Bush was "animated", Clinton was "crazed".

[Marr]

Just a few of weeks ago, on Sept. 15th, Bush threw a fit while answering David Gregory's question on his Iraq policies.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_AqaIa6wmMY

His behavior was described by Tim Russert as "animated". Most of the corporate media took a similar view, calling his performance "forceful", "adamant", etc.

A few days before that, in a Sept. 11 interview with Matt Lauer, Bush put on another disturbingly emotional and angry display while offering a flimsy argument for torture and secret prisons.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2JGTFI2PPM

The corporate media largely ignored Bush's emotional display, Howard Kurtz went so far as to call the exchange "up close and personal", and Lauer himself called the exchange a "spirited" one.

In both these cases, Bush made inconsistent, nonsensical, self-contradictory and largely illogical arguments, while Clinton's actual argument was at the very least coherent. But even put aside the pesky facts for a moment and just look the coverage- the difference is striking.

I think George is suffering from the soft bigotry of low expectations here. He and Clinton should be held to the same standard- for George's sake. How else can he improve?

[kurth]

1. Ahhhh... The liberal media

One has to be brain dead not to recognize this.

[SammyWinstonJack]

8. !

:applause: No such animal exists: the liberal media.

[valerief]

10. When war is peace and ignorance is strength, then the media

MUST be described as liberal—for consistency purposes only in Topsy Turvy World.

[BOSSHOG]

2. bush would not last a day if held to Clinton's standards

and his base would cry all the way back to their klavern.

[sui generis]

3. the media actually has tong marks on their collective forehead

from tossing bush's salad so regularly.

Bush's display was the display of an enraged idiot not used to being challenged; angry chimp.

Clinton did not have a "display". Let's just start with that. He refused to let an ignorant journalist put words in his mouth or recharacterize the situation, and the clock was running on the interview.

Chris Wallace is an embarrassment to the the profession of journalism. Wallace's display and outright lie about "the question most people submitted was" is what needs to be critiqued.

[AX10]

4. Just more proof that the media has a right leaning bias.

[joefree1]

5. And yet ... we're still gonna kick repukes ass in November

Anybody else checking out the peter meter at Slate?

http://www.slate.com/id/2148600

The mo meter leans hard left in the Democratic direction.

[demo dutch]

6. Held to the same standard....Exactly the point Clinton was making!

[The Deacon]

7. Keep Repeating After Me:

Democrats with subpoena power-World Court in the Hague-Nancy Pelosi as Acting President
Democrats with subpoena power-World Court in the Hague-Nanct Pelosi as Acting President
Democrats with subpoena power-World Court in the Hague-Nancy Pelosi as Acting President

Now, take three deep breaths...
Relaxed? Good...now get back in there & ATTACK those fuckers! No prisoners!

[valerief]

9. Sounds like the way woman is described vs. a man. La double

standard.

[Bake]

11. Even Pukes I talk to said WJC was right

Even eloquent in his defense. I don't think the RW spin is going to work this time.

Bake

[butterfly77]

12. I have been watching and waiting to see if any of the so called..

Democratic talking heads would mention that.