Anyone who saw Clinton’s address to America after “the dress” was recovered (and the seminal DNA would prove that he indeed, have sex with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky) could see with their own eyes that he was seething with barely concealed rage as he spoke.
Someone brought up Thomas Jefferson earlier. Imagine what today’s media would have done to him. Sally Cummings would have RUINED him politically. Ditto for John F. Kennedy. Would he have lied to the press to cover up his affair with Marilyn Monroe? I have no doubt he would have. What does that say about him? It says a lot, but I’d argue that it is irrelevant when considering his place in history.
The press serves an important function. Tabloids do not. We Americans really need to find a new past time other than watching CNN 24/7.
Re Jennings interview. I didn’t see it. However Clinton was celebrating the grand opening of his presidential library. IMO Jennings should have been more gracious given the circumstances. There are times and places for tough questions. A celebration is not that time. And I think the same way about the people who wanted to piss on Ronald Reagan’s funeral procession. Have some class, people.
Usually when someone says something is “beyond all argument”, it means they don’t have one. Seriously, do you think this proves anything at all? He got mad at something - so what? You’re acting like that idiot and psychiatrist turned pundit Charles Krauthamer who goes around diagnosing mental illness in his political opponents. You don’t like Clinton, congratulations. Now get over yourself.
Maybe because it’s not untrue. His sexual proclivities do not reflect on the office of the President. They reflect on HIM, and I can distinguish between the two. He didn’t mess with Monica in my name, he was acting as a man.
Bush, however, has brought me nothing but the most profound shame with the actions he has undertaken as President, in my name.
Inasmuch as Bill’s fans like to tout the (debatable) “peace and prosperity” of the Clinton presidency, they are overlooking a harsh fact: The Clinton era was, and continues to be, an unmitigated disaster for the Democratic Party.
In 1992, the Dems had it all - White House, Senate, House of Reps. After the Meltdown of 1994, Clinton pretty much abandoned his party and Congressional Democrats in order to save his own skin. Following Dick Morris’s (excellent) advice, he triangulated like crazy and co-opted big chunks of the Republican agenda.
So, basically, Bill got himself elected and re-elected. But he never had any coattails. For the last ten years, the Dems have been losing House seats, Senate seats, Governorships, state legislatures…
*Of course * Clinton is a consummate politician. I fervently, absolutely, wholeheartedly agree with that. But what good has it done anyone besides Bill?
In 1992 the Democratic Party made a devil’s bargain with Bill (and Hillary). And, like all devil’s bargains, it has gone sour. It will keep going souring as long as Bill and Hill remain in the picture.
Had Bush been subjected to the same level of attack over nothing that Clinton was subjected to, I daresay his coattails would have been on the truncated side as well.
Had Clinton been handed a presidency during 75% of which it was considered unpatriotic to criticise him Al Gore would be president today.
Had Democrats campaigned on the level the Republicans did against, for example, Max Cleland, I’m sure they could have held some of those Senate seats.
Had Democrats abused their power to redistrict a state eight years early to give themselves a half-dozen or so more seats because gosh darnit, it just wasn’t fair that they didn’t win more seats the last time then the balance in the House might be a little different.
If I may, for a while in the 2000 election at least nobody wanted much of Bill Clinton’s coattails. Not even Gore. They thought the scandal would outweigh the popularity. I think Clinton was politely told to stay in the shadows so the dems wouldn’t alienate anyone.
Kind of a whoopsie on their part. Just my thoughts.
I seem to remember reading someplace that Clinton had a vicious temper, and would fly into what were described as “purple rages”.
Of course, if half of Washington were almost singularly devoted to destroying not only myself, but anybody who ever got close to me, using prurience rather than any kind of substantive debate, simply because they disagree with me on ideological grounds are are bitter about people actually liking me, I imagine I’d be pretty snippy too. Clinton has made some definite mistakes, but for many who simply don’t like him because he’s a democrat, those mistakes define him, to the absolute exclusion of any other quality or accomplishment. It must be worse to consider the fact that Clinton’s mistakes were of a purely personal nature, and had essentially nothing to do with his duties as President, until he was made “Defendant in Chief” for his entire second term over a few blowjobs. I imagine being more than four years out of office and still having to be publically grilled over Zippergate, after having to humiliate myself in front of the entire electorate with a televised mea culpa just to get any peace or carry out my duties, would fill a guy with a lot of bottled-up rage, especially a guy with actual feelings. I imagine there are many presidents, both past and present, who not only never had to publically admit that their (sometimes deadly) offenses were wrong, they may not even be capable of recognizing it. We have a word for those folks: Sociopaths. For all his narcissism and vanity, I don’t think Clinton falls into that catagory.
Knowing a guy who sent boys off to die for an illegitimate war will be questioned less in his time than a guy who got a hummer from an intern would probably make me feel pretty fucking angry nearly every minute of every day.
Ahh, the ever-astute Ringworm. Where would the tragically unaware be without your nuggets of insight shining a heavenly light on what would otherwise be the unearthed mediocrity?
Well, you’d be one to spot a puny and twisted soul now, wouldn’t you? Let’s take for example the commander in chief you more than likely voted for and the spectacular display of civility he presented when interviewing with Irish reporter Carole Coleman. A video clip can be found here. I’m assuming you find that to be the model of civility, correct? Particularly the part where he calmly responds with “Let me finish. Let me finish, please. Please. You ask the questions, and I’ll answer them, if you don’t mind.”
Damn that Clinton. Why oh why did the American people have to be so blind to his twisted puny soul?
Like I was saying before, I think Free Republic must have turned on the no vacancy sign lately.
And the amazing thing is…he’s not. Sure has anger, but in the big picture, he’s been fantastically forgiving. The guy has reserves of class and compassion that blow my mind, considering the unbelievable shit he’s had to suffer.
I just wonder what in the Seven Hells of Journalism do we get the notion that a President’s (consentual) sex life is an appropriate target for 24/7 media investigation, while a President’s motives for going to war against another country can’t warrant half as much scrutiny.
As for Roseworm’s dumbass OP, I’ll counter with a partisan review from the other side of the fence:
I didn’t see enough in the NewsMax transcript to get the idea that Clinton was sooo bad. He seemed pissed, is all. Probably under the circumstances it’s understandable that he was pissed. Probably he’s the same-old, same-old Clinton, full of charm and bullshit. But I don’t get the impression that the interview was so over the top.
Eh. That’s nothing. Perhaps not the most geneel, perhaps he didn’t disguise his impatience well enough. But, she did keep on interrputing him, again and again.
Maybe this isn’t how it’s done in Ireland, but such an interview (from anyone) isn’t so out of the ordinary here in the US. It’s not the most polite interview, but it wouldn’t make me raise my eyebrows or feel that it was worthy of making a huge stink over (not that I know if this is the case with the Bush interview).
It does seem that Clinton had more fire in his belly, and got more hostile with Jennings than Bush did in the aforementioned clip. However, the nature of the questions is different, so that could account for it.
Yeah. I think you’re right. I’m no big fan of Clinton, but he’s no longer president—eh, let it go, at least for now, while he’s opening up his library. It’s a nice, fun, positive event. Leave the heavy stuff for later.
You know, that’s a weird question. Roseworm isn’t the only person on this board who does not like Clinton. Why do you assume that nobody will share his perspective? Since this is a left-leaning board, sure, more people will disagree with him than not, but does that mean he has no business posting such a thread? I don’t get it.
I think it’s more a comment on Wormy’s whole posting history, and not this thread in particular. I don’t think I’ve seen anything from him that wasn’t a poorly conceived partisan screed. Still, he/she/it is hardly alone in that habit 'round these parts, with plenty of companionship on both sides of the aisle. In short, annoying, but hardly unique. A descriptor with which Wormy is no doubt well familiar.
Nothing new there. He had a reputation for losing his temper when he first came into office. I even remember his snarling a Chelsea when she was running late on Inauguration Day. He could be very hot headed. He could also be charming. I doubt that either was a “mask.” Aren’t we all multi-sided?
I have no doubt that he has an ego as big as the Ozarks. Doesn’t it take a big ego to run for President?
Junkyard dog? More like a really smart mixed breed porch pooch. I don’t see anything mean about him. Was he vengeful?
Hey, I’m a wierd guy, what can I say? Anyway, I don’t assume the above. I base my question on the barrage of threads started by this poster over the past two weeks, all in the Pit and all intended, AFAIK, to do nothing more than get a rise out of people Rosweworm identifies as liberals. If you feel you can show that s/he has some other point to make, fine; I’d be happy to hear it. Right now, however, this poster most resembles a right-wing doppelganger of our beloved Reeder.
Well, if it’s verbotten for Reeder, then we must assume that Roseworm isn’t doing it either. Or else he’d be gone by now, right? I just assume that these two people feel strongly about the issue and want to express their feelings. (Over and over and over again . . . ;))
Miller is right: a lot of people here start partisan, ranty threads. While it may be true that Roseworm does a lot of it, it doesn’t necessarily mean he’s the only one, or even the worst.