Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

The Most Obvious Sign That Wallace Did A Hit Job On Bill

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU
 
stopbush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-25-06 11:42 AM
Original message
The Most Obvious Sign That Wallace Did A Hit Job On Bill
Simple - Wallace stated that Fox had agreed to spend 15 minutes talking about Clinton's CGI with another 15 minutes dedicated to anything else.

So, what does Wallace do?

He starts with two questions about CGI and allows Clinton to answer. Any GOOD, non-partisan interviewer would probably CONTINUE along those lines
and ask a few more questions about the CGI during the first 15 minute segment. After all, you're on the subject, and you've PROMISED Clinton that he would have
15 minutes to discuss the CGI (I would even posit that Clinton may have insisted on that as a pre-condition for his appearing on Fox for his first-ever
live interview).

But what did Wallace do after the first two questions? He suddenly changes course completely and goes off into a bash-Clinton agenda. He tried to get Clinton into a
comfort zone so he could all the better ambush him with a line of questioning out of left field. (Worse - and just to show what a spineless, insipid human being Wallace is -
he didn't even have the courage of his convictions to say to Clinton "I would like to ask you this question - Why didn't you do more?" No, Mr Spineless had to blame it on Fox VIEWERS
who had sent him e-mails asking "overwhelmingly" that Wallace ask Clinton that question.)

Was it really Wallace's interviewing plan to ask 2 questions about CGI (which took about 4 minutes of the interview), then go off on "other" questions for 15 minutes or so and
THEN return to the CGI topic for the final 11 minutes? No, I didn't think so, either.

A total hit job. Glad Bill called him on his BS.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
bugbones Donating Member (27 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-25-06 11:46 AM
Response to Original message
1. Agree
It was the typical cheap tactic we see from Faux all the time. Clinton was justified replying the way he did...but I didn't think he was "purple faced with rage" as Drudgeywudge puts it.

Brother Bill did well.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
newyawker99 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-25-06 03:24 PM
Response to Reply #1
13. Hi bugbones!!
Welcome to DU!! :toast:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LynnTheDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-25-06 11:46 AM
Response to Original message
2. It was a FAILED ATTEMPT at a hit job.
And boy did it ever fail.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
napi21 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-25-06 11:47 AM
Response to Original message
3. I watched that show TWICE!
First & LAST time I intend to ever watch FOX too!

All I can say is I spent the whole time cheering BC! I'm actually GLAD that someone DID ask the question, because it's the first time BC's ever had the chance to give his side, and I LOVED IT when Bill said Look, you asked the question and your gonna get the answer!"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vexatious Ape Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-25-06 11:49 AM
Response to Original message
4. I'm not a huge fan of clinton
but it was great to see him man handle this Wallace asshole. These people hate the facts, they hate the truth. Clinton did try to kill OBL and Bush didn't.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Whoa_Nelly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-25-06 11:53 AM
Response to Original message
5. Here's the deal...
Bill Clinton is one very intelligent person...FOX is just manipulated media whore, and Wallace is a tool.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madokie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-25-06 11:57 AM
Response to Reply #5
6. no match for the big dog those fox hounds
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
judaspriestess Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-25-06 11:59 AM
Response to Original message
7. wallace is more of the sacrificial lamb
that faux noose sent in hoping in the name of Jesus they could ambush Clinton. And the idiot wallace thought he could do it too and got his ass handed it to him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stopbush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-25-06 12:11 PM
Response to Reply #7
10. Amazing how a Faux interviewer will collapse into a pile of goo
Edited on Mon Sep-25-06 12:13 PM by stopbush
when he doesn't have 3 other RW assholes sitting next to him ready to gang up on the lone D and
shout him down.

Wallace was completely taken off guard and looked like a simpering idiot. He thought he was walking
into the safe zone that Faux News usually provides for its "talent," but he was sent into a lions den
all alone with nothing to guard him but his lily livered ideology...which Clinton demolished with
almost playful ease.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
xxqqqzme Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-25-06 12:01 PM
Response to Original message
8. Agree - I'm more than certain
discussing CGI was a precondition...otherwise why appear on fux? With wallace starting the interview, Clinton was probably relieved they were honoring the agreement but lo and behold, wallace sandbags him and does a 180. Clinton was justifiably pissed; probably at himself, initially, for agreeing to anything offered by fux. Clinton just showed them up for what they are: lying, rong wing, rethugs.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
underpants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-25-06 12:10 PM
Response to Original message
9. I completely agree-I thought it was only one question
nto that I am arguing with you but yeah I guess it was two questions.

I thought the same thing. Why the quick leap to basically blaming 9/11 on Clinton??? Oh I see he thinks he can slide a bunch of inuendo into the set up and make it look like Clinton agrees. Notice that he tried also to ask another question and Bill let him ask it and then went right back to his timeline.

Hilarious

YouTube links and my quick analysis of it here
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x2216884
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dogday Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-25-06 12:12 PM
Response to Original message
11. He did not questions..... He was stating Republican
talking points with a question mark at the end....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Historic NY Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-25-06 12:31 PM
Response to Original message
12. Clinton telling Wallace to wipe that silly smirk off his face.........
Edited on Mon Sep-25-06 12:31 PM by Historic NY
I thought I'd fall on the floor.......:woohoo::applause:


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Catherine Vincent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-25-06 03:27 PM
Response to Original message
14. He sure did. It was obvious.
What's that skit that SNL did a few years ago of Clinton where he stands in the Rose Garden and says "I...AM....BULLET....PROOF". That was awesome.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat Apr 20th 2024, 06:45 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC