Wednesday, September 27, 2006

A Flap for the Day

September 27

I stay away from the political on this blog, as I stated on my September 11 post, because since that day in 2001 I have felt that there is so much that I and everybody else in the country doesn't know that just to air one's emotional response is not only unlikely to have any effect, it is beside the point in just about every situation and could even be counterproductive to our ends. There is no one above being manipulated by the right hands.

The outburst by Bill Clinton when asked in an interview with Chris Wallace is a case in point. I suppose easily 75 per cent of the blogs have gotten fodder from the scene, as so much of the television news has. Was Wallace baiting him? Was Clinton, as now it is being spun by the Democratic mouthpieces, prepared to leap into the fray himself in order to change the subject? Who won?

For what it's worth, which is less than nothing, my opinion is that neither scenario is real. It was good television, because the interview was live and the eruption was not in the script. What occurred was spontaneous and interesting. Wallace's question was not provocative. But Clinton had come to discuss something else, something that would win praise for him. He was doing interviews on all other networks, including cable. Every other interview had been controlled by him, but Wallace threw him a curve by asking the least soft question first. He took the bait and responded emotionally. Probably he expected that the Fox Network would be laying for him, but even so, he lost it and made things worse.

Like Richard Nixon before him -- and maybe a few other Presidents -- Clinton has a thin skin and a tendency to believe only his good notices. The whole thing kind of reminded me of the old "You won't have Nixon to kick around any more" when Clinton came out with the "hit man" line. Of course there are big differences between him and Nixon, one of which is that Clinton has the media in his pocket.

One reason I avoid writing about this is that I cannot be objective, particularly about either of the Clintons. I just don't like them. I was one of the Democrats who found them not Liberal enough, and, much as I resent the fact that politics is always personal, I guess it is with me too, so I feel unqualified to give an objective opinion.

As to Al Qaeda and 9/11, I always thought that Bill Clinton was aware of the danger of bin Laden, but didn't act because polls said it would be an unpopular move. Notice that "I always thought"? This is based on no information except that which was reported in the press and available to everyone. I have no real knowledge, and no way to get any that is not just a matter of somebody's opinion.

He just strikes me as a guy to whom being popular is everything, and he's certainly gotten his way in this life. My daughter, as extreme a Liberal as anyone in the country, defends him with, "Mom, if you met him at a party..."-- an argument that sends me climbing the wall.

We don't even know what we know. You take sides based on which story you like best; here was one that happened in front of all of us, yet we really don't know what happened or what it will mean in the long run.


Isadora Too said...

Please, please do NOT compare Clinton to Nixon. Though Clinton has, in his private life mostly, made some very stupid mistakes, he is NOT at all paranoid, as Nixon was.

Clinton was, and still is, a middle of the road Democrat, and I fault
him for this. He ran as a Liberal, and then decided to try and get
things done by compromise and went too far. With his stupidity with
Monica, the Republicans tied his hands, making him unable to accomplish anything after that. He is working hard now, as a past Pres. to right
some wrongs in this country and overseas, still compromising, with
Bush, The Elder, running hard to keep up.

The irony of this whole mess is, if 9/11 had happened a year earlier,
Clinton's reputation would be much cleaner, Gore would be Pres. now, we
might have taken out Bin Laden and still be fighting the Talaban, but
we surely wouldn't have put the whole middle east into such abominable turmoil from which it may never recover.

Finding Fair Hope said...

Clinton has made stupid mistakes in public and private life, and perhaps one of them was lashing out at Chris Wallace with so little provocation. It's easy to see the other side as paranoid, and Nixon certainly seemed to us to be, but those we like just make little slips.

All the second-guessing as to what would have happened if what happened hadn't happened is frustrating at best.

I sympathize with Clinton's defenders, but I just can't join them.

hihf said...

I think the whole thing is counter productive, while these guys point fingers at EACH OTHER Rome is burning. The American people deserve better from all of our political leaders.

Finding Fair Hope said...

Well said, hihf. I can't see anybody on the horizon I would want to see as the President of this country. It's a sad situation for us and the rest of the world.

We were just born in the wrong era. I wonder if there was ever a right one.