I thought this was a most nifty interview.

linky

What was interesting is that Fox News is trying to spin Clinton's response to weighted questions as him defending his legacy. Nice.

Wait. Clinton had a legacy beyond cowardice, hatred of the military, and getting naught with other women?

Hmmm, who else could get Gloria Steinham and Hugh Hefner to defend him...at the same time?

Not that it's a good thing, mind you. But the irony of it is delicious.

If that were it, he'd have to be a Republican. No, he actually did accomplish a fair amount despite the constant and often criminal actions of the GOP to hamstring him. Some of it was regrettable; but it's there.

And then, surprise surprise, the Republican rolled a lot of it back because 'it hadn't been on the books long enough'; so we didn't get feces free meat, sulfuric acid free air, arsenic free water, sustainable stocks of commercially important fish, a few stands of old growth forests (or competence at governance, concern for national security, tolerance of the middle class...), and all the rest of the stuff Republicans hate so much when they're in power. Pity; it would have been a useful part of Bills' legacy, but so it goes.

vampirebunbun I guess you don't remeber the surplus, and a blanced budget. And how clinton paided off a fare percentage of the national deptd, before bush skerwed that up.

Two words:

Go Bill.

I second that

I guess FOX picked the one person they couldn't shout over, usual slam-wrestling debate style.

Clinton would never be stupid enough to go on a show where they do that, and doing it to a president would be a spectacular propaganda coup for the other side.

He did do that, but he expected it and was prepared for it. He responded to their slanted arguments in high style.

"I tried; I failed." - regarding not killing Bin Ladin

Naah; this was one of the subtle bias announcers; not an O'Reilly type shout-over model.

Of course, now they're criticizing Bill for being too twitchy, defensive and angry. Guess they can dish it out but they can't take it.

Y ou sound so surprised, Kea; but that's SOP. In any argument with the frantic right, if they win, you lose; but if you win, you still lose. There's no safe bet there for anyone opposed to the Beliefs. If you criticise them, you're wrong and evil; if you disagree with their criticisms of you, then you're evil and wrong. If you don't fight back, that proves they're right; if you do fight back, that proves you're wrong. It's really very simple.

Tell me, is that really any different from the far left? No it is simply human stupidity, not a unique sin.

The problem is that the far right has an effective propaganda machine working at the moment and the far left doesn't. The far right has much more influence over government now than the far left has had any time in the past few decades.

In short, the far left and far right commit similar intellectual sins, but the far right has much more freedom to practice those sins on a large scale outside the halls of academia and nutty fringe groups.