Kristol: Clinton "lost his temper", to help Dems in '06, for Hillary...

[sabra]

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/743aibjn.asp

Why Clinton "Lost His Temper"
The former president knew what he was doing.
by William Kristol

LET'S DO A THOUGHT experiment: Perhaps Bill Clinton, an experienced and sophisticated politician, knew what he was doing when he made big news by "losing his temper" in his interview with Chris Wallace. Perhaps Clinton's aides knew what they were doing when they publicized the interview by providing their own transcript to a left-wing website as soon as possible Friday evening, and then pre-spun reporters late Friday and Saturday. Maybe it was just damage control. Or maybe Clinton did what he wanted to do when he indignantly defended himself, blasted the Bush administration, and attacked Fox News. What could Clinton have been seeking to accomplish? Three things.

1. Helping Democrats in 2006.

In the Fox interview, and in other recent interviews (Meet the Press, the New Yorker), Clinton has shown himself well aware of Republican efforts (engineered by the dastardly Karl Rove) to paint Democrats as unreliable in the war on terror. Clinton would have knows that these were doing some damage to Democrats, and that Bush and Rove have had a few good weeks on this issue. And he would know that the Democrats haven't fought back well (e.g., they're now in a difficult position on the Bush-McCain detainees legislation).

...

2. Helping Hillary in 2008.

Hillary Clinton has been having problems with the left wing of the Democratic party. With this interview, Bill Clinton has the entire left wing of the Democratic party rallying to him. Some of this solidarity can presumably be transferred to Hillary. And the dangerous move of the left-wing of the party toward Gore and Edwards, and their rise in national and Iowa polls respectively, can perhaps be stopped.

3. Intimidating Critics.

Clinton wants to make it incorrect, or at least impolite, to criticize his record on terror. Chris Wallace stood up to him. Will others? Will his next interviewer raise the same set of questions? Will they be willing to take the criticism of being "conservative hit men" or part of the vast, Fox-centered right-wing conspiracy? Bullying and intimidation sometimes work. Clinton has used both effectively in the past. Now he wants to put out of bounds certain perfectly legitimate and straight-forward questions. Can we debate which party--based on their practice when in power--can better deal with the jihadist/terror threat? No, according to Clinton. That's illegitimate right-wing propaganda. Whose personal reputation benefits from putting such issues out of bounds? Which political party benefits? Which 2008 presidential candidate?

Bill Clinton is a smart (and calculating) politician.

[malaise]

1. Clearly Big Dog

Koed their sorry RW asses. They're squealing like Rethug pigs.

[Ninja Jordan]

2. Bill Kristol = fucking moron

[w4rma]

8. Bill Kristol = propagandist (nt)

[StraightDope]

17. By which you mean, "Moran", right?

[Atman]

3. So it is "bullying and intimidation" to defend one's record against LIES?

As usual, look to what the Right Wing says, and you KNOW they mean exactly the opposite. It isn't bullying for Wallace to ask questions straight from the RW play book for the week, but it is so if Clinton tells him to shove it. Gotcha.

Consider the source here. Kristol is the Neocon's Neocon.

[blm]

4. Kristol liked Clinton when he was staying SILENT for 5 years against bogus

charges that had mestatisized into common wisdom that "Dems are weak on terror" and "Clinton did nothing" while other Dems bore the burden of those lies in 2002-3-4.

Gee - no wonder Bill exploded after keeping it so bottled up inside and letting others bear that burden since 9-11-2001.

[MannyGoldstein]

5. He's Mostly Correct - But So What

Clinton clearly ambushed Wallace with a rehearsed shtick. So what? We need more of this.

Kristol was dead wrong in one respect - Wallace did not stand up to Clinton. He knew that he had only Nerf balls to match Clinton's arrows.

[Bluzmann57]

6. Ah forget it.

I was going to make a smartass comment about far fetched conspiracy theories, but it just isn't worth it. Maybe Chavez was a plant by the repubs to anger moderate Dems and cause them to vote repub this time around. Or maybe not. Both theories are pretty stupid and should just be dismissed.

[CrownPrinceBandar]

7. Its hilarious........

6 years gone from office and the neo-cons, nay, one of the HEAD neo-cons is clearly still afraid of WJC. And I can't say I blame him. 8 years of substantive prosperity in this country unmatched by the current regime is not something the Neo's want the country to be reminded of right now.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

edit: added smilies

[acmavm]

9. Kristol gives a whole new dimension to the words 'oily' and

'smarmy'.

[ginnyinWI]

10. why he's wrong.

He's right when he says it might help the Democrats this year or Hillary in '08, but wrong if he thinks it's a calculated anger. Because this is who Bill Clinton is--he does have a temper and a lightening wit and can pull up facts off-the-cuff because he knows them cold. If it had been John Kerry or someone else who is more even-tempered, he might have a case--but this is who Bill is.

And as for Wallace standing up to him: if that's standing up, I'd like to see what accomodating would look like. In my view he was steam-rolled.

[central scrutinizer]

11. translation

When a Republican gets angry, he is showing "resolve"
When a Democrat gets angy, he "loses his temper" and it is a calculated ploy

When a Republican woman gets angry, she is a strong, independent woman
When a Democratic woman gets angry, she is a shrill, strident harpy.

[applegrove]

12. Right Krysto - the only emotion permissable comes out of baser instinctive

GOP base who purse their lips and attack. Or sometimes emotion in a television commercial is acceptable. All the rest of the emotion is inappropriate! Especially when someone questions who is to blame for not picking up the danger of Al Qaeda in a meme rolled out for the October election (Clinton was all over bin Laden - he just didn't kill him).

That battle plan in Afghanistan? Clinton's. In neocon hands that plan didn't work cause GOP didn't keep enough troops in Afghanistan to really stabilize the country and instead went in a stirred up a hornet's nest in Iraq - teaching the Taliban how to fight with suicide bombers.

[Subdivisions]

13. Clinton on Faux = "lost his temper" ...

Bush in Rose Garden = "strong and decisive"

My ass.

[Marr]

14. Another moronic analysis from Bill Kristol. Seriously-

hasn't Mr. 'I don't know why people say Sunnis and Shia don't get along' earned a place on the nation's ignore list yet?

[durrrty libby]

15. Yep...he needed to be unplugged a long time ago n/t

[kestrel91316]

16. Did I miss something? I watched the entire clip and Clinton

never "lost his temper". He got a little indignant and emphatic, and he wasn't taking any BS from CW. That's all.

They are lying about his response, pure and simple.

[underpants]

21. He never came close to losing his temper

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x2216884

but he tore Wallace and the entire RW noise machine apart.

[antonialee839]

18. They are trying to turn this into the Dean Scream.

I don't see where Big Dog lost his temper, he seemed quite in control as far as I could see.
If it was me, I'd have smacked that smirk off of that little toads face.

[Wickerman]

19. Water is wet; A politician acts as a politician

:eyes: And for this, Bill Kristol draws an obscene salary.

[patricia92243]

20. What a compliment to Clinton. I knew he was smart and Kristol agrees.

[ECH1969]

22. Kristol is correct

Bill knew exactly what he was doing.