In a previous post I commented on Bill Clinton’s oddly satyr-like demeanor. I see I am not alone in noticing or wondering what was going on. Via Pajamas Media, here’s WILLisms:

?Clinton?s best assets in personal appearances are his charm, his coolness and collectedness, and his command of the space around him. All of that went out the window,? writes Ken McCracken. ?Mr. Personality showed a truly ugly side of himself, and one wonders what other issues he has churning in rage just below that othewise calm exterior.?

I don’t think a pro like Clinton would “lose it” on national television, nor do I think his super-pro wife would allow such a thing. I think it was calculated. Via Glenn Reynolds, so does Ann Althouse:

…I’m convinced that Clinton went on the show planning to act the way he did. It wasn’t Chris Wallace’s specific question that set him off. He decided in advance to go on Fox News and unleash an attack on Fox News as soon as when he saw an opening. But he jumped too eagerly at what wasn’t really an opening and he jumped weirdly. That he thought he was doing well suggests that he has surrounded himself with people who are pulling him out of the calm, rational center — what Arianna mocks as a “bipartisan love-in.”
But this country is full of people who aren’t hotly partisan, who are put off by that strong stuff, and who need to see a demonstration of calm rationality. Now his over-the-top performance is being praised by those people who crowd around him — that’s the real love-in — and he may succumb to their fawning inducements to hardcore partisanship.

Pandering to the hard left, while driving the hard right bonkers?
I’d say that’s a twofer.
(I suspect it won’t be Clinton’s last “angry satyr” performance.)
AFTERTHOUGHT: No, I am not going to PhotoShop cute little Pan Priapus horns on the president! This is serious satyr stuff; not satire!

clinton_wallace_featuredimage.jpg

(“AS-IS” picture from Pajamas Media’s “All Eyes On Bill” roundup.)