« Clinton vs Fox | Main | Republicans, Torture Party »

Clinton vs Fox II

Part II of the Fox News Bill Clinton interview. Part I, the really fun stuff is here The discussion includes The Global Intitative as well as politics and Karl Rove's effective use of the fear card.

Quicktime Video 3.8MB 7'15
Quicktime 7 required



"One of the more unusual interviews"? Because he successfully stood up for himself?

Ok... I'm seriously tired of talk show hosts incessantly interrupting their guests.

How rude and disrespectful can you possibly be?

That aside, Clinton did a fabulous job in this interview. I'm no fan of Democrats-- or of anyone that is invested in maintaining the status quo-- but he deserves credit for shedding light on these things.

It's about time we heard a president speak clearly and unapologetically about their motives and mistakes.

Thanks Bill!

Democrats are the party of the status quo now? This, the party that has enacted every major bill promoting social progress in the last fifty years?

I see what you mean though. The Republicans love change - that's why they insist that the rich stay richer and the whites stay superior.

Nice to see him standing up to these Jerks, and calling out Karl Rove for the manipulator he really is.

Yeah, Republicans hated Bill in office because he was a Smart, swarmy guy who always got off because he can talk his way out of his problems. Democrats and others hate Bush because he some wooden, panicky, snickering dumb puppet who would never be caught in a debate without his trusted earpiece to his masters.

Hey, just want to thank you for putting all the inverview up.

I have to disagree with Bill about the attempted creation of a Democracy in Iraq. The people their obviously don't want to accept our system of government there due to their cultural differences and prejudices. If we ever do leave Iraq, there will be a civil war, the government in power will become corrupt, and a new dictator will rise into power. Attempting to reform the government in Iraq is just a senseless waste of life and the American treasury.

Thanks for one of the more unusual interviews.

Meaning one of the few times a liberal doesn't roll over and play dead or let himself be shouted down by a Fox News storm trooper.


You could tell that Clinton was a bit rattled in the second half of the interview. He obviously did very well defending himself but he was still steamed and so it kept popping into his mind. The fact that he said that he likes Karl Rove's tactics was a bit bizarre, especially given what he said in the New Yorker interview, and given the fact that they are, as he admits, flat out lies. Admiring a good political strategist or a good debater is one thing, admiring someone who has poisoned the political climate of the country is another. I think he was exaggerating the small amount of grudging respect he has for Rove because of what happened in the first half of the interview.

What was 'unusual' about the interview is that Chris Wallace didn't seem to see any of that coming. One could easily imagine that Clinton would react that way after everything that's happened in the past few weeks, and it being 6 weeks before an election.

Anyone who thinks Clinton wasn't expecting this "nice little conservative hitjob" is seriously underestimating this guy. He must have smelled the ABC thing, and the coming of congress elections of course, puts everything in a different context, so he must have went there itching for a fight already. And fight he did my man, good for him. Getting hit first, and then counterpunching twice hard and blaming right wing conspiracy for it all - it's vintage Clinton. Not that there isn't a conspiracy, and they do demonize, and are shamless moth**ers who will use fear to get your vote; They do all that, and worse, and Bill just happens to be their worst enemy because he sees it all.

Also, a small reminder to people that say "Clinton is a liberal" - he really ISN'T. Read his ex-advisor George Stephanapolous' book (who IS a liberal) in which Steph. says: "We actually knew he really wasn't one of us, but it felt good to be winning again" (about winning the White House for the first Clinton term). Of course, on some Democratic core ideals, no Democratic president can veer off too much from party line, on top of that Clinton is a social liberal, correct. But that's pretty much it. Death penalty, balancing budget, free trade, these really were/are conservative issues, views held by Bill Clinton. Maybe a redefinition of terms are needed. Who knows.

In terms of economy and foreign plicy, Clinton is the quentisential neo-liberal.

While he certainly had liberal social ideas he was anything but liberal in foreign policy.

Reading "Confessions of an Economic Hit Man" You get a good picture of what neo-liberalism is all about and how much neo-cons and neo-libs have in common.

Still, it is very easy to miss the good old days of Cinton's presidency.

With his estimated IQ of 185, ROX has no one that can stand with him, in any sense.


"Clinton is the quentisential neo-liberal"

That's because the term "neo-liberal" does not use liberal in the conventional American sense of the term (where it basically means left).

Liberal in the more common usage in most Western countries means a free trade, laissez faire kind of viewpoint; in the contemporary world it's pro-globalization, pro-WTO, etc. Basically the gospel you find preached in The Economist every week. Thus liberal in many Western countries is a synonym for right-wing. Thatcher was a liberal, the PAN in Mexico is liberal, the Frente Liberal in Brazil is liberal and very right wing. Neo-liberals are 'neo' because their ideas have made a comeback, case in point Blair's domination of British politics over the last decade.

I think that this poo-pooing Clinton's presidency by left Democrats is lame. Sure, he may be to the right of some of us. But Reagan raised taxes, opened negotiations with the Soviets, signed a fairly progressive tax reform in 1986 and yet you don't see hard core right wingers whining about Reagan. He's their hero because he stood up for their values and kicked ass. Clinton, by and large, stood up for our values and kicked ass. He tried to pass universal health care; no one can say that he didn't stick his neck out for left-wing causes.

That said, the idea that Clinton was a "social liberal" does not hold water. Sure he held the line on abortion, but he increased by a lot the number of capital federal offenses, and signed the Defense of Marriage Act. And welfare reform was just as much a "social" issue as it was an economic one. He was an all-around moderate. It just goes to show how radically coo-coo the right-wingers who hated his presidency are.

Oh dende. you know what a neo-liberal is as well as I.

I didn't say Clinton was great social liberal but fits in that general category. Depending on the specific topic. Perhaps we could agree on moderate liberal. :)

These days it would appear that all moderates get lumped into the liberal camp, in the minds of the Bushites.

In deed, one of the most memorable aspects of his presidency was the co-ordinated frenzy of the repugs.

I remember well the grand standing of 'Family Values' Newt. You all remember Newt Gingrich? The family values guru who presented his wife with divorice papers while she was in hospital, undergoing surgery for breast cancer. A fine representitive of his type.

If we weren't so used to it, I would be startled and amazed at this new and recent attempt to blame all the Bush era screw ups on Clinton.

You don't buy it? Oh, was it my imagination, or did Clinton say "the era of big government is over" during his presidency? His liberal advisors report being dumbfounded by those remarks. Listen, Clinton, just as Blair of Britain with this "3rd way" politics follow many of conservative ideals. Yes they do put emphasis on social programs, and on social issues they are on the left, but they are NO LIBERAL. In fact, they don't even like that crowd. Did you see how Blair was booed by teamsters (or whatever they call them) in his last union meeting? He is on his way out, but they never liked him from start, and Blair won three elections and state of Britain economy is pretty good.

Unusual? OH you mean actually talking about issues that matter to the rest of us. Sorry mister reporter now you can go back to making us afraid of everything. Hey remember those "No Fear" t-shirts, I need to get one.

@ max: I think you're right. The middle-east is not ready for democracy yet... changes like that have to come slowly, they're just a completely different type of persons now...

But! Clinton can't say things like that on Fox News. If he would his words would just be misinterpreted and twisted. I'm pretty sure he does have this same opinion about the M-E and democracy tho.

Killing Bin Laden is probably a much better thing than trying to form a democracy in Iraq (just look at the mess over there now... right now(!) they seem to be better off under Saddam...)

We'll see what the future brings. I hope that this new diplomatic initiative by the pope will improve the situation in the M-E...

One of the great things about being a former President, it seems, is being able to do tell braying jackasses exactly where to cram it during sleazy push interviews without worrying about how it affects one's poll numbers or political future.

I like the handshake at the end. He has no respect for Chris Wallace.

I suspect that Clinton gave him an earful after the interview was done too. Does Wallace think he's stupid. He underestimated Clinton. HUGE mistake. And to try to spin it as a bizarre defensive display is classic Fox News. I wonder if any Fox viewers actually went out and bought the Clarke book after this.

I can't remember who said it in this large list of comments, but I noticed too, that Wallace immmediately pounced on Clinton, and became defensive! So typical of a stupid Fox News Cover-Up...

I was soooo releived when I saw this interview. Not because Clinton confronted Wallace, but becausehe said what NO ONE has dared to say yet. And in a cunning way! He stood by his statement(s) that refer to not criticizing the current President's actions dirextly, but found a brilliant loophole in hisown statement. As long as he doesn't say Bush's name in negative context, he cannot be called for it! This man is a genius, and is actually DOING SOMETHING. What an INCREDIBLE concept! His plan is incredible, he has financial and political backers, and he has a brilliant method to go about his plan. Long live Clinton! Hillary for 2008!


Support this site

Google Ads

Powered by Movable Type Pro

Copyright © 2002-2017 Norman Jenson


Commenting Policy

note: non-authenticated comments are moderated, you can avoid the delay by registering.

Random Quotation

Individual Archives

Monthly Archives