Your Lying Eyes

Dedicated to uncovering the truth that stands naked before your lying eyes.

E-mail Me

Twitter: yourlyingeyes

24 September 2006

Clinton Loses It

Just finished watching Chris Wallace's interview with El Presidente Clinton. Wow. Criticism - no, make that even questioning - is completely out of bounds for him, isn't it? For those of you who haven't heard(and don't care to read the transcript linked above), Chris Wallace had the nerve to ask him whether he had done enough to catch Bin Laden. Clinton was outraged, accusing Wallace of pulling a "conservative hit job" and being a Fox News lackey. Wallace mentioned afterward that Clinton appeared with Larry King, Keith Olbermann, Meredith Viera and others and not one of these asked him about Bin Laden (shocking). These hosts know their place, and know how to respect a Big Man. Chris Wallace, whether due to genetics or his tenure on the conservative Fox News, is apparently unaware that a journalist's role is to shamelessly kiss up to the Clintons. For a good idea of the kind of farcically fawning coverage the Clintons expect to receive, there is this NY Times article from yesterday, Hillary Clinton Stars at Husband’s Meeting on World’s Ills. Here are some excerpts:
Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton made a star turn yesterday at former President Bill Clinton’s conference on global challenges, calling for a concerted attack on the "feminization of poverty" to destroy political and economic barriers that trap women.
While the day included remarks by former Secretary of State Colin L. Powell and the media baron Rupert Murdoch, it was Mrs. Clinton who drew a standing-room-only crowd of hundreds for a session called "Women and the Power of Economic Opportunity."

That theme led to a discussion of political opportunity as well, and audience members applauded when Mrs. Clinton, a possible presidential candidate in 2008, suggested that the time would come for more women to assume high office.

In her opening remarks, the senator set the tone for the panel by lamenting that women in many countries cannot vote, run for office, or secure credit or capital to start business ventures. "Far too many women are stuck in a cycle of poverty from which there is no escape," she said. "How do we help overcome that condition of poverty and dependence?"

The theme of politically empowered women led to the only moment in the session when Mrs. Clinton’s own political future seemed to stir the room — that is, if you ignored all the photographers snapping photos of Mrs. Clinton.

Helene Gayle, the president of CARE, the international poverty-fighting organization, echoed comments by others when she said that nations needed "more women in government to start with."

Ms. Gayle paused as Mrs. Clinton was nodding affirmatively, and several audience members laughed and applauded.

"While we’re waiting for that ...," Mrs. Clinton said by way of a winking transition, and Ms. Gayle resumed.
Now, see, that's the way to cover an annointed leader. No uncomfortable challenges, no "smirking," no hint of even ironic detachment. No sir - only thorough and complete enthrallment will do.


Anonymous Anonymous said...

Fox fawns over Bush, NYT fawns over Clinton. The real interesting cases are where both sides of the media suppress controversy, like immigration and globalization.

September 24, 2006 7:43 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This is off-topic, but it seems that all of a sudden the NY Times is using the title "Mrs." Though Gaygle is still "Ms. Gayle."

September 25, 2006 10:18 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

So Bill had a moment. Because it was with Fox, he probably went in expecting the worse (ala Baba O´Reilly) and overreacted. So what. He´s had alot worse thrown at him and handled it well. I´m sure he wasn´t happy about it afterwards.

As for Hillary, I don´t have much use for her so I won´t even go there.

September 25, 2006 11:03 AM  
Blogger ziel said...

Jimbo, you're probably right about him expecting some frothing at the mouth right winger and ended up overreacting to Chris Wallace. But I'm not sure I've ever seen him handle criticism well - i.e., not angrily. He so seldom encounters it, and when he does he lashes out.

September 25, 2006 11:39 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"SFG said...
Fox fawns over Bush, NYT fawns over Clinton. The real interesting cases are where both sides of the media suppress controversy, like immigration and globalization. "

So true. A perfect example of that is this new Superhighway being built from the west Mexican coast all the way to Montreal. It is being constructed to facilitate the economic and political integration of Mexico, the U.S. and Canada. This is being ignored by all of the major news media outfits, and that is probably because Clinton's people as well as Bush's are big backers of this stealth plan to create a North American Union.

September 26, 2006 3:04 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ziel, considering that he was actually impeached for something so ridiculous, especially taken in current context, I´d say he has done pretty well. I also thought that he´s been pretty "presidential" to the current and previous presidents, until recently. Sure, he´s got an ego as big as the all outdoors, but I think he does a pretty good job of containing.

Also, having since seen the interview, it´s clear that he wasn´t just reacting to the interviewer. As Nichols from the Nation says, it´s about time a Democrat started shooting back at the Republican media drive-by shooting. As he still is the top Dem dog, I like the example it sets.

September 26, 2006 6:25 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I just saw a clip of the interview in question, and I see what Mr. Ziel means. Clinton was attacking Wallace for smirking during the interview. Nobody likes a smirking, network news talking head, but then if Clinton had done an interview with Olberman, surely he must have smirked too, as he is the biggest smartass on television.

The thing that gets me about Clinton is that he appears to be oblivious to the fact that most people in this country detest him. Its almost as if he expects Americans to shower him with affection just because he may not be quite the clueless boob his successor is. But most people by now realize what an unprincipled political whore he was (as evidenced by his sale of sensitive military technology to China in return for campaign bucks for instance, not the interludes with opportunistic trollops in the Oval Office. People expect that sort of behavior from politicians).

You would think that the widely reported fact that every Democratic candidate for office that he has campaigned for since 2000 has lost would have given him some inkling of his unpopularity with the general public. Its almost as if pols like Clinton assume that just because clebrity twerps like John Stewart and Bill Maher love them, the whole country does.

September 26, 2006 6:56 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Excuse me Tom, but what public opinion research have you done that leads you to "the fact that most people in this country detest him (Clinton)."

And even if it were true that every Democratic (has he campaigned for Republicans too?) that he has campaigned for since 2000 has lost, you attribute those loses to him, and use it as an indication of his unpopularity?

Who´s oblivious here Tom?

September 26, 2006 1:52 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

More people voted for Clinton than Bush. Bush barely won both elections against nobody's.

Who is more liked by americans isn't a contest the voters spoke 4 times.

What I want to know is where is this highway being built from Mexico to Canada?

September 26, 2006 5:46 PM  
Blogger ziel said...

Dano, actually more people voted for Bush than Clinton, even in 2000.

Clinton is the only president to have been elected twice without winning 50% of the popular vote.
Bush got 62 million votes in 2004 (the highest vote total in history), vs. Clinton's 47 million in 1996 - not even close.

Of course, Clinton's poll numbers were much better. Generally, people thought he was doing a good job but they found him unlikable on a personal level.

At any rate, the fact that Bush is unpopular is irrelevant to how popular Clinton is. But much like Bush, he is beloved by a certain segment of the population but carries little sway with everyone else.

September 26, 2006 6:59 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

My admittedly unscientific study of the popularity of our last president is based on the opinions of buisnessmen, salesmen, letter writers to newspapers, people I've exchanged emails with and anyone else I've run into over the years, from various parts of the country, who've volunteered their assessment of Bill Clinton's leadership qualities. No, not exactly the broad sampling of public opinion, based on impeccable adherence to scientific methodologies, that you would get from a professional opinion survey outfit like, say, the Pew Hispanic Center.

And yes, when candidates for office from his own party ask Bill Clinton to politely, stay away from them while they campaign, one could get the impression that even many Democrats don't recall his presidency fondly.

Pat Buchanan describes the NAFTA Superhighway and its implications for U.S. sovereignty here...

September 27, 2006 5:15 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"My admittedly unscientific study of the popularity of our last president is based on the opinions of buisnessmen, salesmen, letter writers to newspapers, people I've exchanged emails with and anyone else I've run into over the years, from various parts of the country, who've volunteered their assessment of Bill Clinton's leadership qualities"

And how about the assessments I've gotten from academics, artists, letter writers to opinion journals, and everyone I've run into in my hometown of NYC that Clinton was a good president if a flawed man and that Bush is evil AND stupid?

People tend to associate with like-minded people. Clinton definitley had his weaknesses as President: he went soft on Osama, for example. But even given the normative argument that blowing an intern is corrosive to the moral fiber, I see little proof for the positive argument that he was detested by the American people. I wouldn't say Bush was detested by the American people: a significant fraction, yes, but even a lot of people who didn't vote for him either time never really got what the hatred was about. Same with Clinton.

October 01, 2006 8:47 PM  
Blogger tom said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

October 03, 2006 7:30 AM  
Anonymous viagra online said...

hello!! this interview is so interesting, I really like it, we have the chance few times to read about it!

May 16, 2011 3:35 PM  
Anonymous Viagra Pharmacy said...

What happened to the scrolling blog updates? I liked them. Not complaining, just asking. All those topics are fine but you'd fix it soon.

July 05, 2011 6:06 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home