He could’ve stopped the interruptions, but he led off of them instead. And can you show me the agreement that said no non-global initiative questions would be asked until the second half of the show? If that was the case, then Clinton should’ve done what I first suggested-- tell CS that he’d come back to it after the first half was done and he had his 15 minutes to talk about the main topic.
I don’t like many politicians, but I certainly don’t dislike Clinton. And I have no problem calling his answering of the factual question “impassioned”. As I’ve said repeatedly, I don’t even have a problem with him expressing anger at the fact that people still ask him that question. The only thing I have a a problem with is his ad hominem attack on Wallace. That I don’t like from anyone when a rational discussion is supposed to be taking place. It was not deserved. Clinton agreed to the interview. He knows exactly what type of journalist Chris Wallace is, and if he thinks he’s a right-wing troll, then he shouldn’t have agreed to the interview. He’s smarter than that and you know it.
Hyperbolic hypotheticals in the service of an analogy are perfectly accepted around here. And the fact that it was ridiculously extreme is just to amplify the illustration. If you think my analogy was false, then that’s one thing, but I didn’t insult you and I don’t believe I violated any taboos.
As for the “don’t go there” bit, what are you trying to say, that you really do have a history with abuse that I’m aware of and that it’s insensitive of me to bring it up?
He implicitly admits that it’s fair to examine his record on fighting terrorism. He never says, “The circumstances and wording of your question was fair.” In fact, that’s exactly what he spends so much time objecting to – the manner in which Wallace asked the question – “Why didn’t you do more … ?” – a form that’s loaded with negative assumptions. Even if you can show that someone somewhere in the mainstream media asked Bush, Cheney, Rice, or Rumsfeld about their pre-9/11 anti-terrorism activity, it would never be couched in such langauge. They would say something like, “Could you possibly have done something more … ?”
I don’t see anyone but the real wingnuts getting all gleeful over it. Novak? Will? Krauthammer? I mean, if Limbaugh’s calling it a win, I don’t care - his audience is long gone regardless.
He just plain seemed oily. If he’d been reading the telephone book, I don’t think I’d have had a different opinion of him.
By gum, you’re right - the order of the questions isn’t given to the audience in Wallace’s pre-interview commentary, just that time given to CGI and “anything else” would split evenly. Actually, heh, it looks like the whole interview was supposed to last fifteen minutes, though it did go somewhat over. Of course, that’s what Wallace told the audience. What he told Clinton’s people may have been more specific.
In the interest of accuracy, I withdraw earlier incorrect statements I’ve made which were based on the idea that the interview was supposed to be thirty minutes, with the first 15 spent on the CGI. This doesn’t cause my opinion of Wallace and Fox to improve, though.
Oh, Clinton’s very smart, I try not to underestimate him, but this was the first time he discussed Fox while on Fox. After what they’ve said about him for years, I’d say it was well deserved.
If the right wing base gets fired up when someone attacks a Fox News lackey, they’re the functional equivalent of a cage full of monkeys who starting jumping up and down, ooking, and flinging shit when anyone makes a face at them.
As for the length of Clinton’s response - yes, he could have been shorter. He could have said “I did as much as I could” and moved on. But in the context of the ABC hatchet job, I suspect he didn’t want to cut no slack.
And speaking of stupid Republicans, anyone else notice how Mallard Fillmore this week had devoted four strips (or was it five?) in high dudgeon about ABC removing the admittedly improvised scene in the movie. Not only do these guys lie now, they get upset when someone removes an admitted lie. That’s just part of the context.
Keep reading my post. Eventually, you’ll get to the part where I point out that, by Clinton’s own admission, Wallace did not assume anything untrue. It’s not unfair to ask a question that assumes facts that everyone agrees on.
The question wasn’t in violation of the pre-interview agreement. Wallace said he would spend half the time on what Clinton’s got going on now, and the interview wasn’t half over when he asked the question.
And he never said he was forced to ask the question because of the pressure applied by email. He said it was the most common email question that people wanted asked, so he thought it should be asked. That’s part of what journalists are supposed to do, since we regular Joes don’t get to question former Presidents very often. They’re supposed to ask the questions that we want answered.
I don’t understand this. Does it look weaselly because you think he blamed the question on emails? What am I misunderstanding?
If the question really was the most frequently emailed question – and I see no reason to believe that it was not – then who should he have attributed it to? It was the most frequently emailed question, so it came from a lot of people.
If he’d introduced it as, “Here’s a question from Joe Smith in Springfield…,” then you guys would be accusing him of cherry-picking the least favorable question to ask Clinton. Wallace can’t win.
Wait. I thought you were going to fault him for not spending enough time on Clinton’s other stuff. Now you’re saying he did a bad thing by asking about on Clinton’s other stuff? That’s unfair. Once again, damned if you do, etc.
I was asking for any further citations. Again, this is because “I didn’t do enough by definition because what I did do was not sufficient to catch him” is not really “admitting” anything.
What would count as a significant “admission” would be if he were to say something like “Given what I knew, there are actions I should have known to undertake, which I did not undertake.” Or something like that.
Anything like that from Clinton? If not, then claims that he admits he didn’t do enough are flimsy.
Your argument that it’s a fair question seems to rest on the following suppositions:
If Clinton admits he didn’t do enough, it’s fair to ask him why he didn’t.
If the question is legitimate, it’s fair to ask the question.
I have challenged your claim that Clinton admits he didn’t do enough in any sense of “admitting one did not do enough” which is relevant to the first supposition I’ve listed.
As to whether the question is legitimate, I do not know what notion of a “legitimate question” you, Clinton, or anyone else in this thread, are using. The term looks too fuzzy to be of any use. In any case, if “legitimate question” just means “fair question” then to state the question is legitimate is just to beg the question as to whether the question is fair.
When Clinton said “It’s a perfectly legitimate question” what do you think he thought Wallace meant by the term? What was he trying to communicate to Wallace? I myself can’t tell very clearly. The context doesn’t provide enough information as to what the standard of “legitimacy” being appealed to here is.
It doesn’t seem important to me what “legitimate” means in this context, since the function of Clinton’s allowance that the question is “legitimate” is just to highlight the fact that, even as he takes it seriously as a “legitimate” question, he is able to give a full and sufficient answer to it. Wallace can mean whatever he likes by the term.
What do you mean by the term? Also, what do you mean by calling the question “fair?”
I call it “unfair” for this reason. The asking of the question presupposes a fact which is itself at issue in the context of the wider discussion in which the question is embedded. The fact presupposed is that Clinton was obligated to do more than he did to catch BL. To ask a question which presupposes a proposition which the person being asked the question does not assent to puts the person being asked the question in a position of being unable to answer the question directly, therefore making them appear evasive. Also, usually, the asking of the such questions causes the person asked the question to be unable to answer the question without considerable elaboration. This makes the person answering the question appear to have been caught by an effective and pointed question, when in fact that may very well not be the case at all. Since, then, the question is designed not to actually catch the opponent in a genuinely rationally problematic position, but rather, is designed only to make the opponent appear to have been s0 caught, the asking of the question is fundamentally dishonest.
If you think the question is fair, then could you explain what’s wrong with my analysis of Wallace’s asking of the question?
If it makes you feel any better, I thought that same thing the first time I read it. And my first thought after realizing his name was Chris Matthews was, “Wait, did the news article get his name wrong?” Obviously, I don’t watch much Fox News. And it probably shouldn’t make you feel any better since I’m a moron.
Chris Matthews was the Chief of Staff for Tip O’Neill, the long-time Democratic Speaker of the House. I would be shocked if he was now a partisan Republican.
I hadn’t thought about this, but it’s interesting. I have no reason to believe he was not actually angry, but I do wonder: If he really thinks Fox News is a GOP lackey organization, what kind of questions did he expected?
Well, not just me. After I made my statement, I found out Keith Olbermann expressed the same opinion.
You’re ignoring my statements about Wallace’s smirking tone, and I don’t buy into the proposed “Don’t attack Wallace - he was born that way” position. I perceive it as not being “we asked some questions; he gave us some answers” (which would have been fine) but rather “we did our bestest to be fair but the mean ol’ former prez’s head exploded in unprovoked fury! What were we to do?”
I like how the strip keeps repeating the phrase “powerful Democrats”, in order to stoke the outrage. Poor little ABC, forced to submit to those bullying Democrats. There’s no such thing as a “powerful” Democrat these days…there’s just some outraged Democrats, and a network that got caught spewing partisan bullshit.
It occurs to me that any time a question is phrased in terms of: “Why didn’t you do more?”, it invites the inference that the questioner possesses and is prepared to demonstrate an in-depth knowledge of precisely what the respondent did do. And if the questioner actually has such knowledge, both the substance and the phrasing of the question will be appropriate, and fair game.
In the case under discussion, I believe that Clinton correctly surmised that Mr. Wallace and his e-mailin’ inquirers did not possess the in-depth knowledge of what the President had actually done that would have made the question as phrased, and in its context a fair one. Instead, the question as posed, was an ambush, and Clinton’s annoyance with it as an ambush was wholly understandable. The way he called out the ambush for the scurrilous attack that it was, and then proceeded to answer the question on its merits, was laudable.
Oh, well, if Keith Olbermann said he looked weaselly, then I guess he’s objectively weaselly.
So what do you and Keith Olbermann think was so weaselly about him?
I’m not ignoring it. I just don’t agree with it. First of all, I’m not familiar with Wallace’s “smirking tone.” Does someone have a link to a clip where I can watch it and see if I missed a “smirking tone”? (I’m not sure what that means, but I’m assuming I’ll know it if I see it.)
Second, I don’t think the question was invalidated by Wallace’s (alleged) smirking tone. If there was such a smirking tone, I could imagine it being smirking because it seemed silly to toss him a softball after Clinton had just lost his temper, based on the fact that Wallace hadn’t tossed him any softballs.
This response confuses me. (Which is not exactly a tough thing to do, but still.)
First of all, I don’t think I ever proposed that we shouldn’t blame Wallace because he’s born that way. Could you link to where you see that in my post?
Second, I don’t understand what you’re talking about when you start going into how you perceived the interview. I assume Fox News is somehow creating the impression that “the former Pres’s head exploded,” as opposed to them just asking the questions, but a) I don’t see where Fox did anything but play the interview, so I’m not sure where you’re getting that impression; and b) it looks to me like Wallace did just ask the questions, and then was kind of surprised by Clinton’s emotional answer. Wallace doesn’t have control over the manner in which Clinton answers a question, and the news here was not made by the question, but by the manner in which Clinton answered it.
I don’t understand. I think his annoyance was understandable. But if Clinton agreed with the question’s assumptions, and agreed that the question was fair, then why was the question an ambush? Because Fox News’ viewers weren’t smart enough to understand something? Can you elaborate?
Are you saying that KO expressed a negative opinion about Fox? How unusual! He’s normally the most objective observer of Fox around.
Well, that was my comment about his natural smirky look, but then I’m not the only one who notices that either-- check out EddyFreddyTeddy’s post earlier. But if that was all Clinton had done to attack CW, then I could right it off as a mistake. Maybe he did think he was smirking. But he launched into “vast right wing conspiracy” mode and sounded as silly then as Bill O’Reilly sounds when he talks about the conspiracy of “liberal secularists”. Too bad. As I said earlier, I thought he did a great job outlining the stuff he had done to go afer al Qaeda. Why he had to end by attacking CW, is beyond me.
It was an ambush, because as phrased it allowed Wallace to pretend that he had an understanding of what had been done, which he did not have (or at least did not demonstrate). Embedded in the phrasing “Why didn’t you do more?” is the accusation that he had The Big Book of Catchin’ Osama, that he just couldn’t be bothered to crack open.
I was being fecetious. KO is a known FoxNews basher. He’s got the “liberal time slot” on MSNBC that Phil Dohahue used to have. Too bad, because I liked Phil’s show a lot. I don’t agree with him much, but he had really interesting guests and some very discussions-- typically the whole show on one subject, not just a 3 minute wham bam thank-you ma’am treatment.
Or he knew that this was a good opportunity to fully explain his new initiatives to an audience that would normally disregard anything including his name. Maybe he was trying to reach across the table to these people so that there could be an actual dialog and understanding between the two sides. He knows his stuff, he’s confident in CGI, so what difference does it make if the interviewer is a right-wing attack dog? If the guy says any crap about CGI, he can refute it right there and clear it up as soon as possible.
But he agreed that half the program could be about non-CGI related stuff. Actually, it’s unclear to me if the agreement was “half the program” or “half the questions”. I’ve seen both floated in this thread.
