My take on Clinton and FOX news...

[jackbourassa]

Okay this has been bothering me for a couple of weeks now.

I'm glad Bill Clinton defended himself against Chris Wallace and FOX news. But I see what happened a little differently than most people.

The question I have is why, when we Democrats are working and fighting so hard to keep the focus of the midterm elections on the inept Bush Administration, corrupt Republican Congress and unwinnable war in Iraq; is Bill Clinton going on this media blitz - talking about himself?

That is the real story that no one here seems to realize. Suddenly the focus is off the Republicans and their ineptness and on to Clinton. We have to waste precious time and space defending or even talking about Clinton again...and again...and again...and again. I mean, the guy hasn't been President for 6 years. But it always comes back to him and thus, all the energy and focus is shifted away from what is really important. It is shifted away from Iraq. It is shifted away from this terrible report that came out today about how Iraq is making terrorism WORSE.

This has been bothering me because I have noticed that Clinton has been doing a lot of media lately. This FOX news interview was only one. He was in Toronto for the AIDS Conference...He was on the John Stewart Show...He was on Larry King Live...He was a featured speaker at another CNN forum by Christiane Amanpour...etc. etc.

Why? Why does it always have to be about Bill Clinton? What's with this guys compulsion to be the center of attention all the time?

We need to focus on our current slate of candidates, but instead it's about Clinton...again. I've been trying to remember a time when a former US President was so active and SUCKED all the attention away from candidates in his own party.

So that's the real problem, in my opinion. Somehow I have this feeling that Rahm Emanuel is behind this media blitz Clinton is on. That putz is probably encouraging this because he thinks Clinton is more popular than he actually is. He may be popular with Democrats, but not with Republicans and Independents. He is very polarizing, and may have the effect of driving many conservatives to the polls this November. Instead of, again, making this about Republican incompetence and leaving the GOP disspirited.

But instead we are forced to defend CLINTON, when we should be KICKING Republican ass. Look at these boards as an example...how many threads about Clinton? How many threads about this new security assessment which all but DESTROYS Bush's rationale for the war? THAT'S WHAT I MEAN!

Am I alone with these feelings? Does anyone agree with me?

[ljm2002]

1. I do not see it the way you do...

...Bill Clinton is a party luminary, and then some. The question I have is, what took him so long? Other than that, his appearance with Chris Wallace was exemplary. And it is not all about him. As he corrects the record, he is also correcting misinformation that is used against the whole party.

[indepat]

3. And the big dog needs to stick it to the Repuke ape like ugly on an ape

loud and clear, every day until the election.

[calimary]

38. Agreed. I'm glad he seized the moment.

Here's my take:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2845972&mesg_id=2845972

[obnoxiousdrunk]

2. Talking about himself ... ?

Care to explain.

[jackbourassa]

7. I don't mean to be a jerk...

...that was not my intention, I assure you.

I just mean that Clinton is talking about himself, when we should be focusing elsewhere. He sucks up all the oxygen in the room and our candidates and - more importantly - message suffocates as a consequence.

Now we're talking about Clinton, when we should be talking about the Republicans.

That hurts us.

[Fovea]

48. 'He sucks up all the oxygen in the room'

But the room was full of media whores... hey that's a GOOD thing!

[AnneD]

4. I think this was a good thing...

Look at Clinton. The guy can string intelligent sentences togather and actually did what he said. He held Wallaces' feet to the fire and gave better than he got. I had no idea to the extent he tried to get OBL, but I do remember the GOP nixing his anti terrorist agenda. Makes Bush and his 'OBL is not an issue' look pathetic. Folks see Clinton and realize how good they had it. And then they think about Bush and how he's 'protecting' us. Compared to Clinton, Bush looks awfully small. And he makes the media look even smaller. I think this just puts things in sharper relief for folks.

[liberal N proud]

5. Clinton's media blitz is not as an ex-President but as a philanthropist

The blitz was all about promoting his Global Initiative. "CGI" A program to do various things in the world to help it become a better place to live instead of blowing to bits line the chimp.
Almost every other media outlet focused on that topic when he was on their show, even the Daily Show was primarily focused on the CGI program.
Why now, last week was the annual conference on CGI where clinton had those contributing to the program.

Until he was on the FOX program all was aimed at the CGI, yes the media focused on Clinton doing the work, but I would think that would have been a good thing for the Democrats.
And I think that what he did to Chris Wallace would be good fro the Dem's as well that is why they are spinning it so negatively on FOX and the other propaganda networks. They know it was good for the Dem's

[jackbourassa]

9. Can't he do it after the election?

Is that too much to ask? So that instead of talking about how great Clinton is, we can actually...well, you know, talk about how shitty the Republicans are and how great it would be to win back the Congress.

[Warpy]

6. I agree that it's inopportune

but you need to consider a couple of things: first, it's Pox News, and the timing undoubtedly originated with them. Second, they promised Clinton at least 15 minutes at the start of the interview to talk about his initiatives in Africa and elsewhere in combination with Gates.

They lied, of course. Wallace couldn't wait for the second half of the interview and sandbagged him with a 30 second statement recapitulating the lies told in the PT911 propaganda film and tacking a question onto the end.

That's why it's such a big deal now. The Pox stragegists knew sandbagging a man who would stand up to them was just what the electin needed, putting the focus back on Clinton where every total jerk in this country thinks it will belong in perpetuity.

Had Wallace saved his lies for the second half of the interview as he'd promised in the contract, I doubt the effect would be the same. That he didn't shows calculation on the part of Pox News, not Clinton.

[patricia92243]

8. HE gets MSM coverage. The others do not. Period. So, ANYTHING that he s

says that even remotely helps us is a huge plus for us.

[Zavulon]

10. Personally, I enjoyed seeing him rip into a Faux asshole.

I am not sure it was good for us, but it sure was fun.

As for Clinton's PR, he has a job to do a couple of years from now, so let's let him run with it so that he's in fighting shape at the time. My instincts pretty much run the way yours do, but I'm not as smart - politically or otherwise - as Clinton is.

[jackbourassa]

11. Don't get me wrong...

I loved watching it to. I loved the look on Wallace's face. He looked like his kitty died. But my point is that this hurts us, more than it helps us.

That was my point.

[ForFuxakes]

14. Need some clarification on this one...

How exactly does de-bunking the neo-con talking points and slapping down fox, hurt the Progressive movement? If the Dems had ANYONE as articulate as Clinton, we would not need him to stand up for us.

[Zavulon]

16. You might be right, but don't put it past Clinton to

have planned this one. What if reporters nose around because of his "tirade" and discover that he actually did do something?

My main concern was his saying that the Republicans claimed he was "too obsessed" with OBL, though. As I stated in another thread, I hever heard the word "obsessed" regarding OBL from anyone but Clinton.

Still, if the interview gets people talking, they'll come to the realization that even if Clinton was "soft" on terror, we were better off under him than we are under the retarded cowboy wannabe.

[ieoeja]

31. You never heard the word "obsessed" from anyone else?

You may be correct. Maybe they never did say the word "obsessed". I recall them saying Clinton was wrong for focusing on Islamic terrorism instead of the Yellow Peril in China. I recall them saying that Islamic terrorism was not nearly as serious a threat as Clinton made it out to be. I recall them time and again accusing Clinton and the Democrats of being "paranoid" (yes, I do remember that exact word being used) about Islamic terrorism.

But I do not recall them using the exact word "obsessed". So I guess you may be correct.

So what's your point?

Bottom line, Clinton/Gore's national security focus on the "wrong" issue of Islamic terrorism was one of THE two Republican talking points on national security during the 2000 presidential campaign (the other being the factoids about our military preparedness).

[beaconess]

36. Clinton HELPS us! That's why every Dem candidate is begging him

to come to their districts to campaign, do fundraisers, etc.

And if he weren't out there, I can just imagine the griping among Dems demanding to know, "Where's Bill Clinton?! Why isn't he appearing on television?! Why is he laying low when we're in the middle of a critical campaign?!"

[Felinity]

12. I totally disagree

The more Clinton is out there, promoting what is probably the largest organized, non-political effort to affect positive social change, the better Democrats (and human beings) look.

And the more he portrays to the public what a a brilliant, compassionate, masterfully knowledgeable President looks like, the more little B* looks like the imbecile he is.'

Our last legally elected President may suck the air out of the room for you, but for many of us he breathes life into the whole planet.


PS: Not to mention, B* cabal keeps trying to blame Clinton for their own inadequacies. Democrats need to refute this or the Repugs will have their version written into 3rd grade his toy books before you can say "My Pet Goat."

[jackbourassa]

15. How many Republicans will he motivate as well?

Just curious? Don't you think that the Republicans may be energized AGAINST the Democrats if suddenly the election becomes as much a referendum on Clinton as it is on Bush...you know, the actual President!

[Felinity]

42. NO n/t

[Tellurian]

56. Jack, Bush is a Resident.. Brilliant

Do you actually think he was elected from either elections?

[BootinUp]

13. I think the important things are 1. hypocrisy, 2. hypocrisy, 3. hypocrisy

Its all about the Republicans taking their huge portion of responsibility for our present situation or successfully deflecting it. Some will argue that Clinton should have done it sooner and that the timing is motivated by self interest. I disagree quite strongly. Clinton is piling on to tip the scales heavily in our favor at exactly the right time to take the congress. The signal to noise ratio was perfect.

[sandnsea]

17. I agree

He did the same thing in 2004, his book came out just a week before Edwards was chosen and a month before the convention. At the time I hoped he was just trying to remind the country of better times, but having seen him take the limelight or change the focus so many times, I just don't believe it's accidental anymore. He and Hillary are both opportunists. Clinton had 5 years to set the record straight, that's what he should have been doing instead of hocking his book in 2004 and playing footsie with Poppy & Babs.

[demo dutch]

18. You're kidding!!! He's defending HIS record and so he should!!

[Old and In the Way]

19. Perhaps aI'm a 1/2 full kind of glass guy, but-

I think this interview will have more positive reprucussions than we realize. That interview shows the last real President at his very best. He showed a guy who can think on his feet and is not afraid to set the record straight. He's the very image of what was good about this country in the 90s. They've brought the boogieman back on the stage and, gee, he doesn't seem so bad at all, especially when measured against the dimbulb who occupys the office now. Couple that with the Decider's comments on war crimes and comma's....I think this will increase the Democratic positives and shave another point or from Bush Republicanism popularity.

[BootinUp]

24. Good points, here some Bush humor

you may enjoy:

Greatest Moments in Presidential Speeches

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6rkb_wkfjyo&mode=related&search=

[EC]

20. Clinton has had his conferences yearly at this time of year

for his organization and that is what these interviews are supposed to be on...

[Cosmocat]

21. Are you kidding ???

What have we freakin heard a THOUSAND, if not more, times the last two years ... DUH, the Democrats have no leaders ...

Big Dog is pushing his global initiative, which just happened to have been this last week ... But, he is THE standard bearer right now, and obviously, after this interview, one of the few Ds who can knock the teeth out of someone ...

[RangerSmith]

22. I think it was a home run of epic proportions...

Even the most rabid of the biased won't be able to defend against his main point and that is they aren't asking these same question to anybody still in the bush administration.

Sure, nobody believes fox doesn't have a dog in the fight, but this totally marginalized them and believe me, a lot of their biggest supporters know it.


You can be a rabid supporter of one side and still do damn good work. fox isn't doing any work... they are doing someone else's bidding, but that aint the same thing and Clinton totally exposed it.

[lumberjack_jeff]

23. Because it's a strong reminder of how far we've fallen.

And who's to blame for that fall.

[dajoki]

25. I, personally, am thrilled...

to finally see a Dem chase one of those little weasles back into the hole it crawled out of. Maybe some of our candidates should follow Clinton's example and stand up for themselves.

[blm]

26. If they follow Clinton's example that means WAITING 5yrs before attacking

lies being spread about their record, and waiting until after TWO crucial election cycles dealing with that VERY ISSUE.

[BootinUp]

29. So wasn't this all aired in the 9/11 commission investigation?

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/03/23/wag.dog/

Besides, you seem to suggest that Bill should spend his time fighting the looneys on the internet and any slime ball book that comes out. There are people who do that and are very good at it. You really don't want a former president to increase the sales of those slimeball books do you?

When Major media starts airing bullshit thats when you fight, thats what has happened here.

[blm]

35. Most "major media" helped SPREAD the lies in those books from 2001-2005.

What I don't get is why you believe Clinton should have remained quiet for 5 years.

[BootinUp]

37. Nice fantasy you spew.

The man wrote a book, testified to the 9/11 commission, campaigned when appropriate for democrats. And I presume he has done interviews for books by authors that dispute such falsehoods as in this interview. I remember the televised interviews when his book was released. Are there not enough published materials that present the truth? What is it you think he could have done exactly? Its all Clinton's fault! Anything to limit the damage to Kerry I guess?

[blm]

39. Really? Then why's everyone gaga over FOX interview if it's old news?

And what damage to Kerry are you speaking of? Seems to me the whole Dem party was put in the position of countering the "Dems are weak on terror" issue in 2002 and 2004 - Kerry was ONE of those candidates.

I am surprised that you think Clinton in 2004 pounded down all the lies spewed against him in those 8 books written, because I didn't hear the corpmedia talking about that, and if you did, maybe you can cite all the media that discussed the great confrontations he had that I must have missed.

Or was Clinton's 2004 defense of his record against terrorism downplayed in the corpmedia - y'know - the same way Kerry's attack against the swiftliars was ignored?

[BootinUp]

40. Maybe if you keep repeating this over and over in every thread

about Clinton it might convince some folks, (probably not too many) well at least you have support from the Clinton haters, that group is actually pretty small percentage wise. Good luck with this strategy.

[blm]

41. I defend Clinton whenever lies are told about him. Wishing he had done

more to defend himself and the Dem PARTY back post 9-11, isn't Clinton hating. It's wishing Clinton had spoken up when it would have MATTERED MOST for the ENTIRE DEm party.

Or is that too communal a concept for some to grasp?

[dajoki]

C'mon you know...

that is not what I meant. He was ambushed on national TV and he responded. How many Dems play right into the slimeballs hands, by trying to act "reasonable" when they simply need to go on the attack themselves? That's the example I'm talking about.

[dajoki]

33. Delete -- Double post n/t

[Bzzzz]

27. Any response to this rightwing nuts view to the interview???

"I read the interview with Mr. Clinton. He seemed to get awfully defensive about the suggestion he didn't pursue bin Laden as well as what he could have. Usually, people get that way when you are very close to the truth. I don't know because any effort to kill Osama would be classified material that we can't check to see if he is telling the truth or not. However, let's look at Mr. Clinton's foreign policy. For starters, he changed policy that hurt US intelligence. He forbid the CIA from hiring foreign operatives if they had any kind of criminal record. It takes a thief to catch a thief. Somalia was a disaster. Much of the country is now controlled by our dear Islamic friends. One helicopter gets shot down and we leave the country. Serbia is another mess. We should have never been involved in the Serbia-Kosovo thing. There were attrocities happening, but Kosovo wasn't an independent country, it had always been a part of Serbia. Plus the Kosovo Liberation Army we assisted turned out to be an Islamic training group for terrorists. President Bush has caught flak over no weapons of mass destruction, but the entire Clinton administration believed Iraq had them as well. Mr. Clinton dropped a cruise missile on an aspirin factory in Sudan. He also shot a couple of missiles into Afghanistan attempting to kill Osama bin Laden. Perhaps it was this action he was defending vigorously. I could get into domestic policy, but that subject wasn't brought up. I would have to mention Waco and Ruby Ridge, which were as dangerous to our rights as the Patriot Act is today."

This is a guy that I go back and forth with on another message board. He's a full fledge repuke. I'd like to go thru the monitor and strangle him sometimes if I could. :shrug:

[Bridget Burke]

30. Ruby Ridge "happened" in August of 1992--under George the Smarter.

Ask him to provide cites for all of his "facts."

[Greyhound]

28. No and I do.

You and sandnsea both make good points. While it is heartening for us to see someone give these idiots the spanking they so richly deserve, it is easy to forget that the sheeple are barely aware that a world outside of their own limited experience even exists.

Political events are viewed as disturbing intrusions in their lives, and so many of them, mysteriously, hate Bill Clinton with a white-hot passion usually reserved for people that break in to their houses to and rape and kill, and he motivates them to take actions they probably would not otherwise take.

Still watching Mike's idiot son squirm was very satisfying. :evilgrin:

[Bridget Burke]

32. Clinton is promoting his philanthropic activities.

Nothing is preventing other Democrats from speaking out. No, they don't get "asked" often enough. But they certainly could be a bit more aggressive.

Good for Bill.

[butterfly77]

34. My question to you is ...

why not clinton. Isn't he a part of the Democratic party and yes he should defend his record. Its about him,us and the bushit that has been going on for six years. Why when someone says anything about the Republicon party and Bushy do we have to hear from Limburger,Orrin Hatch, O'lielly,Frist,Mc cain, Mc Connell,Focus on the family, Ann Coulter, Laura Ingram, Duncan Hunter,Dick Morris, Hannity,and a cast of many characters...This is only one part of it and one person who is helping in the fight.

[TankLV]

43. Absolutely NOT. You couldn't be more wrong!

Clinton, in one moment, has got the whole country talking about what he said - and what he said needed to be said - that it is BUNKERBOY'S FAULT for 911, HIS ILLEGAL WAR OF CHOICE BASED ON LIES, and for the deaths of THOUSANDS!

He got people to THINK - he BROKE THE SILENCE of the past 5 years!

If it were not for him, the repuke would be getting another PASS!

No, he did GREAT - and what was LONG OVERDUE!

The discussion is now on BUNKERBOY'S ABJECT FAILURE.

[jackbourassa]

44. THIS IS WHAT I MEAN!!!!

Today Condelleza Rice attacked Bill Clinton's assertion that the Bush Administration didn't do anything regarding terrorism in the nine months leading up to the attack.

Check out her statements:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x2530379

Let me repeat what I've already written...it's not that I disagree with Clinton's statements. It's that by being interviewed so often (and especially on FOX News - I mean what did he expect), suddenly the conversation has been changed.

The focus is no longer on the Bush Administration and the war and/or The Republican Congress and their corruption. It's about Clinton...

...It's always about Clinton.

So the conversation has been changed to who did more to fight terrorism...Bill Clinton or George W. Bush. You and I might think that Clinton was better. But do Republicans? Does anyone else?

That's what I mean!!!!

So in a way he is giving the Republicans a FREE PASS (as someone above mentioned), because no one is talking about Iraq, the economy, corruption or change. They're talking about Bill Clinton.

It's all over FOX, CNN, Imus, etc. And most of them are talking about how Clinton "lost it," etc.

I bet if you did a google search this week you would find substantially more links to this Clinton fracas, than to the Intelligence Estimate that shows the Iraq War is actually hurting our efforts against terrorism.

Which one do you honestly think would help the Democrats when it comes to the issue of terrorism?

My money is on the Intelligence Estimate. But it is getting overshadowed by Clinton's little tirade.

That's what I mean!!!!

I agree with Clinton, but he didn't do our party any favors this week.

[luckyleftyme2]

46. DO YOU LIVE IN A VACUUMN

Bush's camp has made a career on bashing "clinton". But it won't wash anymore.
AND "rices" spin was expected.And it's not the first time,but hopefully the press will not
sway to the right this time.
RICE should be the first one to be fired after chenny and rum-sfeld. that was not a typo!
after reading your responses i wonder what your real agenda is.

[papau]

50. There was no Nat'l Dem view in the media before Clinton's interview

Many in the leadership had tried to put one forth but the media ignored them. Now we have the point that the GOP suck as terror fighters and indeed are responsible for a terrible job of protecting us - to the point of actually ignoring the warnings given them

The local news is not affected - our local messages are not affected.

I do not understand your reasoning that makes you think that Clinton's response is not 100% positive for us and for local candidates.

[Tellurian]

52. Jack you might be posting in the wrong forum

Free Republic is over there..==========>

You've had ample opportunity to "get it"..
for now your obstructing...or just a Plain Idiot!

[jackbourassa]

53. That's brilliant...

a good one! I bring up a point that he may HURT Democrats and you accuse me of being a Republican. If you accuse everyone who disagrees with your point of being a Republican, I guess you never have to address the points they make, huh? Nice. I like that. You don't have to think that way...

EDITED to make comment less snarky!

[Auntie Bush]

55. Don't be so naive!

Hardly any Sheeple out there will bother reading that report. You should know that!!!!!!! They are too busy watching American Idol and CSI etc.

It takes a blowup for Democrats to make the news...that unfortunate, but true. Thank God for Clinton. He got the media to correct the lies that that movie told about Clinton and how the Democrats reacted. The media hardly refuted the movie. Clinton did it for us on Faux where all the Rethugs watching got it see the truth poked into them. Now everyone's talking about the NIE and Clinton's comments got bush* to release the classified report which proved bush was creating more terrorists. Otherwise the Thugs would just deny it and said the leaker took it out of contexts. So now people who think like you know that isn't the truth.

I say thank God for Clinton and you should too. The good man was defending his reputation. Nothing makes a person more angry than to besmirch ones reputation.

As to talking about Clinton...instead of Iraq. Silly you...hadn't you noticed they haven't talked about Iraq in a month...ever since Bush changed the subject and hogged the MSM's attention. Now we're talking about the war again and that's good for us. But yes, we need lots more talk and I hope we'll continue rather than talking about how scared we should be and what a good job Rethugs were doing protecting us and fighting over there instead of here. Now we know that's BS and we will be getting/fighting a lot more attacks HERE in the future...thanks to the despicable fool in the Oval office.

Clinton is also showing the Rethugs and the world how compassionate Americans and the Dems are and hopefully helping rebuild our esteem in the world. Remember Clinton just got 3 BILLION dollars that day or week donated the help us do just that and that's why he's been on TV...not to hog attention. I can't even believe a Democrat could think the way you do. Maybe if you read all these posts you will come to a different conclusion. If we can't change a Dems mind...how the hell are we going to change Rethug thinking? It scares me.

One last comment! The Dems have no leader/speaker who can get our views discussed on TV. Clinton can!!!!! The MSM ignore us. Thank God for Clinton! You owe him an apology or a retraction of your post. You have done us a disservice and I hate to think of the Trolls posting it on their site and feeding those animals raw red meat. Sorry to be so harsh...but you make me angry. I guess because my integrity was lied about once and I was never so livid and besides myself with anger in my life. In fact it was the first time in my many years that I EVER said something angry to anyone...I'm as easy going person so I have lots of empathy for Clinton.

Democrats should all be PROUD of this great man and humanitarian. He is probably the most popular and well respected man in the WORLD...and he's bashed on DU! Shameful!

[The Count]

45. He is the embodiment of the brilliant Dem tarred by incompetent RWs

When we defend Clinton, we advance US! It's emotionally a more powerful motivator than say....candidate X stands for social security.

[luckyleftyme2]

47. EXACTLY

And i question 'jack broussars" agenda. you see the difference between the right is they'd follow "dubya of the cliffs of dover".
how else could an administration fail so often and still stay in power?
And "Rice" is following the rove dogma= denial and fill them with spin.
as far as these talk shows,they're just entertainment that some fools take for "Gospel"
Clinton doesn't have the acess to the political podium that often,but when he does he can certainly defend himself,and doesn't need a bunch of slugs taking two days to write a rebuttal that has and can be proved wrong.
gee jack wonder how your voting in nov. i bet you use red ink!

[jackbourassa]

54. My intension is to promote an idea that will help Dems win...

That's all. I have no "hidden agenda." It's possible that i'm wrong (wouldn't be the first time). It's possible that i'm overreacting to this.

I've said repeatedly that I don't disagree with what Clinton said...I only don't like how it draws attention away FROM OTHER DEMOCRATS and focuses on Clinton...AGAIN. That's it. That's all I said. I didn't insult Clinton or anyone else. Most people obviously disagree with me. I'm not going to attack them because we disagree on this point. It doesn't make me a Republican, it's called a "difference in opinion."

I hope everyone is right and i'm wrong...

But remember this, as someone above already mentioned: Clinton chose to release his biography in the middle of the 2004 election cycle. Thus, like now, he sucked away a lot of attention from our candidates. We all gushed then. But it didn't help us.

In fact, I remember hearing how Clinton campaigned for MANY different Democratic candidates in that cycle, and most of them LOST.

My point is and has always been that Clinton may be very popular with Democrats, but that doesn't necessarily translate to those whom we are trying to win over, as was the case in 2004.

We need to keep the fire to the feet of Republicans and not dwell on the past.

BTW, it's JACK BOURASSA!

Read my journal if you want to see whose side i'm on! It speaks for itself.

[ooga booga]

49. A big double standard in my humble opinion

Think about Dick Cheney. Think about how many times that guy's gone off when questioned or interviewed. It hasn't helped his image, but I doubt that he cares. By being combative, he defines the debate more than if he handled it more quietly and reasonably. Right? I think so. He's one of the noisiest bullhorns in the Republican Noise Machine.

If Clinton feels the need to go off on Fox News, I think he ought to be able to do that. It may even be a small tipping point. You wanna play tough? OK, let's play rough.

[Hard_Work]

51. Too important to overlook also

is the fact that this took place on FOX NEWS. Clinton said what needed to be said to the people it needed to be said to. And, btw, it wouldn't have been said at all if what's-his-name hadn't tried to ambush Clinton.

Oh, and do you REALLY think the 'liberal' media would be focusing on the NIE briefing if this hadn't happened?

edit:Changed NIA to NIE.

[samsingh]

57. Clinton raised points that make them look inept and bad

he's rallied our troops.

how is that bad?

[SiouxJ]

58. Clinton is out there reminding America what competence looks like.

when you put him out there up against the babbling monkey, he looks like a god or something. It's a reminder of how much better things were when Dems were in charge. I say, keep it up Big Dog!