You expressed my feelings exactly.  I've had plenty of disagreement with Clinton's policies over the years, but there is no doubt he towers over any other political leader on the scene today.  Now let's see if the weak-kneed Dems can take at least one page -- or even a paragraph! -- out of his playbook. 

Ovid

I have been screaming "FIGHT BACK!!!" to any fellow liberal who would listen to me for over a year and a half here.  And Bill Clinton did...KUDOS TO HIM!!!  The wingers have their panties all in a bunch over this because they know the power of Bill Clinton.  Now with the NIE report we have a weapon to fight with too...

In the words of the 80's heavy metal band Twisted Sister...

"OH...WE'RE NOT GONNA TAKE IT, NO...WE AIN'T GONNA TAKE IT, OH...WE'RE NOT GONNA TAKE IT ANYMORE!!!!!"

I just called one of my Senators and demanded that he get the NIE released. The phone critter was clueless. That's sad. Let's join Clinton in FIGHTING BACK. Take Josh's advice and start calling.

CSPAN junkies visit http://spannerbackup.ipbhost.com

For those who want to see an historical example of someone fighting back I would recommend the documentary U.S.A. v John Lennon. Not only does it remind you, if you need reminding, that Lennon was talented and also committed to peace and justice. The film also shows that as mecurial as Lennon could seem he was not a quitter and that he urged getting up and keep on trying even after failure.

The movie also shows a forerunner of today, Nixon, Hoover, and MItchell trying to punish and silent John Lennon by tryingto deport him while Yoko was in a custody fight for her daughter.

Lennon, and his lawyer did not rollover but kept fighting the deportation orders. The fight continued until secret documents surfaced showing how high up in the government violation of the law and rules went just to get him.

Daniel A. Greenbaum

The logistics of impeachment are such that you'd have to find a way to impeach Cheney either prior to or simultaneously to impeaching Bush, and that this is only worth doing after we take Congress. If the party were to agree on this as explicit strategy now it would mean the current election would be framed as "Bush (God-serving Texan) vs. Pelosi (the San Francisco liberal woman)." As much as Pelosi would make a superior president, having any impeachment plan in place (even in the background, were it outed) would cause a Republican landslide based on the Bush-Pelosi matchup - so as much as in a sane world Bush would be impeached already, it would be terrible strategy to call for it now, and the Dems in office are not that bad at strategy.

Isn't it amazing that the point of view that Clinton's FauxNews actually made him look good is missing from the early MSM reviews? In another TPM blog on this subject, I mentioned that most MSM reporters suggested that Clinton should have towed the line and given a brief response.
This is the view expressed on Howard Kurtz's CNN media show yesterday. Similar views were expressed today by John Meacham of Newsweek on MSNBC's Imus, and a National Review editor on CNN. Only Andrea Mitchell, who came later on Imus tried to (meekly) suggest that since some viewed Fox as part of the vast right wing conspiracy, and would feel Clinton's response was justified. She then quickly added that she felt that Chris Wallace and Britt Hume were fair reporters.
I don't watch Fox that often, but it does seem to me that Fox reporters and analysts feel free to bash Liberals and the Liberal Press. I have yet to hear Kurtz, Andrea Mitchell or others even suggest that Fox might be tilted a little in the GOP's favor.
I will probably watch Obermann to see his take on the Clinton interview. I expect that Beck, Scarborough, Carlson and obviously FauxNews will continue the Clinton was out of order framing of the interview. CNN will be largely non-committal, but may offer some opposing views this evening.
Welcome to corporate media

Join Clinton in fighting back. Call your US Senator and Representative and encourage them to get the 2006 NIE released before the election. You know, the one that shows the GOP Iraq war has endangered the USA, not made it safer. The NIE Bush has been covering up for months.

This is a no-lose deal. If they release it, it shows them up as liars and worse. If they refuse to release it, they are covering up. If they say the full report is more nuanced than made out by the NY Times, then they better prove it by releasing it.

Call your Senators/Rep now. Put the pressure on.

I just watched the full interview. It was obvious that Clinton had anticipated the question and was ready to pounce. I sort of felt sorry for Chris Wallace. It was clear he had never had a guest out "fox" him so badly. Of course, since the guest was Bill Clinton he couldn't rely on cutting to save him. He had to ride the interview to the ground. His response to Clinton's assertion that he never ask such questions of Bush people was weak, so weak Clinton smirked while driving the point home.

The right wingers have called Clinton's performance a lot of bad things in hopes we won't watch, but by all means watch Clinton. He rocked. Too bad there aren't any other Democrats capable of taking over an interview. Howard Dean maybe, but not often.

Ron Byers

I think Huffington's not being fair, as it implies he was compromising to win favor and should know now how futile that was.  He was pursuing bipartisan initiatives in areas such as disaster relief for which they were appropriate. When his record came under attack, he treated it without boasting but honestly and well.

John 

http://www.haberarts.com/

Let's face it, both Bill and Hillary have been riding that Centrist line and been leaders in the DLC for over 10 years now.

It is time for all the Dems who ride this center in the hopes of sowing votes, to come back to the REAL Liberal party.

Impeachment is not on the minds of the Democrats in Congress. Even serious hearings into crimes by this administration seem to be off the table. It was great to see Clinton fighting back, but the utter absence of fight from the Congressional Dems is appalling.

Apparently, the Dems are rolling over on the “compromise” torture bill and the Specter bill on NSA spying. Both of these bills grant historic powers to the President. These bills enable Constitutional infringements on people’s rights and (along with the WCA amendments) grant immunity for past crimes. After all they gave away with the Patriot Acts, Congress is going to empower this President, who has contemptuously abused his authority and tried to seize "Executive" power more than any president in history, to torture and spy on Americans.

The worst thing about this is that these bills set an unheard of precedent. A president can break the law and then have Congress retroactively change that law so that no wrong-doing has occurred. Whether Dems take control or not, it is a sad state of affairs for this country.

The GOPs GOTV effort relies on workers. If you and EVERYONE in the blogosphere were to boycott blogging for 72 hours, we could easily match them. It really is that simple. There's no magic formula for GOTV other than getting volunteers.

From what I've read that is only part of it. Old fashioned GOTV was brute force, find the precints where you have 60-40 or better support and target getting the turnout high there.

The Dems still do it this way, the right uses much more sophisticated targeting to find their specific voters. I thought it was an article here on the Cafe that talked baout it, they have data bases so they can find the one likely Bush voter in a neighberhood of Kerry supporters for example.

Clinton's fight back was good to see, and helps the Democratic party very much, even though it shames the other Democratic politicians who haven't been able to sit up (forget stand up!) against the Bush administration.

However, no one should lose sight of the fact that Clinton was fighting about the past, about what various people did years ago. This is the easy fight. What is needed is for people to fight for the future, for what the US should do in the middle east.

On this point, almost all of the Democratic party politicians are not fighting Bush, and the liberal party line is that they're not fighting Bush because they lack courage and backbone. It may be, but I see little evidence of this. What I see is that the Democrats aren't fighting Bush about the middle east because at bottom they agree with him; their differences are over style and details.

Bush's goal in the middle east is to extend and strengthen US hegemony over the area and its oil. The Democrats' complaints are that Bush's tactics are counterproductive. They're right, of course, but they don't repudiate the goal. The Democratic party argues that it could extend and strengthen US hegemony over the middle east and its oil better than Bush and the incompetent neocons. I've no idea, but as long as the Democrats share Bush's goal, they will inevitably be drawn into savage, immoral conflicts in the area because the people in the middle east don't want their land and oil controlled by Washington, and they will fight to the death to oppose it.

This situation presents real challenges to the US and we need alternative views about how to meet these challenges.

Peter Miller

Oberman just unloaded on Bush on MSNBC. In a special commentary he ripped GW a new one for attempting to blame Clinton for 9/11. Keith pointed out that GW did not make a concerted effort to track down Osama.
He lashed out at GW, the bungling of Iraq, ABC's Path To 9/11, torture and a whole host of other GW misdeeds.
If you can catch the rerun, you owe it to yourself to do so. (If they leave the Special Commentary intact).
I wonder if he's still employed.
True TV history was made tonight!

Same thing Daschle did on the Iraq war, "so we could get back to talking about the economy."

It was boneheaded then, it's boneheaded now.

CSPAN junkies visit http://spannerbackup.ipbhost.com

Trader Clinton sounded just like he did when he said, I did not have sex with that woman and lied to over 200 million Americans and blamed the vast right wing conspiracy for his problems, that's exactly what he did in the interview on Fox, the greatest truth in news today. If you listen to what trader clinton said, he blamed everyone else for his failed 8 years of reign and failure, he even admitted it. This is the idiot I blame for what's happening now, but he would rather play with monica and let the U.S. burn. How come abc, nbc or cbs never ask clinton questions like that, because they are all liberal communists like clinton. Go Fox, keep up the great work.

The Dems seem like a one person party, OK, two, but one of those can't stand for President as he's been Prez twice.

You should be almost as ashamed of yourselves as Repugs should be of themselves.

The American I new seems like the Atlanis of old - AWOL.

I miss it.

Regs, Shaggy

Don't overlook the media ability to find the delightful "middle ground," just as with Swift Boating  After the initial reports making the story about Clinton's temper, today it's all space for replies, an article in which Rice simply denies everything he said and another with some mixed reports as to how accurate it'd be to speak of a plan to take out Al Qaeda. (Scheuer says none, another source says no shortage of multiple plans.) I'm in a "you can't win" mood today. 

John 

http://www.haberarts.com/

That's just looney nonsense. While Clinton's bi-partisanship has not helped those in the Democratic Party who it seems have been unable to help themselves (what, they can't do anything without Clinton hoisting them on his shoulders and carrying them?), anyone who paid any attention at all to the entire interview and what 15 minutes of the interview was supposed to be dedicated to would plainly see that Clinton's bi-partisanship has been CENTRAL to his ability to raise over 7 BILLION DOLLARS in committments to his Clinton Global Initiatives. Yep, Arianna, NO benefit. To anyone but George Bush and the right-wing. Arianna seems incapable of ever making a point without blowing it so completely out of proportion that the point ends up missing the mark completely.

I have heard of Richard Clarke, a clinton appointee, but clinton did not listen to his own advisor, again a failure, you keep sticking a foot in your mouth every time you stick up for dumacrat clinton.

I'm sorry, but where does one find Marxist-Leninists these days, which I assume you mean when you refer to "communisum"? Cuba may be under the Endangered Species Act.

I would be absolutely fascinated to hear your explanation of how jihadists and Leninists have common goals.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

clinton is still growing with more lies, he did absuloutly nothing about terrorism, nothing!!!!!

Are the exclamation points indicative of how many times you cut High School English, per week?

Dude, the actual government record speaks for itself. You are accusing Clinton of the actual thing Bush did.

Bush felt it was more productive to "cut brush" than to respond to a PDB titled "Bin Laden determined to strike within the United States". As a matter of fact, Bush felt it more productive to "cut brush" rather than take care of the gulf states during Katrina. No other President has ever been so callous and clueless. Ever.

You, as well as your fellow braindead freepers, were obsessing on Monica's blue dress and accusing Clinton of obsessing on bin Laden and "wagging the dog." he actually had to fight the right wing to enact legislation to support the "war on terrorism."

You folks have a lot to answer for, and your fellow citizens are obviously upset. Look at Bush's approval ratings. Outright lies juat don't work for most people. (the majority that managed to attend those High School English classes.)

CSPAN junkies visit http://spannerbackup.ipbhost.com