And while we're on the subject of the conservative gene pool, am I the only one who thinks we've got a little Separated At Birth thing going on here?
That being said, let's get a couple of other things out of the way before we get down to business:
1. It's silly to insist that Bill Clinton was "sandbagged" by Chris Wallace's off-topic question in his Fox interview over the weekend. It's silly for two reasons:
Anyone named "Clinton" who agrees to be interviewed on Fox knows precisely what they're walking into. The only surprise would be if Wallace hadn't taken a cheap shot of some kind.
And Clinton was obviously prepared for that question. He didn't fumble. He had the goods (fact-checked here). You can't sandbag someone who's completely ready for you.
2. It's silly to insist that Clinton was "angry" or "lost it" in response to Wallace's question. He was irked by the question, and he wasted no time in aggressively answering it, but that's about it. He didn't raise his voice, he kept his trademark smile, his body language stayed pretty mild, and if he didn't let Wallace cut him off until he felt he'd said his piece--well, that's how cable news interviews work. If that's Wallace's idea of an "angry" interviewee, Fox should consider replacing him with someone made of sterner stuff.
In short, while it was fun to watch Wallace receive a dressing-down, I think it was all pretty much of a non-event. With apologies to Keith Olbermann, Clinton's performance won't "save our country." It'll live a while longer on late night TV and "Wait, Wait, Don't Tell Me!" and then it'll vanish.
But just because there's no reason to be doing the triumphalist victory dance over this little dust-up, it doesn't mean there isn't still a lesson to be learned, for Mr. Clinton (and the rest of us as well).
Arianna:
Sure, Clinton said exactly what he should have said during his interview this weekend with Chris Wallace on Fox News. Sure, it felt good to hear Wallace's RNC talking points thrown back at him.
But instead of popping champagne corks, let's make use of this moment by stepping back and giving it some context. What can we learn from what happened?
More specifically, what can Bill Clinton learn? That the bipartisan love-in he's been engaged in over the last several years has resulted in jack-squat.
After providing President Bush cover for his disastrous handling of Katrina, after trying to get himself adopted by George Bush, Sr., after giving Laura Bush the keynote slot at his Global Initiative Conference, after going along with Rupert Murdoch's fundraiser for Hillary -- after all that, he got exactly nothing.
All of Bill Clinton's tireless "bipartisanship" has been of no benefit to him, of no benefit to the country, and has only benefited George Bush and the right-wing. […]
Taking the "high-road" has a nice sound to it, but Clinton shouldn't fool himself -- and insult the rest of us -- by thinking that the time he's spent traveling that elevated path has made the world a better place. Or made the gang at Fox News hate him any less than they did the day he left office.
The people who tried to hound him out of office haven't changed much, though they do now control both houses of Congress and the White House. Back then, he seemed to think fighting them was worthwhile. Now that he's got his back up again, maybe he'll rejoin the battle. Nov. 7 is only six and a half weeks away. And nothing less than oversight of the fanatics of the White House is at stake.
Pierce:
Okay, Bill, you got in Chris Wallace's stuff good and proper. […] I wish you'd known that the phrase is "make your bones," and not "move your bones," but that was a "forget it, he's rolling" moment anyway. Here's what you can do now. You can call a public press conference today and announce (loudly) that you're sending back every nickel donated to your Clinton Global Initiative by Rupert Murdoch. It's what we used to call in the old Church "conscience money." The biggest crook in the parish always bought the most elaborate decoration for the church. If we still sold indulgences, Murdoch would've tacked them onto the Wingo games.
Murdoch's a blight, and I say this as a former employee. Why not take some money from Richard Mellon Scaife and the Bradley Foundation while you're at it. There are plenty of honest billionaires around, and I'm sure that Richard Branson would be happy to make up the difference. Do this, Bill, and try to get Hillary to stop hanging around the Aussie tits 'n bum merchant as well. They hate you. They are always going to hate you. Don't take their conscience money.
No comments:
Post a Comment