Replies

I'm not sure you understand what I'm trying to say.

What we have is many people (pundits) offering opinions on what motivated Clinton's childish and paranoid outburst in front of the entire political world. Since Clinton will never admit one way or the other the libs are left with 2 choices. First choice is to admit their "hero" and leader simply embarrassed himself and the Party by making a total and utter fool of himself and in doing so handing his enemies tons of ammunition in the form of the many lies he told during his rant. This is happening as we speak.

Second, they can take this disaster and send out the troops (Carville, Podesta, the Forehead) and praise Clinton to the skies for his "brilliance" and thank him for showing the Party the way to defeat the Rep. This is what you claim was the intent of Clinton's "planned" meltdown.

The problem with your take is that Clinton, by invoking the 9/11 report and imploring people to read Clarke's book to see the truth, has opened himself up for even more criticism because most everything he said exonerates him from the claim he did not do enough, in fact shows he lied and did not do much of anything.

How is this the work of a man who is "brilliant"? If he had a clue what was in Clarke's book to begin with he never would have used it in his defense, likewise the 9/11 report.

Like I said. Those who believe that this was intentional on the part of Clinton do so because they have fully swallowed the media's claim of his infallibility. In other words, Clinton is a political genius and if Clinton is a political genius and never makes political mistakes then what he did on Sunday was not a mistake. If it was not a mistake then it must have been designed from the start and if it was designed from the start then that proves Clinton is a political genius. And round and round we go.

It's not about fact with Clinton it's about spin......

How many people are going to read Clarke's book.....

How many people heard Clinton state forcefully that the book exonerates him?

It's always been about spin with Clinton and never fact....why should he change now?

You're trying to intellectualize a professional liar....can't happen...