I caught it. Unfortunately the mainstream (read: fucked-up) media is spinning it into Clinton “going wild” or “ranting”.

It was a pleasure to listen to an orateur for a change. It’s too bad it was wasted on Faux News. They’re dumb enough to think they actually came out smelling like roses.

You know, I’ve really missed this guy.

I caught the arse-end of it on our PBS late last night.
Was Bill jamming his finger on the interviewer (using the term loosely)’s leg or did it just look like it?
I have never before see a politician get into someone’s face like that and finished up saying that the current crop o’ pollies don’t get asked questions like that, do they ... do they!?
Yeah Sadie, I agree - pity he’s only remembered for getting a head job - reminds me of the joke - Just one goat.
Speaking of Goats, didn’t Bull$hit get close and personal with one?
A man was charged with having sex with a goat. The man didn’t have enough money to hire the best lawyer in town, so he hired another lawyer who was famous for picking a sympathetic jury.
During the trial, the next door neighbour was recounting how she saw her neighbour having relations with the goat under the light of a full moon. She recounted that when the man had finished, the goat turned around and gave the man a big kiss right on the mouth.
At this testimony, the man and his lawyer turned to look at the jury to see their reaction. Just at that moment, the foreman of the jury nudged the juror next to him and said, “A good goat will do that.”

Doh!  My bad, Les - it’s CHRIS Wallace - so sorry. (brain on unscheduled vacation)

I bet that happens a lot.  60 Minutes’ Mike Wallace kicks ass…

Whatever his name is, like most Fox News reporters, he is a pompous asshole.  Thank you Bill for taking it to them.

Almost forgot, man was I ever impressed with how well Billy Boy handled himself.

You know, I’ve really missed this guy.

So do most other rationale people.

Speaking of Goats, didn’t Bull$hit get close and personal with one?

I thought it was a horse.  But funny ass joke thanks!!

For all his faults, and he has a few (who doesn’t), Bill Clinton was a good president.

The FOX presenter came out of it looking like an idiot.

I caught it. Unfortunately the mainstream (read: fucked-up) media is spinning it into Clinton “going wild” or “ranting”.

That’s because as far as any mainstream media outlet is concerned, it’s more important that he lost his temper than whether what he said was true or not.  If you needed a better example of how screwed up the media is than this, you’re hopeless.

I despised Clinton in office, I think the man is a jerk and a liar (although no more than most politicians) and he looks and talks like a used-car salesman, but damnit! I was applauding him in that interview.

I watched the interview and I was impressed with his remarks. I always liked Clinton and I especially despised the way Republicans demonized him after the whole Lewinsky incident. Although, I have to say, there was a man I knew in boot camp who made a damn good point about the whole affair. A Southern Republican and a West-Pointer to boot, our division leader thought Clinton was an excellent President, but his argument against him was that to hold such a public and esteemed post, a man has to have a sense of honor beyond reproach. Of course, at the time that would have been an appropriate remark, but given the shame that President Bush has brought upon the White House, I think it will be sometime before ANY President can entire the UN without ever other world leader laughing at him or her behind their back.

and I especially despised the way Republicans demonized him after the whole Lewinsky incident

The man NEEDED to be demonized for that.  The tragedy of the Lewinsky thing was not that Clinton was raked over the coals, but that Bush isn’t, and he’s done far worse than get a blow job in the Whitehouse.

Sorry Neo but I have to disagree with your west-point friend.  To expect someone who wins a popularity contest for president to suddenly have a sense of “honour beyond reproach” is foolish in the extreme. 
The U.S. and most western nations do not have a “moral apptitude” test in order to be allowed to run for office.  To expect the unwashed masses who choose whom looks best on T.V. to choose someone honourable for the office is not going to happen in this lifetime. Holding them to that standard as opposed to “How good a leader for myself and my nation and my allies is he?” is not wise.
I understand the point of view of a man west-point educated and respect it but it’s not how the world works.
Sure Bill acted fairly stupidly in regards to Monica but if it was the 1960’s and evidence Kennedy had been up to shenanigans in the O-office do you think his opponents would have used it for Partisan advantage to try to “publicly” remove the President.  I think not.
Politician world wide are human and personal scandal happens all the time.  The handling of the situation by his oponents was poor at best and they brought as much shame or more to the whole situation.

Oh you’re right, he should have been demonized for it, by his family, his friends, his wife, etc. However, it would not have otherwise affected his ability to lead. Only after he lost support because of this public “outing” did he falter. My point was that he was demonized for a private affair. No one was willing to focus on his abilities as a leader. I don’t agree with what he did. I believe it was despicable, but I don’t believe it should have been dragged through the court of public opinion. Case in point, George Washington’s remains show that he was infected with syphilis at the time of his death. His wife, however, was not. Which of course means that he had an affair at some point. We can all safely assume that one of our founding fathers would serve as an example of what a leader should be. This is my point, the entire episode was used to take the focus off the real issues at hand.

The man NEEDED to be demonized for that.  The tragedy of the Lewinsky thing
was not that Clinton was raked over the coals, but that Bush isn’t, and
he’s done far worse than get a blow job in the Whitehouse.

No, he didn’t.  I cared at the time but time and world events have changed my mind.  Powerful men have women throwing themselves at them all the time, and some of them will succumb.  I now more fully appreciate bipartisanship (Clinton did a creditable job of finding the best people regardless of party), a priority for a balanced budget (remember “paygo”?), and a cautious approach to international diplomacy. 

A perfect president?  No.  But damn good and the Lewinski affair was blown waaaaaay out of proportion by a propaganda machine and $35m of our taxpayer money in a prosecutorial fishing expedition.

Next president has my permission to have Mazola orgies on the West lawn if he’ll do the right things with his other pen.

My point was that he SHOULD have a sense of honor beyone reproach, not necessarily that someone who holds that post will. Only that they should.

To expect the unwashed masses who choose whom looks best on T.V. to choose someone honourable for the office is not going to happen in this lifetime. Holding them to that standard as opposed to “How good a leader for myself and my nation and my allies is he?” is not wise.

I don’t believe that American voters select who looks best on TV, nor do I believe that they vote for the candidate that they think will be a good leader.  In the past two presidential elections, about half of voters voted for the candidate that their religious leaders told them to vote for—and the other half voted against him.

I know.  Distressing isn’t it.

Ahh… what political topic would be complete without the Daily Show pointing out fallacies, idiocies, and hypocracies?

Click Here to Learn Why the Mainstream Media Sucks!!

Neo writes…

My point was that he SHOULD have a sense of honor beyone reproach, not necessarily that someone who holds that post will. Only that they should.

Well hell, as long as we’re playing the “What the President SHOULD have...” game let me add that he SHOULD have a decent command of the English language so people don’t laugh when he tries to say words like “nuclear.”

Alas what a President SHOULD have and what he DOES have are often two very different things.

Neo: My point was that he SHOULD have a sense of honor beyone reproach, not necessarily that someone who holds that post will. Only that they should.

Well, I think we SHOULD each and every one of us live perfect happy lives free from any pain. Of course, we don’t.

That’s because as far as any mainstream media outlet is concerned, it’s more important that he lost his temper than whether what he said was true or not.

Unfortunately, the media does this frequently.  I remember a little while back when Gore gave a speech critical of the handling of the war in Iraq.  It was a good speech, and signaled a change in the direction of how Democrats would approach the war.  However, the only media coverage of the speech was speculation about whether or not Gore was intending to run for office again.

Or even try to think of a news article that used more than a few fragments of sentences for quotes of speeches.  I know that they have limited room and need to summarize, but the summaries are often quite poor, contain no fact checking or analysis, and highlight anything (evn trivial) that will get attention.  Most media outlets seems more geared towards providing drama and entertainment than the news.

That’s why I have mostly stopped watching TV news and no longer check cnn.com and some of the other mass-market news outlets.  I prefer to read transcripts of interviews and speeches, and to get in-depth coverage of a few issues rather than shallow treatment of a host of issues (i.e., NPR-style over CNN-style).

That’s why I have mostly stopped watching TV news

Neo, I understand the sentiment, but I only act on should when hastening predictions about what is, and only when I can afford to be wrong . Besides, what should be is what is, or it is nothing at all.

Swordsbane, I agree that Clinton’s blowjob was fair cause for impeachment, as is Bush’s incompetence. Both presidents have been roundly criticized regardless of doing right or wrong precisely because they have done both. Politics is a wasteful, messy, stupid business - but they (and we) knew that before ever getting involved. Ultimately, however, I think that having him removed from office would affect me and mine for the worse, even here in Canuckistan; the blowjob would not have. It is for this reason, and not for any “should”, that I supported Clinton’s stay in office.

Of course, he still continues to do good outside the presidency, so I stand by his conduct as a human being, too.

No, he didn’t.  I cared at the time but time and world events have changed my mind.  Powerful men have women throwing themselves at them all the time, and some of them will succumb.  I now more fully appreciate bipartisanship (Clinton did a creditable job of finding the best people regardless of party), a priority for a balanced budget (remember “paygo”?), and a cautious approach to international diplomacy.

A perfect president?  No.  But damn good and the Lewinski affair was blown waaaaaay out of proportion by a propaganda machine and $35m of our taxpayer money in a prosecutorial fishing expedition.

Next president has my permission to have Mazola orgies on the West lawn if he’ll do the right things with his other pen.

Damn good??  Yeah right. Everything he did could have easily been done by another bozo with decent math skills and no axe to grind or special interest baggage.  I’m sorry, but I can’t agree with you there.  We don’t need someone who passed high school algebra but can’t keep the one-eyed wonder worm in it’s cave while he’s at work.  Committing adultery in the Whitehouse is not something I’m going to say “Well, he’s good for the country so here’s a free pass.” Maybe trying to impeach him is going too far, but we should be holding our presidents to a higher standard than the rest of us instead of saying “Hey, he’s only human.” Damnit! He’s not human.  He’s the president.

I see all this “Oh we’ll never get someone honourable in the Whitehouse” all over this thread and it is very sad.  Sad that we don’t expect our preisdents to be leaders to look up to and sad that we try to tell everyone else not to expect it either.  To sick the dogs on Clinton when he get’s blown on the job and then to turn a blind eye to Bush when he lies to us to get us into a war means that something is fundamentally WRONG about how we get information on candidates and how we process that information, not just the fact that these bozo’s are in office.  One of the best bumper stickers I’ve seen reads “If you’re not outraged, you’re not paying attention.” Who is paying attention?  The one’s who dislike both parties.

The fact of the matter is that neither Clinton nor Bush had any business being president.  Neither one of them is a good leader, very smart (no.. experience doesn’t count for brains) or honourable, but more than half of those who voted chose both of them, and chose Bush twice.  When you put up Clinton next to Bush, of course he seems like a great leader, but then I would take Zaphod Beeblebrox over Bush in a second.  Do I think Zaphod is a good president, not on your life.  I’d take Clinton over Bush in a second too, but we DO have other choices.  And to everyone here who is going to jump on my ass and say “You’ll never get anyone other than a Rep or Dem or MAYBE a 3rd party flavor of the month) in office” so what?  You’re supposed to vote for the person who you think will be a good president.  Not who is the best out of the choices they give you, or who has a chance of winning, or who looks good on TV.  Last I heard, there was still a place for a write-in.  I use it all the time, and the rules say that if he gets 51% of the voters, he’s in, assuming he’s stupid enough to take the job.  Of course there’s the whole Electoral College idiocy, but that’s another argument.

Anyone who says “It sucks but what are you going to do?” is part of the problem.  If it sucks, then at least try to do something about it.  If you think I’m wrong and everything is fine, then tell me.  Otherwise, shut the hell up.
[/rant]

Getting down to it, I just don’t care anymore if the president has an affair.  That’s between him, his wife, and his mistress.  The only way I’d have improved on the Lewinski affair is if Clinton had looked straight into the camera and said; “Maybe I did and maybe I didn’t.  If that sort of thing fascinates you, speculate away; the rest of us have a country to run.”

It was never a proper matter for congressional inquiry in the first place.  The question itself was improper, and deserved no answer let alone a truthful one.

Honor is like intelligence; it has many variables.  You can have all the honor in the world and be great at math, and still be a lousy president.  It makes a much bigger difference what you lie about.

But if you’re just determined to hate Bill Clinton, knock yourself out.  No law says we have to agree.

If I were Bill Clinton I would have told the truth from the get go.  If he came on camera with that somber voice and the sad puppy dog look in his eyes, people would have blown up initially, but would have shrugged their shoulders eventually and forgotten about it.  His numbers were so high that a blow job was all it took to fuck things up.

And to think if he did tell the truth Gore could have used Bill Clinton in 2000 instead of shunning him and he would have been president.  Holy Shit imagine that!!

But Clinton, like all politicians, listened to his stupid advisor’s and tried to hide from it.  The truth always comes back to haunt you, and it will always set you free.

Oh, and Swordsbane…

Damn good??  Yeah right. Everything he did could have easily been done by another bozo with decent math skills and no axe to grind or special interest baggage.

I think the average person would be surprised to say the least, if they took on the role of American President.  If you want me to elaborate just give me about a week to type up all the roles, responsibilities, and other bullshit issues the president has to deal with.

Alright SB, I trimmed this down to the essentials.

“What are you going to do?” is the question - what most people miss is that it is not meant to be rhetorical. There are people honestly concerned with such problems, but there has been little productivity because these represent complex problems, and relatively few resources dedicated to removing them. What “ought” to be is too often a bad premise and rarely a good tool.

It’s a complicated issue, but the breakdown is, it takes a lot of resources to run a campaign to make someone president. You vote because you want someone to be president. That means you want other people to do the same. That means you need resources.

Most people don’t have nearly the resources to campaign. We certainly can’t leave jobs, a house, or a family. We have a lot to lose. That, if anything, should be an excellent lesson on how good we’ve got it. We don’t have it good enough because we want access - we get access when we settle for less with our own lives.

That’s the bottom line: being politically active has a rich pricetag. You can get rich, or you can settle for less. Both help buy a president.

I like Clinton more now that he’s not president - he’s a likeable, charming kinda guy, and he’s done some good post-administration-wise, most notably in terms of disaster relief awareness.  If the dems could field a candidate as aw-shucks and personable as Clinton instead of a dried-up prune like Kerry, (or a shrew like Bill’s missus) maybe they could pull in enough centrist votes to win an occasional election.