It’s above my pay grade to analyze how Bill Clinton’s eruption on Fox News with Chris Wallace will effect Hillary Clinton and the Democrats but there are many who are opining about it this morning.

Scroll down Lucianne to see the smorgasbord of opinions.

Michael Goodwin of the New York Daily News thinks Bill’s a threat to Hillary’s 2008 hopes.

Hil, it’s time to muzzle Bill

Lefty hearts are fluttering over Bill Clinton’s finger-wagging, fist-face tantrum on Fox television. Party boss Howard Dean, a noted rage-aholic, sees Clinton’s fury as a model for “what Democrats need to do in this election.”
Dean’s approval is one way to know you’re in trouble with moderate voters. Another way is to calculate who wins and loses with Clinton’s outburst. My scorecard says Fox wins with top ratings and Bubba wins ’cause he loves getting headlines.

Hillary loses. Big time. So big, in fact, that I think she ought to finally kick the bum out.


This Boston Herald editorial writes that with his history rewrite Clinton may be trying to fire up the Dems.

For Bill Clinton, the best defense is always a good offense.

That’s the Clinton the nation saw Sunday, pointing his finger and reprimanding Fox News’ Chris Wallace for the crime of aggressively questioning the former president about his role in fighting terrorism and his failure to go after Osama bin Laden.

“They [the Bush administration] had eight months to try [and] they did not try. I got closer to killing him than anybody’s gotten since,” he said.

Perhaps someone should have reminded Clinton that “close” only counts in horseshoes. But that aside, a day later Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice attempted to set the record straight.


The New York Post chose a dubious title for this article because the only real war Hillary will ever deploy to is the Battle of the black pant suit sale.



Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton yesterday fired a direct shot at Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice for not taking Osama bin Laden seriously enough before 9/11.
Clinton jumped into the escalating and bitter blame game after Rice charged in yesterday’s Post that Bill Clinton was making “flatly false” claims that the Bush administration didn’t do enough to stop the terror attacks.


I think Rep. Peter King, R. New York has it right…..

Meanwhile, lawmakers from both sides of the aisle on Capitol Hill joined in the battle.

“I think he’s [Clinton] trying to rewrite history to say he was doing more than he was,” Rep. Peter King (R-L.I.), chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, told The Post.

“If his plan was so good, why didn’t he go ahead and implement it,” King said.

But Rep. Bill Pascrell (D-N.J.) charged: “Condoleezza is the perfect sycophant. For her to appear as anything less wouldn’t come off. If she wants to believe the administration was on its game from January [2001] to 9/11, then you better go back and read the 9/11 report.”

The nasty partisan fight comes as Democrats scramble to convince voters they’re tough on terror six weeks before the crucial elections for control of Congress.

While Clinton defended her husband’s aggressive retorts as smart political strategy, King said the finger-wagging anger only brings up bad memories.

“I think it’s clearly not helping the Democrats. It’s bringing everything back to the contortions of the Clinton administration,” he said.


Hot Air has the video of Hillary standing by her man. (although in reality, he’s a thousand miles away)

Dick Morris says the Clintons are ready to fight dirty with the press. I know he knows a lot but he is rarely ever right in his predictions. But the Clintons are his specialty.

Really. I am just sick of the Clintons. They are old, stale, duplicitous, corrupt and grasping.