Bill Clinton vs FoxNews Chris Wallace in an interview.

[Black Dynamite]

I think it was calculated. The Democrats needs some nuts and he's got the biggest cojones in their camp(beside Howard Dean who scares too many people to win them over~lol~). Man i get tired of them shying away from Republicans. If theres something wrong with fight back and trying to get his camp to muster up some courage. Then WTF? the democunts have been playing too nice with the repubicwhores. They need to go blood and crips with it, because the conservatives arent going to bargain with them until they get back some power in government.

[DennyMcLain]

Even though I agree with the premise that fox news is nothing more than a bush administration spin shop that specializes in fearmongering and hack jobs, it struck me as terribly petty for Clinton to have a public meltdown about it.

Wallace isn't a fat chick so I don't understand where that sudden bout of weakness and bad decision making came from.

I don't think it was a meltdown -- it was statesmanship.

What I'm sick of are "journalists" being allowed carte blance to aggressively pursue points of interest without fear of a retaliatory strike in the form of a 180 degree whiparound. They think the politician will either shy away from the arguement or skirt it, then playfully smile and "no comment" the issue with a repeat answer. It's okay to argue through constructive discourse, but the "byte" media doesn't desire that -- they want a commitment to a question they can call their own and hype to the "n"th degree. They want a quick five second reply. An assclown like Wallace is incapable of an extended argument, much less a defensive posture.

Of course, what Clinton did scares the media. Their armor of protection from being sensationalistic and biased has fallen, and now they must counterattack in order to drum up populist support to prevent any polotician from pulling a copycat performance. But here's the problem -- it occurred on the Fox Network, owning an overtly right-wing agenda... and that DOESN'T matter. What this is, arguably, is Clinton defending himself like a man, not like a politician. Americans are far too learned to accept that sometimes it's okay for a politician to defend his honor (add "Monica Lewinsky/Paula Jones/Hillary is a lesbo" joke here).

There was nothing wrong with what Clinton did. In fact, it was refreshing. As for the touching part, it was designed to unnerve Wallace. It's something guests do not do. It's a violation of space which disallowed Wallace to regain his composure, and it worked brilliantly.

[Glenn]

Great post Denny.

[Uncle Mxy]

What I'm sick of are "journalists" being allowed carte blance to aggressively pursue points of interest without fear of a retaliatory strike in the form of a 180 degree whiparound. They think the politician will either shy away from the arguement or skirt it, then playfully smile and "no comment" the issue with a repeat answer. It's okay to argue through constructive discourse, but the "byte" media doesn't desire that -- they want a commitment to a question they can call their own and hype to the "n"th degree. They want a quick five second reply. An assclown like Wallace is incapable of an extended argument, much less a defensive posture.

I want straight answers to tough questions on newsworthy issues.

We don't get that these days.

Instead, we get non-newsworthy crap being paraded around by both sides to push some agenda. We get journalists who won't ask the hard questions of the folks they're supposed to be closest to, because they'll get shut out or possibly worse. About the only context in which they may potentially shake out meaning from actually talking with someone is on TV, but that's limited to soundbyte journalism and subject to much spin. We get politicians evading with "no comment" and "it's classified" for matters that truly call for straight answers. What do we do? We accept and even defend that approach by our leaders.

"Critical thinking", as distinct from being critical for its own sake, has gone the way of the dodo. The most dangerous word in the English language is "plan", not "why", damnit.

[Uncle Mxy]

I'm glad that the Foley and Woodward revelations have proven what I wrote above to be at least partially wrong about reporters. What's funny was that Bob Woodward and "Path To War" was an example of I was thinking of when I wrote "journalists who won't ask the hard questions".