I just got back from a weekend out of town to see this glorious smackdown of Chris Wallace by the Big Dog. But as pumped up as I was to watch the Youtube video and to see someone as articulate and passionate as Bill Clinton defend his own anti-terrorism policies, my thoughts began to wander to past "smackdowns" and their political implications.
First of all, don't get me wrong, we NEED Democrats to take a stand. We need people like Bill Clinton; smart, articulate, passionate defenders of reason and justice to speak out passionately for the truth. But right now I have blinders on. All I care about is winning this upcoming election. Sorry. If something happens that is in the service of the dems taking over the house and /or senate this November, I am all for it. If it results in a net negative towards that effort, then it impedes the job we need to be focused on and I don't want to waste my time on it.
I remember how PUMPED I was after Fahrenheit 9/11 came out. And I remember Al Gore made a few really passionate and brilliant speeches about a year or so ago, that had me standing and applauding in my living room. Then I remember how frustrated and upset I was when the narrative turned to how "unhinged" Al Gore and Michael Moore were. I'm not sure we can reasonably argue that efforts like Fahrenheit 9/11, or brilliant and passionate speeches by smart people like Al Gore really result in a net positive for the democrats in terms of actually WINNING ELECTIONS, which again is all I am concerned about right now. Now obviously, Clinton in this interview didn't set out to score political points, although it sure looks like FOX did and they had Wallace sandbag him. But my real question here is, does this Clinton extravaganza somehow end up being a net positive for the dems, or does Karl Rove simply have a shiny new 'frothing" and "unhinged" toy to play with?