The Wallace/Clinton affair has another angle to it upon further pondering. To me, Clinton's reaction was the political version of a Zidane headbutt. It also made me realize one other thing. Bush is just as (if not far more) attacked and reviled by Clinton. Yet, he never seems to be affected by it. Clinton on the other hand has had every possible benefit of doubt excuses given to him and yet he can't even handle a 'perceived right-wing' threat?
I got to see the interview. As a Canadian, am I not in the corroded foray of American 'divisionism.' All I can say is that Wallace was not out of line. Not even close. If that's an 'ambush' then journalism as an institution is in profound trouble.
There has not been a President in history that has been fair game for lame attacks like Bush. There is a gigantic discrepancy between American history, Bush's record and the reactions to it. As I alluded to earlier, he has never cracked in an interview. Look, do you think he doesn't know he is being ridiculed - even by interviewers? Yet, carefully examine how navigates through it. It's a lesson in public speaking. He has the last laugh. And you know why he's effective? Because know one realizes it.
Clinton was a star but he was loved. It was easy for him in an interview. The roses were hurled his way. Any hack can perform under those circumstances. Bush on the other hand has the world against him. People no doubt will justify Clinton's loss of composure as 'fighting back.'
I'm not so sure. I would submit it amounts to a Zidane headbutt. He messed up. End of story.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Mysterious and anonymous comments as well as those laced with cyanide and ad hominen attacks will be deleted. Thank you for your attention, chumps.