<p>Golani - the answer to your question is: “because it’s self-pitying, sanctimonious, self-righteous and wrong.” Politicians on both sides of the aisle react to adversity pretty much the same on average - but when you view the world from a skewed, partisan viewpoint you only see the faults of the “other side” and are blind to those of the guys on your own. If you ever want to expose your own lack of self-awareness, just expound on how everyone whose politics are different from yours is morally inferior in every way - from the way they answer questions to the way they brush their teeth.</p>
<p>You can read lots of posts here on CC about how one group of people is clever, joyous, considerate, thoughtful, and mindful of the lessons of history, while another group is hate-filled, sour, unoriginal, faddish, etc. Guess which group the poster is always a part of?</p>
<p>You know, it’s be a hoot if somebody would come on here instead to post how the members of his or her political party/religious belief/state of residence, etc., are actually a bunch of shallow, meanspirited jerks, while the “other guys” were bold, open, wise, and good looking!</p>
<p>No one has still explained how the question wallace asked was unreasonable. Its not like wallace accused him of anything he simply asked what is on the minds of many people and gave clinton the chance to answer. NO clear thinking person would say Wallace did something wrong</p>
<p>I think what people have a problem with is that the current administration is not being asked the same hard questions that are “on the minds of many people.” </p>
<p>I guess the questions aren’t on the minds of the lap-dog media.</p>
<p>I didn’t see anyone on the right crying when Tim Russert interviewed Cheney a couple of weeks ago. Also, Cheney behaved like an adult and Clinton behaved like a spoiled, self-obsessed adolescent.</p>
<p>This was an extremely tough interview (Russert came off like an excitable kid next to Cheney):</p>
<p>Here’s an analogy for all of you old-SAT I aficianados:</p>
<p>Keith Olberman is the the left as Rush Limbaugh is to the right.</p>
<p>In the first 30 seconds or so of his commentary, Olberman had the following statements.
in referring to a fellow journalist and
</p>
<p>Olberman is a well-spoken, articulate far-left commentator, imho. He is a perfect example of the liberal bias in the media – I think he says what most other journalists think, but have the good sense to modify.</p>
<p>In my mind, anyone who equates ANY elected U.S. government (Dem or Rep) with the murderous maniacs of 9/11 is at least a lunatic if not a traitor.</p>
<p>So far on this thread not a single person has refuted, or even addressed, the thrust of Olberman’s commentary: the logical flaws inherent in the view that Clinton was too distracted by the Lewinsky affair to deal with the looming threat of terrorism and therefore bears the lion’s share of the responsibility for 9/11. Perhaps some things are too difficult to attempt.</p>
Chris Wallace didn’t say anything remotely like this. The only reason I know who KO is is that some of my favorite commentators quote his idiotic comments, and I had to google him to stay up to speed. What a caricature of complete idiocy.</p>
<p>KO is just a flash in the pan trying to pump his ratings…he’s getting killed in # of viewers … heck it’s like the T.Owens “overdose/suicide” nonsense, poor 'ol TO can’t get attention on the field and hadn’t been mentioned on espn since saturday so why not keep try to keep his mug in the minds off the field…hehe</p>
<p>I am a true political moderate. In fact, I despise the extremist factions of both the right <em>and</em> the left. With that perspective, I listened to this commentary and found it <em>most</em> over-the-top and ludicrous. <em>ANYONE</em> who would hold Clinton up as a paragon of “honesty” is <em>seriously</em> deluded. That alone should discredit this self-serving diatribe.</p>
<p>“Self-serving”–very astute, which is why I hate to disappoint some posters here, but KO will never father children: he’s too in love with himself to share himself with anyone else. (Something he has in common with Limbaugh, btw.) ;)</p>
I also think KO is a complete jerk (although articulate), but not just because I disagree with his point of view. He strikes me as a self-centered man who says outrageous things just for the attention. His comments are hyperpole, with exagerrated claims and comments. He certainly could have made his point about the Clinton interview without name-calling, but that got him a lot of attention, didn’t it? He strikes me as someone I wouldn’t like in real life – an egomaniac, arrogant and full of himself. </p>
<p>I don’t always agree with Tim Russert, either, but he seems like a modest, intelligent man with a point of view that is different to mine.</p>
<p>I agree with sjmom–if KO had a brain, he would be Limbaugh. Unfortunately for him, he doesn’t, and he isn’t. You need to have a brain to pull all that bombast off and make it work. KO reminds me of a SNL caricature.</p>
AM~
I was actually referring to KO, who repeated several times the notion that Clinton was the only one who has spoken “honestly” on this subject. For the record, I have every bit as much disdain for Bush as I do for Clinton, so it’s not a matter of that. I just call 'em like I see 'em. ~berurah</p>
Yes, I did - back in post 13. An elected official has an obligation to respond to press questions about their actions in office (although many try to duck that obligation as much as possible, including the current president) but a private citizen doesn’t. Clinton is not in office anymore. The report is that Clinton was asked to come on the show to talk about some charitable project, and agreed to do that. Once there, Wallace started asking him about Bin Laden - a week or so after a TV show reportedly misrepresented various facts regarding the Clinton Administration’s attempt to neutralize Bin Laden. So the answer to your question is two-fold: </p>
<p>1) Under the accepted “rules” of private party press interviews Clinton had every right to tee off on Wallace for asking him about anything other than the agreed topic of the interview. </p>
<p>2) Clinton was responding more to the sleazy TV show and various other similar recent commentaries regarding the respective efforts of the Clinton and Bush Administrations to neutralize Bin Laden than to the bare words Wallace asked him. Context is important, and here the context included more than you see in the video clip.</p>
(and not one bit of an idiot either)</p>