Clinton's Anger

Your point?

 

Remember too Clinton's feigned anger when he claimed before the whole world that he had not had sex with Ms. Lewinsky.

Also, Paul Greenberg, the editorial page editor, addresses this issue in his column in today's Arkansas Democrat-Gazette:

"The approach of midterm elections seems to bring out the Bill Clinton I remember from his Arkansas period, when he tended to enjoy a testy exchange now and then at the Governor's Mansion. On one such occasion, all I'd done was make a mild suggestion, and Gentle Reader will know what a meek, non-controversial fellow I am, a regular Chris Wallace. I'd suggested that, by appointing his own quasi-judicial, yellow-dog Democrat commission to investigate the business affairs of his Republican rival Sheffield Nelson, Governor Clinton had committed an abuse of power comparable to those of the Faubus Years. Whereupon he flew into one of his rages. Imagine that.

What I remember most about that little blow-up so long ago was how programmed his fury seemed. His taking after Chris Wallace brought it all back. There didn't seem any authentic anger, any moral force, behind his words that long-ago day, just petty irritation expressed at high volume. Ditto, his interview Sunday on Fox News. He was making the same mistake the country's current president makes from time to time - substituting bluster for reason.

But there are few things more amusing in these dolorous days than Bill Clinton demanding that the truth be told! It's hard to take him seriously when he gets all righteous on us. No character, no real choler."

- available online only to subscribers.

 

I think that Clinton was entirely in control, and his anger, while real enough at the "ambush interview" attempt, was displayed to make a point. It appears that he came on the show, expecting Wallace to pull a stunt like that, and when it happened, he was all over him.

The whole thing was theater; the only thing was that it didn't turn out the way Wallace had it planned. Clinton, I think, decided to rattle Wallace sufficiently to get him to reflexively deny what was manifestly true; he has a republican bias.

While it may upset Wallace's viewers, it serves to consolidate moderate and liberal democrat voters.

Trying to outslick Willy is usually a mistake.

 

In the interview, Chris Wallace came across as presidential and Clinton came across as petty and simply brought up memories of the worst of the Clinton years - especially his feigned anger when he lied about his activities with Ms. Lewinsky.

This mistake by Clinton will probably hurt the Democrats this November. The Democrats are rapidly replacing the Republicans as the "stupid party" when it comes to blowing electoral opportunities.

 

He came across as flustered when Clinton called him on it. And Clinton managed to get him to bluirt out a denial that everyone knew was false. Clinton set him up to look like the bad guy. And did a pretty good job of it.

Probably not. Those who like Wallace are probably the hard-core Republicans anyway. But to moderates and liberals, he looked bad.

That's been the case since the Civil War. Will Rogers once said "I don't belong to an organized political party. I'm a democrat."

 

I don’t believe for a moment that Wallace’s question came as a surprise for Bill Clinton. His “rage” was well planned and prepared. It may have been a surprise for Wallace, but not for Clinton. This is part of the overall democratic plan leading up to the elections. The republican’s want to talk about the war on terror because they will win if that is the primary issue on people’s minds in November. Clinton wants to argue about what he did 8 and 10 years ago because that takes people’s minds off what the democratic party is doing now, which of course is nothing.

 

What was the stunt?

 

When libs interview and ask such questions it is "Hard Hitting Proffessional Reporting" When a conservative asks tough questions it is a "Stunt".

 

The stunt was asking a loaded question like that.

Implicit in the question was that Clinton ought to have done more whereas Clinton's position is that he did all that he could (without killing other heads of state and royal families that would have created a stink as bad as Bush's Iraqi debacle).

If Clinton had answered the question straight he would have played into Wallace's hand by accepting unearned blame. If Clinton had hesitated or been flustered, he would have appeared weak and guilty. By counterattacking, he took control - he did say he failed, but he was able to stress how he had tried. It was the right tact to take strategy-wise.

By Clinton trying out this tactic on a Republican attack dog journalist (Pomeranian though Wallace may be), the Democrats can gage the public reaction and fine-tune future playbooks for the upcoming candidates. Clinton was not risking anything by this. It was fairly clever of the Dems to do this planning ahead for anticipated attacks instead of being blindsided as they had been before.

 

When libs interview and ask such questions it is "Hard Hitting Proffessional Reporting" When a conservative asks tough questions it is a "Stunt" or "An attack".

 

I beginning to think you missed your calling Rev?

 

How was the question loaded? You, and others, would ask "Why didn't Bush do more in the first eight months to prevent terrorism?" In fact, that has been teh subject of many attacks here, even in recent days, as people complain about how Bush ignored Clinton's reports. Of course, there is debate about what exactly the facts are. But the question is legitiimate, for both parties.

Yes, Clinton should have done more. I don't see how that is even debatable. He should have allowed information sharing between FBI and CIA. He should have treated terrorism as a military/national security matter rather than a law enforcement matter. He should have gone after Bin Laden in numerous places.

Why didn't he?

It was a very poor tact, IMO. It made him look like a elementary school kid with no self-control who complains that someone made him look bad. Clinton was very unpresidential.

And there is plenty of blame for Clinton, as for Bush. And neither is at fault for th 9/11 attacks.

First, Wallace is no attack dog journalist for the Republicans. It was a legitimate question that many people want to know. And you are right that Clinton has nothing to lose really, except his dignity. However, that kind of went out the window a long time ago. However, politically speaking, the Dems are trying desperately to do what seems almost impossible, and this was the proverbial "kitchen sink." When the Republicans go after the media, they are accused of being childish; when Clinton does it, he is called brave and noble. Something doesn't pass the smell test here.

In the end, the question could have been worded a different way to be sure, and perhaps should have been. But the question itself was very legitimate. Since Clinton did not kill Bin Laden, there was more he could have done. It is legitimate to ask why he didn't do that.

Your objection seems to be over style rather than substance.

Would you ask Bush why he didn't do more to get Bin Laden and the terrorists from Jan 01-Sept 01? Would that be a legitimate question in your mind?

 

Mike Wallace will be horrified to learn his son is a GOP attack dog.

Even if he is a pomeranian. Hilarious, Daisy.:laugh:

 

Clinton has had an anger management problem for quite awhile. It didn't just start with this interview. We also know about the Jennings interview.

And this:

In 1998 Investors Business Daily Reporter Paul Sperry got face to face with the Clinton temper:

[FONT=Palatino, Book Antiqua, Times New Roman, Georgia, Times]It was my turn to meet the celebrity president. As he approached me, I politely, if coolly, asked him when he would hold his next formal press conference. It had been several months since his last and he’s had fewer than any recent president. I admit I was trying to agitate the proper forum for questions about the FBI agents’ charges. But, to me, this was still a rather innocuous question, even within the supposedly neutral zone of a party. A relevant question, too, given the gathering. Other hard-nosed reporters surely were wondering when they’d get another crack at Clinton. [/FONT]
[FONT=Palatino, Book Antiqua, Times New Roman, Georgia, Times]Or so I thought. My simple question was rewarded with boos and hisses from the adoring Clinton groupies around me. So much for the adversarial press. [/FONT]
[FONT=Palatino, Book Antiqua, Times New Roman, Georgia, Times]But that was nothing compared with Clinton’s reaction to my inquiry about his next press confab. In an instant, his 100-watt charm shut off, replaced by a taunting belligerence. “Why?” he barked. [/FONT]
[FONT=Palatino, Book Antiqua, Times New Roman, Georgia, Times]“Because the American people have a lot of unanswered questions,” I replied, struggling to hold my bladder. At that point, he moved back down the rope, pulling up square in front of me, and demanded, “Like what?” [/FONT]
[FONT=Palatino, Book Antiqua, Times New Roman, Georgia, Times]“Well, like illegal money from China and the campaign-finance scandal …” [/FONT]
[FONT=Palatino, Book Antiqua, Times New Roman, Georgia, Times]What happened over the next 10 minutes was nothing short of a “scene.” The party-goers collapsed in around us. I watched the blood rush to Clinton’s gargantuan face as he launched into a tirade against ex-Republican National Committee Chairman Haley Barbour, the FBI, Bob Dole and Republicans in general. All the while, he tried to belittle me by making faces (to get a rise out of his fans) and intimidate me by getting in my face. [/FONT]
[FONT=Palatino, Book Antiqua, Times New Roman, Georgia, Times]And now I can see how he can do that to people. Clinton’s not just intellectually intimidating, he’s physically imposing. He’s tall (6-2) and big-boned. [/FONT]
[FONT=Palatino, Book Antiqua, Times New Roman, Georgia, Times]Luckily, I’m the same height and was able to stand toe-to-toe and eye-to-eye with him. I’ll never forget the maniacal look in his bloodshot eyes. There was a moment, fleeting, where I sensed he wanted to try to take a swipe at me. I was getting full frontal Clinton. His volcanic temper, hidden so well from the public by his handlers, erupted less than 12 inches from my eyes. [/FONT]
​

And now we’ve seen it on TV, so we know it was real. For the record Sperry asked Clinton about his lack of press conferences in September 1998. Clinton had not done a press conference since April and would not hold one until March of the following year.

Then there's this from 1992:


Quest for the Presidency: 1992. - book reviews
Washington Monthly, Dec, 1994 by Jeffrey H. Birnbaum


Take the many ways we learn in Quest that Clinton is not the upbeat, touchy-feely guy he would have us believe he is. Instead, he was--and is--prone to brooding and near-violent flashes of temper. On one flight during the primary season Clinton is described this way: "His voice, raw with overuse, was a furious whisper. His fist pounded the armrest in time with each hoarse word. In the seats nearest him, Paul Begala and George Stephanopoulos sat, looking blank and saying nothing; it was useless to argue with Clinton when he was in one of his moods; it was best to shut up and let him ventilate."

 

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20060928/D8KDJAPO0.html


Great comments by Rudy [FONT=Verdana,Sans-serif]Giuliani...no way he'll get to be President, speaking with that much common sense.

The 9/11 attack is just like going to war in Iraq....its time to quit playing the blame game. Now's the time to figure out a way to win and keep the peace in Iraq and Afghanistan.
[/FONT]

 

What Clinton knows, that no other democrat seems to know, is how to deal with the sleaze machine. Challenge every smear, get out the facts, and then beat them over the head with it loudly and frequently, until they wished they never brought up the subject.

It works. It's how he won twice. You don't win by being nice to the bottom-feeders; you win by treating them like the sludge they are.


The guys who are apologists for the way Bush dropped the ball on terrorism are furious. Of course theiy're furious. So is any con man, when someone exposes his scam.

"Clinton apparently has the public with him on the question. The Gallup Poll asked Americans whom they blame more for the fact that bin Laden hasn't been captured or killed--53 percent said Bush, 36 percent Clinton."
http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/news_theswamp/2006/09/clinton_30_octo.html

And that's what really has the republicans in jowl-quivering rage.

 

Clinton doesn't want any facts out, just his spin on things. Evidence of this: just look at how he handled the facts about his affair with Ms. Lewinsky.

I think that the Democrats on November 7 will rue the day that Clinton acted so churlishly on "Fox News Sunday".

 

So what was the smear? So far, no one has been able to come up with legitimate objection to the fact of the question. The issues complained about have been 1) who asked it (foxnews), 2) the insinuation (silly complaint).

The truth is that Clinton did not do everything he could have done. He could have done more, but didn't. It is legitimate to ask "Why?"

Galatian, would you call it smear and sleaze if Bush was asked "Why did you do more to prevent it?"

 

Wallace was trying to word his question, as to make it impossible for Clinton to answer without accepting the republican spin that "everything is Clinton's fault." Clinton obviously anticipated that smear, and made Wallace eat it.

And the polls seem to indicate that it was a popular move with Americans. They blame Bush, not Clinton for letting down our guard on terror.

For good reason. Clinton was tracking Islamic radicals, watching their financial dealings, and treating Osama as a danger. Bush dismantled those protections and his people scoffed at Bin Laden as a danger.

It's in the 9/11 findings. Americans know what happened. And they quite reasonably blame Bush for it.