I missed the interview. OK, it was more like I dodged it, but I did get to see it on instant replay as everybody and his brother linked to different bits of the Chris Wallace interview. I've looked at them all, and I have to say I'm surprised.
Not that Clinton erupted, but that everybody else seems so surprised by it. It's a tactic he's used repeatedly against the press. When asked an embarrassing question, instead of answering, he attacks. The first time I remember him doing it was early in his first term, when he was asked why he referred to the Republican supported budget as "spending cuts", when they were really just smaller increases. His response was to turn the question on the reporter by barking out, "Why do you call them cuts?" all the while jabbing that finger forward.
So his antics with Matthews didn't surprise me a bit.
I was a little bit surprised at how easily debunked his assertions turned out to be; he's usually better than that, even when speaking off the cuff.
Posted by Rich at September 25, 2006 11:30 AM | TrackBackWait, you missed the interview? You've sure got a lot of opinions about it....
Posted by: jonathan hickman on September 25, 2006 11:45 AM
I've read press accounts of his reaction, as well as blog posts, and I watched the clips that showed his reaction.
Does that count?
Posted by: rich on September 25, 2006 12:29 PMWell, I don't know. I guess it depends how much the clips showed.
But if you say words like "antics" without having seen them, it seems like you'd have to cite somebody. You're taking somebody else's evaluation as your own.
IMHO, anyway.
Posted by: on September 25, 2006 1:39 PMOh, I saw them, just not live. I guess I need to make that clearer in the post.
Posted by: rich on September 25, 2006 4:10 PM