapegoating an enemy: the evil right-wingers, in this instance, paradigmatically, FOX). And the best way to rally the mainstream (apart from & despite substance) is to be blessed by the excesses of your enemies. Clinton learned that lesson (I think he was probably as surprised as anyone that he was able to maintain such wide support throughout the Jones/Lewinsky/impeachment saga), he can see it play out with Bush... maybe he thinks reminding people of his 'victimization' by the 'vast right wing conspiracy' can help with the mainstream too-- but (if so) I think here he's badly miscalculating. In serious times, it's... unserious, self-centered, & a non sequitur. The country has changed, the issues have changed, the left & the right (& the views of the center) have changed. Certainly, it's no longer the right manifesting rabid excess... and I don't think you can fool most people into thinking otherwise.
But anyway, I do think it's likely that his latest public acts are a kind of strategic gamble, specifically directed at the left (rallying it for Hilary, who can then do what she needs to do to convince the center)-- (and the left is eating it up aren't they, he's playing them like a piano)--- more likely than that this last outburst was an 'accident' (esp. when the questioning was *so* to be expected-- he himself practically *asked* for it, in making such a big deal of the 9/11 movie).
Sorry for the long ramble!
Truly: I'm shocked no one's claimed credit for spotting the allusion.
timh is a driveby jerk who has no standing to criticize Ann or anyone else who shares her views.
What a coward.
As a moderate traditionalist and an atheist, I wish posters would stop making allusions to "those right wing commenters". I read and watch and then try to make up my own mind.
I personally thought Clinton was rude, came prepared to do exactly what he did. He is what he is.
Yeah, Kirk.
DUHHHHHH.
But is that the way the "historians" will see it?
I think so, but with all the help from the left (witness the comments here), who knows.
I thought one of the more interesting things was to hear how Clinton's speech seemed a bit slurred during his tirade. Its a bit unusual to hear an ex-President "go off" on someone, but his diction seemed to slip during it.
Also, that finger pointing stuff smacked of Monica "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" which suggested he might do that when he lies.
We may never know what Bill Clinton hoped to accomplish in this interview (defend his Presidency, express righteous indignation, pacify the liberal base?) but he did an excellent job reminding 9/11 voters that Democrats can't be trusted on national security issues.
Bush was a lowly drunk and now he's part of the Christian cult.
Every President the USA has ever had has been a Christian.
Every. Single. One.
So why is it that the present President's Christianity is something to be feared, but Jimmy Carter's wasn't? What makes Bush's Christianity any different from FDR's?
Can anyone name even a single policy that has come out of the White House since 2000 that can in any way be construed as establishing a theocracy in the USA?
Why is it that every President ends all major speeches with the words "God Bless America"... but when Bush does the same thing as all of his predecessors it is somehow something sinister?
It is not credible that a sophisticated pol like Bill would enter an interview like this unprepared. He knew what would be asked and had prepared an attitude and and answer. I would be surprised if he hadn't rehearsed his performance. All major pols with a lick of sense anticipate the questions and prepare their answers in prep sessions with their advisors and media people. There is nothing spontaneous about it. It was an opportunity to get his message across and he took it. He would have been a fool had he not.
NB: The latest dispatch from the DNC (cited in The Corner, sorry don't know how to do the HTML stuff) supports my suspicions of a savvy political rationale behind Clinton's recent outburst(s)-- note especially the emphasis on the "right-wing propaganda machine" (oh the irony: "twist[ing] history" and "recast[ing] the truth"-- quite a thowback for Clintonian rhetoric, back to the 90's "vast right-wing conspiracy"). A perfect marriage... well, a Clintonian attempt at a perfect marriage... between liberal loathing of the "right-wing propaganda machine" (Clinton as the (re)new(ed) victim, like in the good old impeachment days-- when this pose was actually, if arguably, more justified-- custom-made to rally the liberal troops) and the necessary gesture to political (centrist) concerns about national security/war on terror. Also: by recasting himself (once again) as outraged victim/hero, against the evil right-wing conspiracy, he's providing the left, at least symbolically, with something they've lacked (psychologically *and* politically) for quite a long time: something/someone to *defend* (Clinton(s)) rather than merely something/someone to *attack* (Bush). That is not a small thing (if it works-- I'm skeptical: Bush is in the eye of the storm; Clinton is history; making it "all about him" again just seems self-centered, vain, distracting, superficial). In a way-- note the rhetoric-- he's recasting himself as a kind of Bush-like figure (re, heh, the hostle 'right-wing' MSM)!!! (He's been paying attention to what's worked for the Republicans.) If transferrable to Hilary (I'm skeptical of the attempt), quite the advantage over other (merely negative, critical, anti-Bush) Democratic contenders. Here's the DNC message:
"In an interview with Fox News televised this morning, President Bill Clinton fought back against the right-wing misinformation and smear campaign and stood up for the truth. President Clinton set the facts straight on his administration's record fighting the war on terror. He also stood up against the Fox News' right-wing bullying and propaganda machine, pointing out the lack of tough questions being posed to the current administration. Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean issued the following statement thanking President Clinton for standing up to right-wing propaganda and the need for all Democrats to stand up and tell the truth:
"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. Washington 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. President Clinton stood up to the misleading tactics of the right-wing propaganda machine. 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. As President Clinton said, Democrats stand for policies that are both tough and smart and we remain committed to winning the war on terror."
Yashu,
The part that caught my eye/ear was Clinton's insistence that he has been victimized by right-wingers. It was the reincarnation of Hillary's "vast right-wing conspiracy" defense of Bill during the Monica Affair. I think they have reversed roles: Bill plays the aggrieved party, leaving Hillary to rise above it all and act in a statesmanlike (e.g., Presidential) manner.
Interestingly, Chris Wallace did ask SecDef Don Rumsfeld why he hadn't done more pre 9-11 to capture or kill OBL.
To all who don't know this fact, including former President Clinton, may I suggest purchasing a subscription to Google?
"Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean issued the following statement thanking President Clinton for standing up to right-wing propaganda and the need for all Democrats to stand up and tell the truth:
"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. Washington 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. President Clinton stood up to the misleading tactics of the right-wing propaganda machine. 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. As President Clinton said, Democrats stand for policies that are both tough and smart and we remain committed to winning the war on terror."
Really? What policies?
Anyone?
Anyone?
It will be a great day for America when the Democrats are more concerned about defending the nation and winning its wars than in winning elections. Then they might actually win elections. But not until then.
And why does Dean have a problem with killing, as in " bring us closer to killing Osama bin Laden..."?
Every President the USA has ever had has been a Christian. Every. Single. One.
Well, Taft certainly wasn't -- he was a Unitarian who publically denied the divinity of Christ. Several other presidents (Fillmore and JQ Adams) were also Unitarians, and a number of others were Deists (Lincoln, Jefferson, and Washington). The latter two did belong to churches, but that seems to have been a matter of political and social convenience -- Washington didn't take communion, and the pastor of his church later described Washington as a Deist, not a Christian.
One last question how come all of the blue states have the cool cities and the red states have all the lame cities?
Cool cities in red states: Miami, New Orleans, and Las Vegas
Lame cities in blue states: Los Angeles, Detroit, Philadelphia, Baltimore, and New Jersey. Ok, the last one's not a city, but I'm counting it anyway because the northern half of it is a sleazy suburb of New York.
Gregor Samsa said...
Nonpartisanly speaking .....
Face it kids, Clinton owns you and will always be your daddy.
Ummmm .... is that the same Clinton whose sitting VP couldn't get elected despite how 'wonderous' the Clinton presidency claimed to be?
If Clinton didn't want people to talk about him, he wouldn't have gone on a national Sunday talk show. If he didn't want A LOT of people to talk about it, he would have done the interview in a more sedate manner.
Quit complaining - you're spoiling his fun.
Yes, Clinton should have done more to put OBL away, but so should Bush.
It is a national disgrace that five years after the attack on the WTC and the Pentagon, he has still not been brought to justice.
I only watched my tape last night. Sorry to be late to the party. I was "moving my bones". I mean making my bones.
I thought he should've learned the Preparation H lesson by now: That ointment under the eyes removes puffiness....his eyes sure looked puffy.
He's starting to look old insofar as his bulbous nose and ears are outpacing his face.
I didn't think he looked too fat.
I second the idea that his fingers are weirdly long.
I think he was spoiling for a fight and that Wallace was appropriately deferential [i.e., not baiting him].
Me, me, me, me, me, me, me, what others think of me, me, me, me, me...
He's fascinating to watch but I'm so glad he ain't POTUS.
wv: risko
Face it kids, Clinton owns you and will always be your daddy. Why not go back to attacking Fonda, McGovern, hippies, single moms, Kerry, Carter or Dukakis - so much easier - so much more fun - so much less painful.
I've seen a lot of comments like the above -- breathless rants about how this interview proves the conservative-dominating awesomeness of Bill Clinton. I guess you have to have drunk the leftie Kool-Aid to see it.
It does, however, provide further evidence for my hypothesis that Clinton went on Fox specifically in the hopes of experiencing something he could spin as "fighting back against Republican attacks." After all, a lot of lefties hated Clinton while he was President, and only came to support him once he was attacked from the right. Clinton's support, and that of his wife, for the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq re-alienated many on the left.
But anyone who "stands up" to Fox News automatically earns the Leftie Medal of Honor -- and past misdeeds, however recent, are immediately forgotten. Pretty clever, really -- swing voters probably won't care about the interview (since outside of the fever swamps of Republican and Democratic partisanship nobody actually blames either President for 9/11), and the lefties Clinton has alienated will get all moist and excited about his "owning" of conservatives.
zak 822: You say UBL is living large. It's widely reported that if he's alive, he's in some mountainous, difficult terrain between Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Don't you mean living at large?
All the Republicans can offer the American people now is that they supposedly do a better job of keeping us safe from the evildoers out there, always have and always will.
That's what the concerted push to blame Clinton for the 9/11 attacks have all been about.
Any facts to the contrary (like how Bush's administration had no top level meetings on Bin Ladin until after 9/11, that Bush ignored the PDB saying Bin Ladin was determined to attack the US, that the optional, unrelated-to-9/11 war in Iraq actually encourages more terrorism, etc... etc... etc...) shakes the foundations of that narrative, and creates panic in blogs like this one.
As for the carping about how Democrats don't say how they would do things differently... it's like the drunk driver who's steered the car into a ditch full of shit complaining that the sober passenger doesn't have a plan to levitate, instantly, back onto the highway.
Isn't it disturbing to picture Clinton...
He's gotten quite fat, and his suits -- which he keeps buttoned...
He's sitting with his feet apart and planted on the floor, and the pantlegs get hiked way up so that a wide band of white leg shows above each sock.
No, what was disturbing reading that disgusting play-by-play.
YUCK
And Clinton is the pervert?
My fave is he's damned if he didn't, damned if he did.
If that's the case, he was an idiot to go on the show in the first place.
He knew going in that half the show was going to be devoted to things other than his charity work. If he thought there was no way he could handle that, he shouldn't have showed up.
Garage Mahal: I love your screen name, but really, you're such a damned prude. The visual world is important and how people present themselves is part of their message. Wearing a too-tight suit and sitting splayed about without regard to how your clothing is situated means something -- especially if you are doing an important interview that millions will see. I am utterly committed to writing about such things. I'll bet if I humorously described how Bush walks, gestures, and grimaces, you wouldn't have a problem.
Ann,
Thanks for letting me criticize you on your blog.
More importantly of course, after all this; do you think this will give Bush a "bounce" ?
Talk about nitpicking. In a typical Fox manner, you've shifted the discourse just enough to avoid the meat of the matter, and instead resort to lame fat jokes. Ug. Keep it up, Fox might pick you up one day as a "fair and balanced" operative. Meanwhile, all of Madison, half of America, and the entire world laugh at your nonsense.
By the way, the Volokh Conspiracy has a good post refuting Clinton's claim that Republicans condemned him for going after bin Laden too strongly. In reality they praised him and urged him to do more along those lines.
Clinton for President in '08...
See, that's what I love about the Democratic Party. You're the party of New Ideas. :)
Bush, you miserable scurvy sniveling slacker-in-chief, ya did a heck of a job defending America against the 9/11 attackers, of that you can be forever proud. You never once tried to find OBL, hunt and track him or anyone else in al Qaeda or any other terrorist of any kind anywhere, you repeatedly pronounced the Cole deaths as "stale", you ordered our military to stand down from threatening to attack OBL and al Qaeda in Afghanistan, you had all the intelligence that Clinton had plus at least 50 more intelligence reports warning of the impending attacks all of which you refused to act upon. 3,000 people were alive after Clinton left office and survived 8 months into your malfeasant administration, only to die a horrible brutal death because you refused to protect and defend America. You and your tin foil capped kool-aid chugging apologists have never shown the slightest shred of evidence that you ever did even a single damned thing remotely equivalent to what Clinton did in hunting and shooting at OBL. And as any true hunter knows when tracking prey, if you shoot and miss you keep hunting, finding the prey and shooting again. Clinton kept up the hunt and tried to kill OBL at least 3 times, whereas Bush = none, zero, zilch, null, you never tried even once. Furthermore Clinton is the only president in history to have succeeded in killing members of al Qaeda before 9/11. You refused to even try. You can also blame your papa Bush as the president who allowed the 1993 terrorists onto American soil, they were already here in the USA before Clinton came into office, you can blame him for that failure, you incompetent stumbling drunken neocon-artist fool. You're a big Big man, slacker-Bush, you've spent your entire presidency trying to blame your predecessor for your own abominable failure to defend America. In fact you are not a real president, you are nothing but a presidon't, because you don't know how to do a single damned thing right. W, Hell is Hot, pack your cooler, you are going to need it.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा