Clinton vs. Fox News

I would imagine both were pissed at being led to believe they were going to talk about one thing, and getting ambushed with another. (That's their fault, mind you, for not knowing it's pretty much Fox's M.O. -- O'Reilly does it all the time.)

The questions themselves weren't the problem -- I'm quite sure that Bill Clinton can take care of himself in the presense of a TV airhead.

And when anyone in the Bush adminstration gets that level of questioning anywhere on TV news, give us a call.

 

If taking care of himself means ranting like any common partisan on the street, you got me.

 

Who owns the NY Post, anyway?


HINT: It's the same guy who owns Fox News.

 

It should also be noted that Wallace prefaced his "Why didn't you get Bin Laden" inquiry with the disclaimer, "Our viewers e-mailed wanting me to ask you." The fact that the interviewer himself didn't have the balls to take responsibility for his own questions is telling.

 

That is either a) total bullshit, or b) the result of the Freeper sheep being mobilized.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/28/washington/28kerry.html?pagewanted=2&ei=5089&en=7158a80120f0ee5a&ex=1306468800

... Mr. Kerry's defenders have received help from unlikely sources, including some who were originally aligned with the Swift boat group but later objected to its accusations against Mr. Kerry. One of them, Steve Hayes, was an early member of the group. A former sailor, he was a longtime friend and employee of William Franke, one of the group's founders, and he supported the push to have Mr. Kerry release his military files. But Mr. Hayes came to believe that the group was twisting Mr. Kerry's record.

"The mantra was just 'We want to set the record straight,' " Mr. Hayes said this month. "It became clear to me that it was morphing from an organization to set the record straight into a highly political vendetta. They knew it was not the truth." ...

 

That's what happens when your position depends on pretending that your superior has clue one.

 

I would like one single quote from a prominent Republican politician in the years between 1996-1998 in which Bill Clinton was criticized for not doing enough about Osama bin Laden in particular, or terrorism in general.
I'm quite serious. To the Internets, gang!
Clock's ticking....

 

Looming Towers is what has everyone fired up to defend their legacy. I propose that we make Looming Towers book of month and restart out book discussion - It will surpass Money Ball in terms of interest here at SJ

 

I now officially agree with Boom.

 

No. 1: If you're a Democrat or a left-leaning independent, this was a great moment for you, because you finally saw a Democrat - and not to mention the highest-profile one - counter-attacking rather than bending over, as so many have done lately. (And I say this as a self-proclaimed moderate who values centrism.)

No. 2: Clinton's anger was understandable. Sometimes we forget that politicians are people too. Let's say someone just essentially blamed you for not doing enough to stop the murder of nearly 3,000 of your countrymen. Wouldn't you be a tad unhinged?

No. 3: JackS, not to single you out, but I think you're wrong on how this will be perceived. It reminds me of when Clinton's grand jury testimony was released in late '98, and a lot of inside-Washington types thought it made him look terrible. But in fact outside the Beltway most Americans thought he looked good defending himself.