youtube videos of Chris Wallace interviewing Bill Clinton

[SunWuKong]

part 1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UaNIBFSMjb8)
part 2 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lT7yKfXN4p0)
part 3 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oinw73s-wdo)

i've only watched part 1 so far, but Clinton seemed to have responded well, even though he lost a bit of temper.

[n3bulous]

after watching part 1 + beginning of part 2, it's absolutely understandable that clinton was angered. it's actually impressive how well he composes his counterattacks to wallace's trolling flamebait ambush. i recognize wallace from abcnews and whatnot, but didn't realize until this that he was such a right wing tool douchebag.

[n3bulous]

edit: finished watching the whole thing. wow. clinton has the patience of job. wallace has no conscience whatsoever. is he human? he baits clinton into the mudwrestling match, and at several points during clinton's rebuttals smugly claims that all he really wanted to do was talk about the clinton global initiative. finally, wallace actually does abruptly turn the interview back to the cgi, and clinton barely flinches and graciously shifts gears right along with that robotic automaton and sorry excuse for a journalist. after wallace is done with the attack and wraps up by asking questions (with disingenuous interest, no doubt) on the more neutral subject of the cgi, clinton is able to give thoughtful, composed, even enthusiastic answers to those cgi questions.

wallace knew exactly what he was doing in jerking him around trying to rattle him by attacking, then abruptly changing gears/feigning neutrality. but clinton is pretty damn good, very articulate, very composed, very presidential, unlike what's his face in the white house right now.

basically, wallace tried a dennis rodman on him. bait him into reacting and then claiming innocence. what a sleaze bag.

[Player 0]

Clinton seems to know how to handle Wallace and his sort rather effectively.

[yoMAMA]

isnt wallace the son of mike?

[SunWuKong]

maybe i'm just biased, but after watching those clips, i thought - even when Clinton is angry, he's a better speaker than W. Bush.

[snailpoo]

Wallace was out of his league.

maybe i'm just biased, but after watching those clips, i thought - even when Clinton is angry, he's a better speaker than W. Bush.

It doesn't matter which political affiliation you have, Clinton is a better speaker.

[mr. x]

maybe i'm just biased, but after watching those clips, i thought - even when Clinton is angry, he's a better speaker than W. Bush.

why should anger change anything, some of the best shit I've said was when I've been pissed. It's passion I tell ya

[returntosender]

the man has crazy charisma.

[haplesshobo]

It really shouldn't be a surprise that Clinton lost his temper. From what I've read about the guy, he'll be charming you one minute, the next he'll be angry like what we're seeing on that clip.

Its a shame about Clinton because he came in with so much promise and talent, and kind wasted it.

I don't know how fair it is to criticize him about Bin Laden. On one hand, the CIA had Bin Landen within their scopes a couple of times and could have taken him out but the Clinton administration backed down; it treated AQ as a law enforcement issuse. Yet, before 9/11, anything more drasmatic would have been fiercely criticized by the same republicans who are now criticizing him for not going after AQ enough. Just look at the criticism he faced when we attacked that plant in Sudan, which at the time, we linked with AQ.

[Golden Monkey]

Clinton is a phoney.

His anger was calculated and inappropriate.

He should have calmly admitted his failings and then rightfully highlighted the Bush admiinistration's incompetence and the Fox channels avoidance of criticism of Bush.

Instead he overreacted like a sissy.

When Clinton get's like that it's a reaction to his own guilty feelings. Like when he got all emotional and lied about Monica Lewinsky.

Plus this is a ploy for the Clinton's to play good cop/bad cop. Bill will come out all angry and crazy and Hill will be the calm voice of reason.

I agree with you haplesshobo, Clinton is flawed in not really living up to his potential.

Of course he's more articulate than Bush. Is that saying anything?

[SunWuKong]

It doesn't matter which political affiliation you have, Clinton is a better speaker.

not so much political affiliation. i just like Clinton more than Bush, and think Bush is a terrible president.

[lethal]

I don't understand the not living up to potential comments. What could he have done better? The economy had unprecidented growth, we didn't go around invading other countries for years at a time. Could he really have done more considering the Congress was Republican controlled for 6 of the 8 years he was in office?

[returntosender]

so he shouldn't have gotten hungry?

[haplesshobo]

I don't understand the not living up to potential comments. What could he have done better? The economy had unprecidented growth, we didn't go around invading other countries for years at a time. Could he really have done more considering the Congress was Republican controlled for 6 of the 8 years he was in office?

But, Reagan also had to deal with House of Rep. that was controlled by the opposing party throughout his eight years. For better or for worse, Reagan had a much bigger impact on the presidency and the country than Clinton, who on paper, we would have expected more from- Clinton has the personal magnetism, a brillance we haven't seen in the White House in decades, comprehensive knowledge of all the minute details that even dazzled his critics, etc...

When Clinton was elected, he was riding a crest of possibilty. For most presidents, when they are elected, they are given the benefit of the doubt and can control the agenda. Here was a president where his party controlled both houses and all that momentum was wasted. While gays in the military may have been a worthwhile goal, it was a distraction and a mistake to use up that incoming political capital so early for an issue that wasn't vital to his agenda. If gay rights was really that important to him, he wouldn't have later capitulated and signed the Defense of Marriage Act. By the end of his presidency, with all his popularity, the administration was doing stuff like school uniforms.

I compare Reagan and Clinton to the Tortoise and Hare. Reagan fell short of Clinton intellectually, and you have to question how much Reagan knew was going around him. Yet, Reagan had these big, overarching goals, and that's what he focused on and pushed until he accomplished those goals. With Clinton, he didn't have the self displine to focus on the big things and he would flit from one thing to another, without ultimatley accomplishing as much as he could have.

The economy was great during Clinton's run, but it had already started to pick up late in Bush's term, but too late to help Bush. Calvin Coolidge was also a president during economic prosperity, but that didn't make Coolidge a great president.

[Napoleon Chynamite]

On a related note, does anyone have any insight regarding the Rwandan genocide issue? I've heard more than a few people (not necessarily right-wingers) criticize the Clinton Administration for failing to act in time and that whatever they did do was too little too late in intervening during the massacre(s).

[haplesshobo]

I was thinking about it, and Clinton might have been one of the smartest american presidents, up there with Jeffersons and Wilsons. And, he was probably one of the most ambitious presidents as well. You don't do as much as he did at such an early age without striving ambition. From everything I've read, he wanted to be one of the Great Presidents.

Given all that, its perplexing how it seemed that the Republicans, after 94, seemed to be setting the agenda. Just look at his effect on the Democratic Party. He was president for eight years, has enormous popularity within it, and with the vacuum in leadership, should be the figurehead of the Democratic Party. Yet, it seems almost as if the Democratic Party has rejected his vision and ideas. How many Democrats do you see today that call themselves a Clintonite, and are trying to continue the work of Clinton? Instead, Leiberman, another member of Democratic Leadership Council, gets bounced out in the primary. And, even Gore, his VP, seemed to be running away from Clinton when he ran for president in 2000. The Democratic Party has swung decidely the other direction, away from Clinton.

Compare that to Reagan, and his enormous influence on the Republican Party. Its like Bill Walsh, and how all his assistant coaches went to other teams and brought with them, the West Coast Offense. The current president is decidely following more in the footsteeps of Reagan, rather than his own father.

Maybe, for anybody with such enormous talents, it would have been impossible for anybody to fulfill that potential. No matter how much they might have done, they would have always fallen short.

maybe i'm just biased, but after watching those clips, i thought - even when Clinton is angry, he's a better speaker than W. Bush.

That's not saying much. Its like comparing how well read somebody is with Bush.

I think we all agree that Clinton is a better speaker than Bush. But, I also think Clinton has been overated on that ability. In 88, when he nominated Dukasis at the Democratic National Convention, his speech was widely considered a dud where it became something of a national joke. The crowd started to applause when Clinton finally said 'in conclusion". And, I've seen Clinton speak in person as well, in what was supposed to be a very important speech and I was very underwhelmed. I think the problem was that Clinton was too self-indulgent with his speeches, and doesn't edit them enough. Clinton's speeches play out better on TV, when they're edited to soundbites, than hearing it live. I think Tony Blair has always outshone Clinton in terms of speaking ability.

[Yeahman]

I think I lost a bit of respect for Clinton after watching that. This was clearly planned. It didn't matter who the interviewer was. Clinton wanted to go on Fox News, defend himself and the Democrats, and bash the Republicans and Fox News. He probably agree with be interviewed by Wallace because he thought he'd be an easier target than O'Reilly or Hannity.

Wallace asked that one question and Clinton went on for 15 mintues then blamed Wallace for not asking other questions. Man, never knew Clinton could be such a bully.