Image 01 Image 03

CNN Commentator: People Didn’t Believe Bill Clinton “Just Because of the Party”

CNN Commentator: People Didn’t Believe Bill Clinton “Just Because of the Party”

No mention of Monica: “polarization” caused Bill Clinton not to be believed

Why wasn’t Bill Clinton believed back in the 1990s? Could it have had anything to do with that time he looked into the camera, wagged his finger at the American people, and told them, “I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky?”

Nope. That wasn’t it. People didn’t believe honest ol’ Bill because of “polarization . . . just because of the party.” That was the view expressed on CNN this morning by network commentator Errol Louis. His comment came during a discussion of President Trump’s latest poll ratings on credibility.

CHRIS CUOMO: You have eight-in-ten Republicans say they still back the President. Which you should get. You should get the home team. Eighty, ninety per cent not uncommon. But if only half of them believe you, how do you make sense of it?

ERROL LOUIS: This is the Trump effect. We watched it all the way through the campaign. You ask people: do you believe what this man is saying? No. Do you support him? Yes. This is in some ways an indication of the kind of partisanship we’ve seen going on, the polarization of the country. It’s interesting that he falls only below Bill Clinton.

Because Bill Clinton in the early ’90s was the start of what we now know as the modern era of polarization, where people just because of the party, just because they’re never going to believe anything the guy says or like anything that he wants to do, are going to oppose him.”

This kind of blatant disregard for reality is why people don’t believe . . . CNN.

Note: If people didn’t believe Clinton just because of polarization, did Louis really mean to admit that liberals today don’t believe Trump because he’s a Republican? And note this blooper by Louis: he said that when it comes to credibility ratings, Trump “falls only below Clinton.” That would suggest that Clinton is the highest-rated president on credibility, and Trump is second. In fact, Trump comes in last, behind Clinton who is in second-to-last place.

Note segundo: Louis was preceded by another CNN commentator, John Avlon. Never one for understatement, Avlon called Trump’s low credibility ratings “a national tragedy” for which he’s responsible.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


Mark Finkelstein | August 8, 2017 at 10:32 am

Someone has pointed out that Bill was known as “Slick Willie” even before he came to Washington. So he earned a reputation for fiddling the truth in a way that had nothing to do with party politics.

This kind of blatant disregard for reality is why people don’t believe . . . CNN.

Especially their polls. The chyron in the first pic could probably read: 7 in 10 Americans don’t trust CNN polls.

CNN, Chris Chomo and Errol Louis have the nerve to talk about credibility?

What fools! They are just plain clueless. Watch CNN for 10 minutes and you will see how out of touch they are with middle
America. Warning have some Pepto-Bismol ready because after watching them you will need it.

wagged his finger at the American people

That was it, Billy Jeff’s defining moment, the thing history will remember him for—the scolding finger wag was what made it so special. It’s not that he’s a serial liar; we realized that. It was the blatant arrogance; how dare you be reluctant to believe my transparent lies? That was the moment it should have been obvious that all the press talk about ol’ Slick being the “consummate politician” is rubbish. He’s a clumsy oaf. Looking back over two and a half centuries of American politics, I’m having trouble coming up with anything so amateurish and self-destructive as that wag.

As for CNN potshots … the emphasis on superficial “credibility” is vital to politics. It doesn’t matter what you do, it doesn’t matter what you think, it only matters what you say. They all expect to be elected by riding on lies. Lies are vital, the bread-and-butter of parasitic career politicians. Actual actions or—horrors!—accomplishments are best ignored, mainly because there are so few of them, and they all know it (and would prefer to keep it that way).

A less superficial notion of “credibility” evaluates what a man does vs. what he said he’d do. But they don’t like to think about that.

Mark Finkelstein | August 8, 2017 at 11:21 am

In fairness to Louis, maybe he meant to say that people didn’t believe Clinton “just because of the . . . partying.” 😉

Here are the top reasons why no one believed Slick Willie when he claimed innocence in the Lewinsky affair:

Paula Jones, Juanita Brodderick, the Arkansas State Police expose, and the Bimbo Eruption Team.

Clinton had a reputation as a womanizer before he was elected and, therefor, Lewinsky’s claims were quite credible.

    Ragspierre in reply to Mac45. | August 8, 2017 at 12:30 pm

    …AND she would have been crushed like a ripe tomato by the Dollar Bill character assassination operation but for the blue dress.

    He could not lie his way past forensic evidence.

    Dave in reply to Mac45. | August 8, 2017 at 8:58 pm

    He did admit to Baba Wawa during the campaign that he had caused pain in his marriage. Was that from fiddling while Hillary wasn’t looking?

Back then the story was everyone lies about sex.

    Ragspierre in reply to Arminius. | August 8, 2017 at 1:24 pm

    …AND it’s only a private matter.

    But the matter from his privates kinda screwed that whole line…

Everything that happens in the Oval orifice is a private matter, I suppose. But, my tax dollars go to that. Unlike a corporate suite. I remember Soledad O’Brien lecturing me on how whatever happened between Clinton and Lewinsky was a private matter. But if instead of Clinbton we were talking about the head of GM she would have been singing a different tune.

No, we didn’t believe bill clinton, because he and his wife are corrupt, lying scum.

Thanks to those two – and little barry – we’re on the verge of WW3:

Albright makes historic visit to North Korea:

The Obama administration has announced a new nuclear agreement with North Korea:

“polarization . . . just because of the party”

They disapproved of the private Oval Office “party”.