Bill Clinton Has a Hissy fit!

The BBQ Pit
21

I wasn’t going to wade into this, but both sides are showing their prejudice in this interview. I agree, that Clinton kicked-ass and had every right to do so. The Republicans were just as much an obstacle to his efforts as the Democrats are being to the current administration–in fact, probably moreso, and more fixated on a non-issue (Lewinski).

The question was a legitimate one in an interview. Going on Fox and not expecting a question like that would be like Bush going on Air America (good luck with him having the balls to do that) and not expecting to be questioned about the WMD issue he put out there.

Both parties are so caught up in having power that they are failing in their primary purpose. The system has become horribly bankrupt and when you get a few candidates on either side of the aisle who want to actually accomplish something, they are shouted down by the PTB of the Republican and Democratic powers more worried about their party than the country.

It isn’t a football game, with the American People as the football. It is deeper and more complex than that. This blatant party pandering drives me nuts from both sides of the chamber. It isn’t the Republicans or the Democrats that are the problem, it is the politicians pretending that they have anyone’s interest but their own at heart.

Wake up and start looking at the individual candidates, not the party. Prioritize issues, rather than focusing on one hot button, not all that important in the big scheme of things, issues and see what is both reasonable and important to deal with at this time – what affects us most powerfully and fundementally as a whole rather than the interests of certain groups (be they corporate or private).

Start looking outside ourselves as individuals and thinking of us not as Red or Blue, but Red and Blue. We have more issues that should draw us together than the few issues that seem to constantly be in the news pulling us apart.

I’m sorry if this belongs in Great debates or the pit – if it does, just move the post there as a new thread.

It just disappoints me to hear intelligent people react to something like this the same way they would as if their team just made a field goal or touchdown. It shouldn’t be us and them, it should be US. United we stand, divided we fall is more relevant today than ever.

I don’t mean to offend, but this did rile me up.

22

I loved that…

a. A Democrat was able to throw down with rightwing sandbagging
b. Clinton actually responded like an actual human being rather than the perennial politician he typically is.

We need more of this.

23

Wow ralph124c. What color glasses did you view that interview with?

24

I didn’t see a hissy fit. What I saw was an exuberant defense against partisan allegations of incompetence by a media entity that clearly have an agenda (almost personal) against him. What amazed me was his fast paced articulate delivery with measured critical pauses.

Rather than the negative connotations of a hissy fit, I believe this episode will bode well for the Democrats .

25

Wow Bricker-you’re agreeing with me on politics?

:wink: :stuck_out_tongue:

26

Is it completely crass to say I’d give the man a blowjob? Smart, articulate and just a wee bit forceful…yeah, that’s sexy! (But can he cook?)

I think he’d make a good Doper (assuming, of course, that he isn’t already.)

27

This the funniest part:

Cite.
I wonder if Chris Wallace keeps a change of underwear at the office.

28

We’ve already been through this. He said he didn’t inhale. :wink:

29

Wait for the next “How you doin’?” reply to you in another thread. You never know…

30

If that was a hissy fit, then American politics needs more hissy fits.

Anger isn’t an absolute evil. Anger is appropriate in the face of injustice and dishonesty, among other things. Rightwing talking heads like Wallace and O’Reilly try to goad their “guests” into anger (often justified anger) just so they can focus on the anger itself and pretend that anger is never appropriate.

It’s cheap and dishonest and Clinton remained a lot more calm and clearheaded than I would have. He responded appropriately and articulately.

31

to add:

I never thought of Wallace as among the worst, but that was a shameful exhibition. As pointed out above in this thread, his “I just asked a question” is shamefully disingenuous. He worded his “question” as an explicit accustion. Not, "Did you do enough . . . ? " but “Why didn’t you do enough . . .?” Tacking a question mark on the end of an accusation doesn’t recuse you of responsibility for your words.

And the way he kept trying to change the subject, when Clinton had him cornered, back to the CGI, was more cowardice and dishonesty, meant only to corner Clinton into being the one “choosing” to discuss Bin Laden.

If journalists were subject to the same kind of oversight that lawyers are, that display would’ve been enough to get Wallace disbarred.

32

I thought the interview was fair. Clinton has never provided a clear explanation about why he never took Bin Laden seriously-even after the attacks upon the embassies. So, the questions posed to him were fair. What got me was the complete transformation of the man-he went ballistic. part of being a president is being in control, and Bill Clinton clearly wasn’t in control. So, I stand on my conclusion; when faced with a potentally embarrassing question, Bill Clinton threw a hissy fit! :smiley:

33

So . . . you watched it with the sound off?

34

No, like partisans regardless of party, he listened with his ears off.

35

Grrrrreat. So now “hissy fit” is the new talking point phrase of the day I have to suffer through. Like Islamo-fascist.

36

(bolding mine)

On the contrary, he took control. He took control of the interview, when the interviewer clearly meant to stymie him, broadside him with accusations and then change the subject once his barbs were deflected.

There was all sorts of control going on there, verbal and, indeed, physical. The body language involved spoke volumes - yes, Clinton’s bigger, but bigger does not always mean dominant. In this case, Clinton took control by leaning forward, by sitting with his legs spread, and by leaning further across the center point between the two chairs than did the interviewer. If he hadn’t been provoked so badly, I’d say he was edging toward “bully” territory, but the interviewer was the one trying to bully him from the start. The fact that he was just so bad at it only made Clinton’s taking a stand more delightful.

The only point at which I thought Clinton may have tiptoed over the line was when he physically poked the interviewer’s papers. That was very much an unmistakably aggressive move. But given the unmittigated gall and subsequent cowardice on the part of the interviewer, I can totally see where it came from.

I don’t know nothin’ bout the politics involved, I’ll admit that. I was a kid when the whole Somalia thing happened, and have not educated myself on the whole issue. But I am a student of human nature, and what I saw was a pissing contest which was clearly and decisively won by Clinton. As none of the more politically educated people in this thread (Bricker, Trunk, yojimbo, Bryan Ekers, etc.) have pointed out any factual errors in his reply, I feel fine assuming that he “won” fairly, as well, and now I feel more educated about the incident and his administration, as well.

37

This one is so easy…

A Fox reporter gets put in his place. So who does him blame?

Clinton!

38

That is a hissy fit? Oh please Ralph124c!

How on earth can you define that as a hissy fit?

39

That was no hissy fit; that was Clinton handing Chris Wallace his ass. (The only mistake Clinton made was agreeing to an interview with the little shitstain in the first place.)

He never explained why he kept beating his wife, either.

At what point was he not in control? Showing emotion doesn’t mean you’re not in control.

40

Allow me to quote Jon Stewart:

[url=“http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QX5-YUVDgcg”]Here’s the clip. This starts at the 1:50 mark.