Wallace vs Clinton on credibility
The Chris Wallace interview with Bill Clinton yesterday has been all over the blogosphere in the last day, for good reason.I loved having Clinton as US President - one felt so good after every speech.
And I find Chris Wallace a superb journalist.
But in a question about which one of the two is not telling the truth, I have no problem deciding which side I would believe.
posted by Alan Adamson @ 6:06 PM
4 Comments:
Well Chris Wallace would never qualify an answer with what the definition if 'is' is. And following my links would have made the answer clear.
Wallace is an excellent interviewer, as well. Always tough, no matter his subject (contrary to what Clinton is now suggesting).
My goal was not to convert you - simply answer your question. Chris Wallace is an excellent interviewer, tough on everyone, including his father. Clinton, while a President I loved having in office, was an utter prevaricator. If you want to be blind to that, that is your privilege. I answered earlier.
Look, I love Clinton, no president after Kennedy ever made me feel better after one of his speeches. Sadly, he just let a sore grow, and when he finally let the cruis missiles loose, did it in a context that had totally undermined any credibility he had, and rightly.
Post a Comment
<< Home