lame, looks like fox had all the youtube links taken down in an effort to not further thier embarassment
how is fox embarassed? I would guess Clinton wants them taken down. I would say its embarassing to have a white haired man with a purple face. looks kinda silly. fox, like all other media outlets, is a for profit business. they would love the publicity
The premenstrual period is when a woman's hormone levels are closest to typical male levels. In other words, it's the time when she's most like a man is all month long.
I guess that explains Clinton's embarrasing episode on Fox.
I guess that explains Clinton's embarrasing episode on Fox.
You are the ONLY person I've come across who thinks this was embarrassing for Clinton, and that includes quite a few republicans. Are you sure you saw the same show as everyone else?
"Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." ~ MLK, 1963
You are the ONLY person I've come across who thinks this was embarrassing for Clinton, and that includes quite a few republicans. Are you sure you saw the same show as everyone else?
Insert head firmly in sand. Ahhhh...that's better.
You are the ONLY person I've come across who thinks this was embarrassing for Clinton, and that includes quite a few republicans. Are you sure you saw the same show as everyone else?
Apparently it's undignified to have the mental ability to actually defend yourself with "facts" and "coherent arguements" as opposed to deflecting questions with "meaningless simplistic homilies" and "cliched catchphrases".
This whole episode reminds me of an interview with President Clinton that ran in Rolling Stone in late 1993. William Greider asked Clinton about progressives/liberals who criticized him for moving towards the middle and abandoning the principles he campaigned on. Clinton had what sounds like a similar powerful outburst, which Greider described as "impressive" and "powerful".
"Of course it hurts. You're getting fucked by an elephant."
You are the ONLY person I've come across who thinks this was embarrassing for Clinton, and that includes quite a few republicans. Are you sure you saw the same show as everyone else?
Apparently it's undignified to have the mental ability to actually defend yourself with "facts" and "coherent arguements" as opposed to deflecting questions with "meaningless simplistic homilies" and "cliched catchphrases".
This whole episode reminds me of an interview with President Clinton that ran in Rolling Stone in late 1993. William Greider asked Clinton about progressives/liberals who criticized him for moving towards the middle and abandoning the principles he campaigned on. Clinton had what sounds like a similar powerful outburst, which Greider described as "impressive" and "powerful".
How this tiradecould be described as "impressive" and "powerful" is beyond me.
I suppose it is a subjective judgement. Would you describe ANY of GW's public remarks or interviews as "impressive" or "powerful"?
There certainly have been remarks made by GW that are impressive and powerful. Does Clinton have more charisma, and is he more eloquent? Absolutely. But to describe what he did in that interview as impressive or powerful is ridiculous.
Insert head firmly in sand. Ahhhh...that's better.
My head isn't in the sand. You should see where I work, I'm surrounded by republicans. I've heard people say "Yeah, he looked good, but come on, it's Chris Matthews! Anyone would look good!" I've heard various backhanded compliments about how despite the fact that he's the worst president in the history of all humankind, he always was a good communicator.
Seriously ... this place is lousy with conservatives (and very highly educated ones at that), and everyone thinks that Clinton clearly won this round.
"Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." ~ MLK, 1963
My head isn't in the sand. You should see where I work, I'm surrounded by republicans. I've heard people say "Yeah, he looked good, but come on, it's Chris Matthews! Anyone would look good!" I've heard various backhanded compliments about how despite the fact that he's the worst president in the history of all humankind, he always was a good communicator.
Seriously ... this place is lousy with conservatives (and very highly educated ones at that), and everyone thinks that Clinton clearly won this round.
Clinton is an incredible communicator. I would never argue that. In this instance, however, he came across as desperate and pathetic.
My head isn't in the sand. You should see where I work, I'm surrounded by republicans. I've heard people say "Yeah, he looked good, but come on, it's Chris Matthews! Anyone would look good!" I've heard various backhanded compliments about how despite the fact that he's the worst president in the history of all humankind, he always was a good communicator.
Seriously ... this place is lousy with conservatives (and very highly educated ones at that), and everyone thinks that Clinton clearly won this round.
sinc when is it about winning and losing. Clinton was asked some tough questions and lost his cool. not sure who won or lost.
There certainly have been remarks made by GW that are impressive and powerful. Does Clinton have more charisma, and is he more eloquent? Absolutely. But to describe what he did in that interview as impressive or powerful is ridiculous.
Again, it's definitely subjective. I don't remember anything I've seen Bush say or do that I found to be inspiring or impressive. Obviously, my opinion of his speaking presence is colored by my low opinion of him as a president. In most of his public remarks, prepared or otherwise, he always seems to be struggling to remember what he's supposed to say, or struggling to come up with a lucid answer on the fly.
"Of course it hurts. You're getting fucked by an elephant."
Again, it's definitely subjective. I don't remember anything I've seen Bush say or do that I found to be inspiring or impressive. Obviously, my opinion of his speaking presence is colored by my low opinion of him as a president. In most of his public remarks, prepared or otherwise, he always seems to be struggling to remember what he's supposed to say, or struggling to come up with a lucid answer on the fly.
While I agree it is subjective, and will readily admit, if you couldn't tell, that I am heavily biased, I still cannot fathom that someone would watch that interview and think that Clinton sounded good. He sounded like a moron to me - "I traaad, I traaad but I failed." Great.
You do realize that he has a Southern accent, right? And what part of that specific line isn't true?
Stop trying to insult my intelligence. Of course I'm aware that he has a southern accent. I've never heard it as pronounced as it was in that interview.
While I agree it is subjective, and will readily admit, if you couldn't tell, that I am heavily biased, I still cannot fathom that someone would watch that interview and think that Clinton sounded good. He sounded like a moron to me - "I traaad, I traaad but I failed." Great.
If you don't like to hear a President admit to making any mistakes, you must really love the current guy.
"Of course it hurts. You're getting fucked by an elephant."
I was responding to what's-his-face's remark, "since when is it about winning and losing?".
I know - still, I don't see how his interviewing tactics differ from anyone else's. Did you see Tim Russert grill Cheney on Meet the Press recently - that was an attack interview if I've ever seen one. It's fair game though.
Bush wavers between calling for Bin Laden, "dead or alive"(right after 9-11) to saying that he "doesn't think about him too much"(campaign season 2004), then back to talking about how dangerous he is and how he's still a threat, etc., etc. (this year).
"Of course it hurts. You're getting fucked by an elephant."
Bush wavers between calling for Bin Laden, "dead or alive"(right after 9-11) to saying that he "doesn't think about him too much"(campaign season 2004), then back to talking about how dangerous he is and how he's still a threat, etc., etc. (this year).
I agree that it was just plain stupid to say that he doesn't think about bin laden.
I know - still, I don't see how his interviewing tactics differ from anyone else's. Did you see Tim Russert grill Cheney on Meet the Press recently - that was an attack interview if I've ever seen one. It's fair game though.
The difference to me was that Wallace didn't even seem that interested in hearing the answers, he just wanted to make sure he got the righty street cred for asking the questions.
"Of course it hurts. You're getting fucked by an elephant."
The difference to me was that Wallace didn't even seem that interested in hearing the answers, he just wanted to make sure he got the righty street cred for asking the questions.
Again, it's all subjective. You can definitely argue the same point about Russert's interview (making sure he got the lefty cred).
Stop trying to insult my intelligence. Of course I'm aware that he has a southern accent. I've never heard it as pronounced as it was in that interview.
I just realized that you're the same person I was responding to in another thread. I'm not stalking you, I swear.
I'm just saying, it sounded like a Southern accent to me. And it sounded like he admitted that he failed. I don't know, maybe I misheard.
One of the primary Republican tactics this election season is "let's dump the blame for this war on Clinton." It's an incorrect assessment, for one, and it needs to be countered directly. Better Clinton do it than anyone else. It's his character on the line, after all.
Comments
how is fox embarassed? I would guess Clinton wants them taken down. I would say its embarassing to have a white haired man with a purple face. looks kinda silly. fox, like all other media outlets, is a for profit business. they would love the publicity
http://break.com/index/purple_faced_rage.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OnyrCVwGyK4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rxWUA764H7E&NR
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J2-nILTO3dc&NR
oh sweet! I did a search and all the top links were removed
I guess that explains Clinton's embarrasing episode on Fox.
Insert head firmly in sand. Ahhhh...that's better.
Apparently it's undignified to have the mental ability to actually defend yourself with "facts" and "coherent arguements" as opposed to deflecting questions with "meaningless simplistic homilies" and "cliched catchphrases".
This whole episode reminds me of an interview with President Clinton that ran in Rolling Stone in late 1993. William Greider asked Clinton about progressives/liberals who criticized him for moving towards the middle and abandoning the principles he campaigned on. Clinton had what sounds like a similar powerful outburst, which Greider described as "impressive" and "powerful".
he did look quite foolish.
http://break.com/index/purple_faced_rage.html
How this tiradecould be described as "impressive" and "powerful" is beyond me.
I suppose it is a subjective judgement. Would you describe ANY of GW's public remarks or interviews as "impressive" or "powerful"?
There certainly have been remarks made by GW that are impressive and powerful. Does Clinton have more charisma, and is he more eloquent? Absolutely. But to describe what he did in that interview as impressive or powerful is ridiculous.
Seriously ... this place is lousy with conservatives (and very highly educated ones at that), and everyone thinks that Clinton clearly won this round.
Clinton is an incredible communicator. I would never argue that. In this instance, however, he came across as desperate and pathetic.
sinc when is it about winning and losing. Clinton was asked some tough questions and lost his cool. not sure who won or lost.
Again, it's definitely subjective. I don't remember anything I've seen Bush say or do that I found to be inspiring or impressive. Obviously, my opinion of his speaking presence is colored by my low opinion of him as a president. In most of his public remarks, prepared or otherwise, he always seems to be struggling to remember what he's supposed to say, or struggling to come up with a lucid answer on the fly.
While I agree it is subjective, and will readily admit, if you couldn't tell, that I am heavily biased, I still cannot fathom that someone would watch that interview and think that Clinton sounded good. He sounded like a moron to me - "I traaad, I traaad but I failed." Great.
It was definitely about winning as far as Wallace was concerned. Are you saying he wasn't trying to score points off of Clinton?
What respected interviewer doesn't try to score points in an interview?
Stop trying to insult my intelligence. Of course I'm aware that he has a southern accent. I've never heard it as pronounced as it was in that interview.
If you don't like to hear a President admit to making any mistakes, you must really love the current guy.
How is that admitting a mistake?
I was responding to what's-his-face's remark, "since when is it about winning and losing?".
I know - still, I don't see how his interviewing tactics differ from anyone else's. Did you see Tim Russert grill Cheney on Meet the Press recently - that was an attack interview if I've ever seen one. It's fair game though.
Okay, I'll rephrase: "admitting that he failed".
Bush wavers between calling for Bin Laden, "dead or alive"(right after 9-11) to saying that he "doesn't think about him too much"(campaign season 2004), then back to talking about how dangerous he is and how he's still a threat, etc., etc. (this year).
I agree that it was just plain stupid to say that he doesn't think about bin laden.
The difference to me was that Wallace didn't even seem that interested in hearing the answers, he just wanted to make sure he got the righty street cred for asking the questions.
Again, it's all subjective. You can definitely argue the same point about Russert's interview (making sure he got the lefty cred).
I'm just saying, it sounded like a Southern accent to me. And it sounded like he admitted that he failed. I don't know, maybe I misheard.
One of the primary Republican tactics this election season is "let's dump the blame for this war on Clinton." It's an incorrect assessment, for one, and it needs to be countered directly. Better Clinton do it than anyone else. It's his character on the line, after all.
To be fair, it was campaign season. He had to make sure to let the American people know who they should and shouldn't be scared of.
"I don't think about Osama Bin Laden that much."
Translation:
"We can't find that lanky fucker for the life of us, so let's not talk about it. Vote Bush."