There's plenty of vitriol in the blogosphere today over the Chris Wallace / Bill Clinton interview, and for the most part I don't want to add to it. However, I did come across this comment at The Huffingon Post, and have to wonder (out loud) how the two sides can look at the very same thing and one sees night, the other sees day. I really don't get that.
... Clinton's message... is for a sizable but not noticable percentage of the population that are decent people who are fooled into voting right-wing simply because they don't know any better.... [Clinton] got to the Fox News audience, some of whom are now scratching their heads and saying, "hey, that makes sense. Edna, why do we hate him again?"
I don't want to burst anyone's bubble, but I'm part of the "Fox News audience," and I didn't think the former president made any particular sense. I thought his behavior, especially his (ad hominem) attacks on Chris Wallace were embarrassing and really trashy, unworthy of a former president.
My reaction was to compare him to President Bush, who has been so relentlessly and extremely vilified by the Left, yet has never indulged in this kind of public temper tantrum. He's much more of a gentleman than Clinton could ever hope to be, but we knew that already and it's not a factor the Left even takes into consideration.
Comments