There’s been a lot of brouhaha the last couple days regarding President Clinton’s interview with Chris Wallace on Fox News Channel. A couple takes on it:
(1) As a general matter, I think the issue was fair game for Wallace to raise. However, if reports were true that FNC agreed that half the interview was supposed to deal with Clinton’s Global Initiative, and then Wallace hit him right at the start with this, it’s pretty poor interviewing form.
(2) Although the substance of Clinton’s response seemed to be on point (it’s hard to get to verify some of the facts), he emotion did cause him to go a little over the top. He could have done without the “smirk” remark and comments about the “right-wing” people going after him. At times it sounded as if he is as bothered by the messengers as the message. He should have just stuck to the facts in refuting the attacks.
I assume this is a short-lived story, and a nice media distraction from Iraq for Rove, Inc. However, if there is a longer-term implication, I hope it’s one William Kristol identified:
In this interview, Clinton rallied Democrats. He reminded them of their talking points on Bush’s alleged passivity in his first eight months in office (remember Richard Clarke!), and on the alleged distraction posed by Iraq from the more worthwhile war in Afghanistan.
. . .
If the Bush-Rove war-on-terror offensive stalls out this week (and much of the media is committed to making this happen), and Democrats do well in November, Bill Clinton can take credit, at a crucial moment, for discrediting the terror issue as a mere political ploy, and showing Democrats how “to fight back” and how “to stand up to the right-wing propaganda machine” (in the words of Howard Dean).
That would be a nice fallout from this—-the Democrats apparently need some sort of spark.
Interesting aside: FNC reportedly scrubbed copies of the interview on YouTube, but now I see that at least some of them are back. Not sure how that has worked out.