I suppose in his calculus, the self serving and often contradictory editorials of the New York Times are rational. There is something very intolerant about liberals ....

then you had a right to demand the opposite point of view. The airwaves belong to the public, not to anybody, particularly not to Fox News.

What is he talking about? Where else do you get an opposing point of view. This is just another attempt to defend their decision not to debate on Fox. I know tons of folks that don't watch Fox just because of ridiculous statements like these.

Well I guess since Bill and Hill have stock in Fox(not sure if they sold yet), they're being nice. If you can't beat the Right-Wing machine, make money from them

Well, I for one am very conmforted by the fact that the only news media that is "biased" is Fox!!! (not).

So Bill thinks people talk in board rooms like 2 year olds?

On the other hand, Jessie Jackson goes on National Television and tells TV stations to take off people who he disagrees with, Nascar, Corporations, etc.   Anybody Liberals disagree with are always in danger of being boycotted, taken off the air or sent to re-education camps.

"... if a media outlet were pushing a particular political point of view...then you had a right to demand the opposite point of view."

How about starting with NPR and PBS since my tax dollars fund those flagrant Liberal oracles.

"... the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal is even more right wing and irrational than most of the commentators on Fox News.  And completely predictable...it's like Pavlov's dogs." 

Ditto for the NYTimes, except it's the entire rag and not just the editorial page.  Same can be said of LATimes, The Boston Globe, the Washington Post, and far many more.

"The WSJ editorial board began attacking a major American corporation in the US every day in the editorial page."

Mr. President, how about enlightening all of us with the magical name of this corporation.  Or is the company a covert operative like Valerie Plame and cannot be revealed?  This smacks of yet another Clinton smash and grab polemic propaganda hitjob.  Heavy on the innuendo, light on the facts, and the Universe all revolves around Clinton.

"... we attacked you because you are supporting Bill Clinton. We don't believe that a big American corporation should support Bill Clinton."

Fantastical, narcissistic and juvenile.  Shame that the proof of this encounter was lost when Sandy Berger destroyed the secret documents he mistakenly stuffed into his pockets by accident... numerous times all by mistake of course.  The WSJ should have their attorneys publically address this obvious hyperbolic slander.

"I never gave a rip what their editorial page said, because I knew what they were going to say."

If Clinton's going to act like an adolescent then I'm going to frame my replies in kind so he can more easily understand:  Liar, liar, pants on fire.  He cared so little that he discusses it to this day.  As a side note, is this a new side of Bill we are now privy to, Clairvoyant Clinton?  Sign him up for the Montel Williams show where he can work his mojo alongside Sylvia Browne, Miss Cleo and John Edward (of Crossing Over celebrity and not a relative of Democrat John Edwards, although they both channel dead children for profit).

Thanks for the memories Bill.  Let's not make anymore.

Killing them with kindness isn't working.  Time to get scrappy with the Donkeys.

 So, If you're Bill C. and you are a Millionaire, and you made all your Money they way he did......You'd probably disregard a Business oriented Newspaper, and bad mouth it as he did.   After all, Billy didn't need no Stinking Stock tips, or Business Trends, that's Irrational....as far as Business rationale goes for Bill, the white Water thing didn't turn out like he wanted.....uh...or did it ?

With the kind of Money the Clintons have, you can buy a lot of hit men and imitate the mafia.   If Hillary was a Vice President, the President would NOT be Insurable by Lolyds of London.   And if Hillary goes for Speaker of the House.....watch out for the execution of the "Third in Line" strategy.   

What good is a Free Press, if it is a False Press ?   David Foote  GoE

It depends upon the meaning of the word "even" means...or "more" or "irrational"...

Bill Clinton is a documented liar (unlike Bush who has only been accused of lying - accused by people who worship this particular documented liar) - Whatever he says - believe the opposite.