Clinton/Wallace

[nuzguy]

Amusing confrontation between Bill Clinton and Chris Wallace. Wallace appeared at first to offer up his usual patronizing "gotcha" smile and look whern Clinton rebounded with "... and you're sitting there with that smug look on your face" and strongly implying that he (Clinton) wasn't about to beat a hasty retreat and get hit over the head with the bin Ladin issue and take whatever it was Wallace wanted to lay out.

Classic was Wallace's expression, obviously showing he didn't know which way to retreat himself and wanting to talk about something else, especially after Clinton said, "You brought up the issue now I'm going to respond to it."

It was a prime example of the party attacked (Clinton) turning the tables and leaving the attacker (Wallace) no wiggle room.

 

[ssnake]

Clinton can convincingly argue about anything, but that doesn't mean that what he's saying actually has a truthful basis. See the "no sexual relations" speech. He'd be a good lawyer--if he weren't disbarred.

His is an aggressive, self-serving personality, and I think he came off as being patently unfair and attacking Wallace. After all, this subject was put into issue by the ABC film, not Fox News.

 

[voicetrack]

Personally, I found it refreshing to hear a leader who could string a coherent sentance together. And not just one, but one after another after another. I thought he did a stellar job in the face of the enemy.

 

[toby]

I think the whole incident shows how "fair and balanced" Fox news is.

 

[arnoldevns]

I found the whole thing quite refreshing. You rarely see a political leader fly off the handle like that - let alone a former president. Wallace is a great interviewer and obviously hit a sore spot for President Clinton.

 

[RobertAnthony]

Something his old man, 300-year-old Mike Wallace would NOT be proud of! You see that old curmudgeon is quite the leftist and he wold have thrown softballs at Clinton if this were for 60 Minutes. The object of an interview is ask the question, get the answer. With politicians of either party that could become an adventure

 

[Riley_dfwm]

had Bill Clinton gone after UBL in 1998 as has been suggested, the prevailing opinion would be that he was trying to distract us from the "important" issue of that period.

 

[dampier]

This topic is massively being discussed in Off the Air.

 

[dhett]

Politics aside, Clinton's actions were abhorrent. I couldn't tell from the clips if he actually poked Wallace with his finger, but even if he didn't, he was way out of line. That conduct doesn't belong in any interview. Wallace asks a question Clinton doesn't like? Fine. Respond to it, get red-faced angry about it, but maintain your composure, and do not make aggressive moves toward your interviewer.

Or as my mother would have said, "Keep your hands to yourself!!"

 

[dampier]

Politics aside, Clinton's actions were abhorrent. I couldn't tell from the clips if he actually poked Wallace with his finger, but even if he didn't, he was way out of line. That conduct doesn't belong in any interview. Wallace asks a question Clinton doesn't like? Fine. Respond to it, get red-faced angry about it, but maintain your composure, and do not make aggressive moves toward your interviewer.

Or as my mother would have said, "Keep your hands to yourself!!"

You mean like George Bush did when he got in the face of Matt Lauer a week or so earlier? It works both ways.

 

[raccoonradio]

have heard Keith Olbermann, not being watched by many on MessNBC*, called Wallace a "bully" and a "monkey"
and "hyena"
(cut just played on Howie Carr show)

*--"this is how few viewers MSNBC has. It took a day and a half for this stuff to come out on the Net!"--Carr

 

[raccoonradio]

>>I found the whole thing quite refreshing. You rarely see a political leader fly off the handle like that - let alone a former president. Wallace is a great interviewer and obviously hit a sore spot for President Clinton.

And Wallace just sat back and let us enjoy it. Yes!

 

[dhett]

Politics aside, Clinton's actions were abhorrent. I couldn't tell from the clips if he actually poked Wallace with his finger, but even if he didn't, he was way out of line. That conduct doesn't belong in any interview. Wallace asks a question Clinton doesn't like? Fine. Respond to it, get red-faced angry about it, but maintain your composure, and do not make aggressive moves toward your interviewer.

Or as my mother would have said, "Keep your hands to yourself!!"

You mean like George Bush did when he got in the face of Matt Lauer a week or so earlier? It works both ways.

You can't be serious - those two interviews are nothing alike. Here's the link: http://rejon.org/?p=405 - go back and view the interview again.

Both Bush and Clinton were gesturing vigorously to underscore their points - I have no problem with that. But here's the difference:

• Bush and Lauer were standing about 2' from each other. Clinton and Wallace were sitting in chairs, making their torsos at least 5' apart.
• Bush stood erect at all times. His gestures came close to Lauer, but were within the range of normal conversation. He never got into Lauer's face. Clinton leaned into Wallace to make his gestures, completely in his face.
• Lauer also made gestures during the course of the conversation, and his came as close to Bush as Bush's did to Lauer. Wallace did not lean into Clinton to make gestures during the conversation.
• Bush was emphatic. Clinton was angry.
• Bush kept his comments to the subject at hand, without attacking anyone. Clinton attacked the "right wing" and then attacked Wallace himself for "doing Fox's bidding" and accused him of a "conservative hit job".

The two interviews were nothing alike, but hey, don't let the truth stand in the way of a good story.

 

[Nertz!]

It was obvious partisan politics. Just look at where it aired!

 

[dhett]

I stand corrected - NBC is a left-leaning news organization, although not as left-wing as See_B.S._News and their forged documents. And don't even get me started on al-Jazeera West (a.k.a. ABC News).