Posted on 09/29/2006 1:49:19 PM PDT by rhema
Talk about deja vu all over again. There was something awfully familiar about Bill Clinton's hissy fit on Fox News last Sunday. What was it, exactly?
The finger-pointing? The raised voice? The way he kept interrupting his interviewer? The mounting furor that threatened to reach red-in-the-face levels despite the pancake makeup? The attribution of base motives to a reporter who'd dared question him about something he'd done? Or, in this case, what he hadn't done to prevent a terrorist attack on this country.
It was an operatic performance. All the Sturm und Drang was there, if not the art. But what impressed most was the practiced quality of the "spontaneous" explosion. It sounded about as impromptu as one of the Three Tenors' great arias. Maybe Pavarotti's "Fuor del Mar" from "Idomeneo."
Full of emotion but never really out of control.
The only problem was that Fox's Chris Wallace, who was supposed to play the foil, didn't. The question that set off Bill Clinton was direct, but it was civil, even sympathetic at the end: "I understand that hindsight is 20/20 . . . ."
That's when all Clinton broke loose, beginning with an assault on his interviewer's integrity. It turns out that Chris Wallace, too, despite his Clark Kent manner, is just another tool of that infamous Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy. "So you did Fox's bidding on this show," he told Chris Wallace.
"You did your nice little conservative hit job on me . . . ."
And that was just the beginning. ("Tell the truth, Chris . . . . (Your question) set me off on a tear because you didn't formulate it in an honest way and because you people ask me questions you don't ask the other side . . . .
(Excerpt) Read more at jewishworldreview.com ...
"Everyone thinks he acted badly except for a few morons at DU"
By DU standards, what Bill did was the equivalent of modest restraint.
Bill is exactly like that fellow except that that fellow, in actual practice, used that rage in lieu of damaging or hurting people in business. I never saw him fire, take retribution later of otherwise do terrible things. In fact, he was a charitable and quietly very kind without drawing attention to his deeds in that regard.
In that way, he and Bill are different.
Interesting reply.
The 'TOON is truly as "Legend In His Own Mind"!!!
Clinton is desperately trying to wrestle the Worst Ex-President Award away from Carter. So far a push.
There are no consequences for Bill's actions. His enablers have nurtured this malignant narcissism.
If you look back, they often use dog and similar metaphors to refer to Bill.
Remember the interview which quoted Hillary as saying that "Bill was a hard dog to keep on the porch."
US mid-terms: Crazy like a fox?
Bill Clinton's angry finger-wagging - genuine or tactical?
*********************************AN EXCERPT **********************************
He turned in a moment from an affable elder statesman extolling the advantages of being a former president to an attack dog blasting everything from a journalist's question to the expression on his face.
The question that set him off - one which journalist Chris Wallace was careful to say his viewers wanted him to ask - was why Mr Clinton did not do more as president to put Osama Bin Laden and al-Qaeda "out of business".
Mr Clinton dived in to respond to the question even before Mr Wallace had finished it, spraying fire at "conservative Republicans", "President Bush's neo-cons", and Fox News itself.
He admitted failing to kill Bin Laden, but, he said: "At least I tried" - the implication being that George Bush had not even done that.
Mr Wallace seemed stunned by the vehemence of the response, and the press was quickly full of comment on Mr Clinton's apparent "meltdown".
'An old tactic'
bill nor hillary have ever answered for their girlfriends!!!!
bill nor hillary have ever answered for their girlfriends!!!!
Yes he was. And being "out of control" is relative. For a drunk in a parking lot argument outside the bar on Saturday night, he was indeed in control. For an ex-President of the United States answering a valid question by a legitimate questioner, in front of the world audience, he was bonkers.
Those who insist that it really was all an act, and that Boy Clinton was really in charge, are attempting to diffuse their own anxiety at the thought that this degenerate has had the power of life and death over virtually the whole world, with his twitchy, crooked little finger resting on "the button" for eight years, and that he may have ordered the deaths of more than one "enemy" during his years of public rule.
I admit, it's enough to give a strong man a chill down the back of his neck, but that's no excuse to deny a display of criminal insanity when it unfolds in front of your very eyes.
Yes, if you compare it with the other, "sex with that woman" performance, there is quite a difference. I knew the earlier performance was staged, because he turned all affable as he left the podium. Thsi time, he seems to have been truly upset, but who knows...... It might have been a bit of both.
Well .. it's about damn time!!
He is that thin and in limited control.
My omly wish is that Wallace did not ask "When the USS Cole was bombed and people asked your Sec. Def. Wm Cohen to endorse military action he said no and you did not do anything. Why?"
You're absolutely right, it was the kind of bullying, entirely unmanly intimidation I have seen him turn on people like historian Abigail Thernstrom over the Affirmative Action issue---Clinton is a psychological type defined by the attention he got as a child by his mother, and her circle of fawning stooge-friends. Norman Mailer is another one with an unhealthy psychological relationship with his mother which continued right up to her demise. When the big bad world turns out not to be as adoring, you have to figure out ways to make it so, and all women are measured and expected to conform to the unconditional
love, (and forgiveness and denial) the mother could be counted on to offer. The funny thing is that these things actually sound pseudo-Freudian, but normal people do manage often to slip out of or past any such neurotic psychic bondage and co-dependency ----UNLIKE "gifted" con artists like Clinton. Clinton is like an exposed nerve, and his illness virtually oozes out of every pore and eventually reveals itself, bubbling up regularly through the well-crafted and usually well-stage-managed good-ole-boy-but-with-a-brain persona.Another unhappy irony is that in recent years people like Nixon and Dubya have gotten the deep-think psychoanalytic treatment in print from at least a dozen self-appointed Public Therapists, all reviewed slavishly the the MSM and the Press, but Clinton, infinitely the sickest and STUPIDEST creep even to sit in the Oval Office,has escaped the same fate, with the only book of that type being Tyrell's BOY CLINTON. And that was quite a while ago. There are scores of anti-Clinton tell-alls, but no real "psychobiography" like the one compliled by a trio of professors of Nixon .I would never have imagined an entire nation would have to abide this creep's personal psychodrama for eight long years. But, we did, and "the beat goes on."
Yes. And think of the implications regarding Hillary. There might be some wives for whom we might feel some sympathy. Such wives may well have married in haste, only to discover deep character flaws in their mates. But Hillary has proclaimed her loyalty ... to what? At best, she has been an enabler of a very weak character, supporting his and her rise to political power. At worst, she is his soul mate.
My guess is the latter. The two of them deserve each other. And we deserve much better.
Bubba wasn't 'lol-ing' much there, was he!!
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.