Kristol on Clinton’s temper tantrum
Bill Kristol sees Clinton’s Fox News outburst as planned political warfare.
Kirstol believes Clinton intended to (1) help Democrats in 2006; (2) help Hillary in 2008; and (3) intimidate his (Clinton’s) critics.
Kristol thinks he succeeded.
It looked to me like Clinton lost his cool and lipped off– a temper tantrum. Clinton looked churlish and petulant. The docudrama “The Path to 9/11″ bugged him.
Clinton’s tantrum shows what he always has been and will be. No matter what his age is, he will always be trapped in his teens emotionally and intellectually. An unserious man. In many ways, he would be the ideal guy for Maureen Dowd, an equally unserious woman.
Comment by Rich DiNardo — 9/25/2006 @ 6:17 pm
Ewwww…my eyes, my eyes….oh gawd, I’ll never get the image out of my head….Clinton……Dowd…..oh gawd no…..
Comment by antimedia — 9/25/2006 @ 7:54 pm
ouch
Comment by Neo — 9/25/2006 @ 10:16 pm
Republicans would rather stay harassing a previous president than ask their own why, five years after a 9-11, he has yet to catch Bin Laden and many of his henchmen who were also responsible. It speaks wonders about the mess America is currently in.
Comment by EmbersFire — 9/26/2006 @ 1:59 am
The last time I checked Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Ramzi bin al Shibh and Abu Zubaida, the three top planners of 9/11, were safely ensconced in Gitmo and Mohammed Atef, AQs military commander, is quite dead. Does that not count as progress? As for harassing the previous President, which Republicans are doing that? Clinton injected himself into this with his lie laced tantrum aimed at Chris Wallace. If there is anybody who should just shut up, it should be Clinton. He had his shot, and now just let the current administration do their best. He will not do that, however, as he remains like a child who always seeks to be the center of attention.
Comment by Rich DiNardo — 9/26/2006 @ 5:55 am
I think Bill Kristol is too clever by half. To my eyes Clinton lost his temper. When you lose your temper, you give something away. It’s never a good idea for a politician to appear angry and defensive. My judgement? Pure reaction on Big Bill’s part. No premeditation — pure and unadulterated (and un-adult) anger and defensiveness. No help to Hillary on this one and it will scare no one away from asking “hard” questions. The only ones who won’t press Bill in the future are the sychophants who wouldn’t press him in the past.
Comment by Norman Rogers — 9/26/2006 @ 10:17 am
I agree, the defensive stance billy has taken, can only be taken as evidence of his guilt. i did not sleep with that woman.
Comment by getbentalready — 9/26/2006 @ 10:33 am
I had the advantage (disadvantage) of reading the transcript without seeing the video. From that perspective the outrage seemed staged. I could understand if Clinton went off after repeated questioning. But he blew up after the first question on the subject. It looks as if he was waiting for an opening and unleashed on Wallace with his prepared outrage.
Comment by soccer dad — 9/26/2006 @ 10:36 am
[…] Courtesy of Austin Bay: […]
Pingback by NoisyRoom.net » Blog Archive » Kristol on Clinton’s temper tantrum — 9/26/2006 @ 6:08 pm
Nobody likes a bully. The Netroots will like it because it was an attack on Fox. Any rational person looking at it will see a rude and imperious, once-powerful, bully.
Comment by gogipper — 9/26/2006 @ 8:49 pm