Maybe Dr. Buddy Rydell (with friend "Galaxia") could help Clinton.
Posted on 09/25/2006 4:51:39 AM PDT by AmericanInTokyo
My all-time favorite song. :-)
Do not trust this show of anger - it was done for some purpose.
You, sir, are correct.
The point of the calculated "outrage" was to reinforce the idea that FoxNews is not "fair and balanced" but is a right-wing partisan player masquerading as a news organization.
Note for example, the personal reference Clinton made to Rupert Murdoch. Also, he repeated at least a couple of times the accusation that FoxNews does not ask similar "tough questions" of the Bush administration.
But in fact, the questions asked by Chris Wallace were not really "tough" at all. Clinton has been asked much more pointed and heavily spun questions by journalists from other networks.
Furthermore, practiced liars like Clinton will often use something to distract from the substance of their answers - occasionally, in the case of Clinton, affected outrage. The story becomes not a point-by-point debate of Richard Clarke's assertions and what the Clinton administration did or did not do on terror, but the spectacle of the former president "showing anger" and the question of whether FoxNews was "caught in the act" of perpetrating a partisan hit on Clinton.
Even the "anger" at the staffers afterward for having booked the Wallace interview was calculated.
Notice that at the very top of the Rat pyramid, Clinton, Hillary, and Kennedy NEVER go on FoxNews for interviews, and people like Kerry do so extremely rarely.
The boycott of FoxNews, the spin by Clinton as to Rupert Murdoch and the accusation that FoxNews does not ask tough questions of Bush administration figures, the pretension by Clinton that what Wallace asked was unfair or even unusual, the "outrage" at the staffers for having booked him at all, was all intended to make the "story" of this interview the "bias" of FoxNews and not the substance of what the Clinton administration did to fight terror.
Had Clinton NOT gotten outraged, then FoxNews would even have gained a slight bit of credibility on the left, which vilifies FoxNews, by the act of Clinton taking them seriously.
Clinton's act may have backfired on him, but not with the Left and probably not with the Middle, who may actually give some credence to his accusations of FoxNews bias.
No need to do this. Hillary Clinton is much worse than her husband when it comes to meanness, hate, nastiness and anger, and she is so incapable of hiding it. Hillary Clinton will destroy herself very quickly if she is the democrat presidential nominee in 2008, and most probably she will not even make it in the democrat primaries.
Funny! Excellent question!
Sooooo full of himself! How far this man has fallen--and I am so glad....
I certainly wouldn't but I suppose these young skulls full of mush like the "glamour and prestige" of working for Clintoon. The WH staff were in direct contact with him alot. I'd say these low level staffers don't see him that much.
I'm afraid you might be right. What I thought was amusing was the terminology he used. It was almost as if he has been hanging out on the left wing blogs since retirement and has absorbed their crazy rants. Either that, or his staff fed him those terms, specifically so he would appeal to the those types of lefties.
I remember that. They say she is horrible.
Maybe Dr. Buddy Rydell (with friend "Galaxia") could help Clinton.
The Toon clearly has neurosyphilis. What a POS.
Not if he was the last man standing. Yech.
If you touch someone in anger like Clinton did with Wallace, I believe that is - legally - assault.
Success?! For a liberal to get sympathy from NOW is like Bin Laden getting sympathy from Al Qaeda. It is the solemn duty of the abortionists at NOW to fully support their fellow liberal abortionist so I do not consider the NOW support for Bill and Hillary Clinton during the Monica Lewinski affair as a success.
Remembering Elizabeth Bumiller saying she would glad give bill clinton a bj if it meant keeping abortion legal.
You are correct. Even to put someone in fear of bodily harm is assault.
One thing that stuck out at me is how Clinton got all in Wallace's face; isn't that ironic, considering what they did to Rick Lazio when he "invated" her space back in 2000?
I had a similar reaction, as though he'd expected the question and spent hours going over his response - a response he planned to be very presidential and one that would make each of his petty attempts at national defense seem to be much more than they were in fact. He planned to show a 14 year VRWC effort to discredit him and to highlight alleged failures in the present administration.
He'd planned all that but somehow piled too many potential responses into his bag and at some point lost cadence and began to simply dump them out, once he'd tripped, the anger was a response to finding himself floundering and turned into rage.
I suggest this because I've seen similar reactions, in MUCH lower doses, from myself and others when the presentation starts to go astray because you've got off by just a tad and feel that you've lost the handle.
It'd be interesting to review the tapes and see if there was some little stumble that set off the following tirade.
Cogent and astute. I think Fox should go full speed ahead. Issue public invitations and let Britt interview all of them!
Unfortunately, yes.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.