The Shrine

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/24/clinton-video/

Mike Wallace is obviously caught WAY off guard in this. He asks an "innocent question"(right) and Clinton shows his sack and basically tells him he's full of shit (calling Mike's questions about the Global clinton intiative disenguous), breaks down why he's full of shit, and set the record straight as he saw it.

The guys on Fox enjoy talking tough and it was kind of funny watching Mike backpeddaling and trying to change the subject when he got the tough talk from one of their favorite targets.

update:
BTW, this is CHRIS Wallace giving the interview, not Mike, his father.

Man, this interview makes me pine after a competent, intelligent American president, for sure.

It is hilarious to watch the interviewer frantically trying to backpedal as he realises that Clinton is in an ass-kicking mood. "You brought this up, so you get an answer." Haha!

We don't get Fox News here over in Australia (thank Christ), but it's scary to see how plainly it drives a particular agenda. I mean, we have media outlets that lean left or right (or are more populist or intellectual, or whatever), but none so mainstream that exist to so unsubtly push a particular message. I find the existance of Fox news really creepy.

That was great =)

Though, if anyone is going to critisize Clinton about not doing enough on the military front, then they should look at Rwanda.

It is certainly good to see that at least he has the history of events down, because Fox news, CNN, and the Bush party always seem to try to tamper with it for their own ends.

Oh my GOD. He was PISSED. And it really does provide a contrast to the current president; Bush can't think on his feet and articulate himself like this.

Kupek wrote:Oh my GOD. He was PISSED. And it really does provide a contrast to the current president; Bush can't think on his feet and articulate himself like this.

Yeah, there's no doubt he was a pretty smart guy, regardless of what you thought of his time in the presidency

Clinton for Prez 08!

Barret wrote:Clinton for Prez 08!

Is that possible? I am not entirely sure on how American politics function, only that two consecutive presidencies is the maximum.

The Roman Republicans would consider current democratic politics to be corrupt. 1 year terms and a maximum of one term every 10 years; this changed in the later republic.

Canadian politics are a bit different, we have the most corrupt option, unlimited term period, and the Prime Minister can call for another election whenever he/she so desires, and the crown approves =P

The Seeker wrote:

Barret wrote:Clinton for Prez 08!

Is that possible? I am not entirely sure on how American politics function, only that two consecutive presidencies is the maximum.

The Roman Republicans would consider current democratic politics to be corrupt. 1 year terms and a maximum of one term every 10 years; this changed in the later republic.

Canadian politics are a bit different, we have the most corrupt option, unlimited term period, and the Prime Minister can call for another election whenever he/she so desires, and the crown approves =P

The 22nd Amendment

Section 1. No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. But this Article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this Article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this Article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term.

Section. 2. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years from the date of its submission to the States by the Congress.

Ratification was completed on February 27, 1951.

Section 3. You can ignore this amendment if your current president is a douchebag.

Presidents had no term limits before FDR during WWII, Seek, but he was so massively popular that, after his fourth reelection, the Senate put a presidential term limit in place. That would be the 22nd Amendment.

Now you have to teach me Canadian politics as well...

Nev wrote:Now you have to teach me Canadian politics as well...

You can be re-elected forever and there are more than 2 legit parties so you can, as we do now, have a case where the leading party doesn't have a majority. And we don't vote for the prime minister, we vote for our member of parliment and whatever party has the most parliment members is the leaders. We also have a senate.

That's about it.

Zeus wrote:

Nev wrote:Now you have to teach me Canadian politics as well...

You can be re-elected forever and there are more than 2 legit parties so you can, as we do now, have a case where the leading party doesn't have a majority. And we don't vote for the prime minister, we vote for our member of parliment and whatever party has the most parliment members is the leaders. We also have a senate.

That's about it.

To add,

Our Senate is the equivilent to the Roman Senate or the British House of Lords, they don't really have any power, just the position; they are all appointed. That they are an automatic body more or less is a shame, I quite like the idea of a function "second sober opinion." All of the real power is within the Parliament, which is elected, and which is where the Prime Minister comes from. The Commons have all the power, and the parties themselves select who will lead, by whichever method they feel is appropriate: for example, they may have an open vote among all registered party members for leadership.