Bill Clinton on Fox News Sunday: "And you’ve got that little smirk on your face. It looks like you’re so clever…"

But charismatically I like him even more now.

Well, of course! So does Carter.

It reflects on him in an even-handed manner, but in the end, he goes on about having no power compared to actual current presidents to make changes in the world, including changes he regreted not making when he was an actual president, but he is running around with the Gates and other combining money and connections to at least make an effort.

seconded.

o godz

Well, see, Carter -- who's about as charismatic as an avocado -- never looked more shriveled and ridiculous than during his visit to Cuba four years ago.

but that's how you accomplish things!

I was at a party 2 weeks ago where I had to defend being "liberal" and a "demon-crat." These two things were something I tried to explain were simply not me. Liberal has the connotation of being essential pro-human rights, but is that so bad? No, the thing that is bad and associated with "liberals" is "big government"... but, by that definition, Bush is the most LIBERAL motherfucker we've seen in a long time. Demon-crat? That's just a guy that's in the center and supports most of what I hate about Republicans, anyway, at this point. There is no left worth giving a fuck about.

One guy asked me sarcastically, "Oh, you're going to say you're a centrist, right?"

I said, "no, I'm more of a Buddhist, I think," jokingly. And his response was literally: "OH! OH! Watch out! Terrorist! You getting on planes with bombs like, uh, Cat Stevens?"

I said, "I'm pretty sure he's Muslim. And that really has nothing to do with Buddhism."

There were hours of nonsense in-between the end of the night, but the final outcome, to my UTTER SHOCK, was him asking me defiantly where I got my news from. I said, "Everywhere." He persisted and so I finally named various online sources, some of which were British or Canadian... his response was, each time, "Oh! Canada!" and "Oh! British!" as if he was holding back uproarious laughter. Finally, I asked him where he got his news and, horrifically, he proudly shot back in an instant, "FOX NEWS, BABY!" as if somehow that was the wooden stake in my vampire heart. I was flabbergasted.

perhaps you should have told him that his imagination of liberals and demoncrats and the reality of them were indistinguishable, dude

You know, morons.

-- Nathalie (stevi...), September 24th, 2006.

Clinton had fairly hardline crime policies, passed "welfare reform" (i.e. kicking people off the rolls and calling it an accomplishment), and was generally as pro "free trade" agreements as Bush or anyone else. Still, I think anyone who continues to cling to the 2000-election-era cliche that there's "no difference" between Republicans and Democrats has not been paying attention.

Ha! Little did he know that his president practically runs our country as well! The joke's on him!

Wait...

True -- there's "little difference" between Republican and Democratic politicians.

tell it to iraq

On Sept. 7, the Senate agreed by a 98-0 vote to allocate an additional $63 billion for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan

Fuck, we really ARE screwed!

I don't think voting to give more money to troops already over there is what jhoshea had in mind when he said "tell it to Iraq," but whatever.

The problem is that, much like Clinton, the Democrats remain morally bankrupt in the face of 'electability.'

While true enough, it wouldn't have helped me out at all.

I mean, I'm sitting here on Capitol Hill right now and though I don't work there, I get that it's like a sport around here, it's a chess match. that doesn't mean it's not serious. but, everything covered by a veneer of diplomacy. being "amused" by karl rove is not a compliment to karl rove. it's dismissive. it's said with the awareness that plenty of dems do have trepidation about the political talent of karl rove and how he manages to strategically pull out election wins again and again. but Clinton is a smart guy, and he doesn't go on TV and say "Hey Democrats, don't be afraid of the big bad Rove," he says "Yeah that guy, he's funny, I'm amused by him, whatever." he's saying rove isn't all that.

then say you're "amused" by him

I like your tactic, but I wonder if it will reach a point where he says, "what do you mean you don't understand?!" and then it will get more hostile than ever once he catches on I'm fucking with him.

I had thought up some one-liners for next time such as, "trickle down economics really worked-- trickled right down to India" and a couple other dumb joke-points, but what's the point? Too bad I can't just post 500 images of Burger King...

I dunno, I think he has a legitimate grievance here, considering he actually did make SOME attempt to kill Bin Laden, then warned Bush, only to have Bush do nothing at all. As if this weren't frustrating enough, having the GOP try to put all the blame on HIM must make him a bit livid.

find me a politician who is concerned ABOVE ALL ELSE with the views of the majority of voters. actually, don't. i don't know what my problem is today. just cranky.

and i guess i'm just not "amused" by political gamesmanship. or who is best at snowing people. clinton likes the game. he gets off on it. most politicians do.

Certainly, the Clarke memo is a primary source document, not speculation.

ALF already shot down the "cowardly our-viewers-really-wanna-know preface":

When we announced that you were going to be on FOX News Sunday, I got a lot of email from viewers, and I’ve got to say, I was surprised most of them wanted me to ask you this question:

The next portion of his question isn't exactly a question:

There’s a new book out which I suspect you’ve read called The Looming Tower. And it talks about how the fact that when you pulled troops out of Somalia in 1993, Bin Laden said, "I have seen the frailty and the weakness and the cowardice of US troops." Then there was the bombing of the embassies in Africa and the attack on the USS Cole...may I just finish the question, sir? And after the attack, the book says Bin Laden separated his leaders because he expected an attack and there was no response.

So CW throws the entire Black Hawk Down story in Clinton's face with a bragardly quote from our enemy, who has certainly made many bragardly quotes in reaction to American actions since 9/11. Does anybody remember the course of events leading up to the American withdrawl from Somalia? That's an incredibly complicated story that few people understand. That is a totally loaded question within a question that is more of an insinuation than a question.

All we are really left with is the basic question: Why didn't you do more during your presidency about Bin Laden and Al Queda? That's a good, legitimate question.

But let's not pretend that this question came up randomly out of the hat. The media has been full of attacks on Clinton's failiures leading up to 9/11 and a lot of those allegations and insinuations have been historically and factually inacurate.

This question right on the heels of "the path to 9/11", during the peak of an election cycle where a major part of the RNC's election strategy has been to label Democrats as weak Republicans as strong on the GWOT? I'd be pissed too. Run-on-sentance pissed.

Olbermann setting the bar pretty damn low given a presidency based on such brave benchmarks as the V-chip and "taking the politics out of welfare."

The truth of the matter is that we are never, ever going to make our message or delivery perfect enough that it can't be butchered by the MSM. Ever. Whatever we do, it will always be wrong. That's their storyline, and they are sticking to it to the end. Anybody who thinks we're going to change that status quo by simply having better manners or eating more cocktail weenies with them is delusional. These people are not our friends.

The first step in dealing with this situation is acknowledging that cold and immutable reality, accepting it, and deciding how we're going to respond to it.

When it comes to the left, the mainstream media have exactly two all-purpose storylines going. We will always be portrayed as either spineless wussies, or angry loonies. The only choice we have here is to decide which one we're going to play to.

And yet, through all of that, he never once raised his voice. There was plenty of energy -- but it was bound up in the lucid delivery of facts, and a dogged refusal to let go. He didn't waste it on digust, insult, hollering, or making wild gestures (beyond the poking). There was plenty of emotion -- but it was backed up to the hilt by reason, compassion, honesty, and intelligence. He stuck to the facts -- and made them stick.

http://members.aol.com/lupinaccim/kerry-debate.jpg

I agree with that on a personal level but the unfortunate reality is that a majority of Americans right now are in favor of domestic wiretapping and a lot of them aren't that worked up about torture either. they just assume that if someone's having that done to them well then they must have done something wrong.

Allen: The point is, is we made a decision. You got to stand by your decision and you can't be constantly second-guessing, Monday-morning quarterbacking. My opponent is -- the whole theme of his campaign is we should not have gone in. The question is: where do we go from now? And as a practical matter, listening to Mr. Webb's ...

Webb: Let's not go into that, too, George.

Allen: ... listening to Mr. Webb's statements ...

Webb: I don't -- I'm waiting for you to say where you want to go.

Allen: ... there isn't, there isn't that much of a difference insofar as the future.

Russert: Is that true?

Webb: That's absolutely not true, you know. I, I have not ...

Russert: Could the money have been better spent?

Webb: Yes. We could have, we could have contained Iraq. If you want to take out Saddam Hussein, there are ways to take out Saddam Hussein. We did not need to go into a country, decapitate the government and inherit the, the responsibility of rebuilding it. And eventually that is going to fall to the other countries in the region. It's just going to.

in fact that may be the most dishonest & stupid thing posted in a very very stupid thread

Clinton shows up on Fox, realizing that they'll pounce on him about this shit with that "many viewers want me to ask" bullshit, then proceeds to play the body language and wordplay game. He didn't take action against Al Qaeda, he "tried to kill' Bin Laden. He doesn't hash out intellectual details calmly, he goes on the offensive. It's almost a cookie cutter scheme to put any counterarguments on the defensive against the angry man!

Note also the complete lack of acknowledgement that it wasn't just republicans posing the "wag the dog" accusations in the late 90s.

xpost

lots of people have said that's what it was. see The Note excerpt I posted above, for instance.

Man, what great framing. Because Chris Wallace obviously wasn't trying to provoke him at all! More like he came to the interview packing heat because he knew it was coming.

link?

http://www.robertscheer.com/1_natcolumn/01_columns/052201.htm