Did anyone else see this interview last night? I find it fascinating how Jon Stewart and the Daily Show are able to get some of the biggest names in topical news to appear on a small cable comedy show. Clarke came across as quite sincere and even seemed a bit uneasy whenever Stewart would mention his book. Stewart seemed as fair and balanced as anyone could be, and despite his admitted leftward slant, seemed to take the Republican side in questioning Clarke (and not for comic effect). The segment was not particulary funny but offered what seemed some of the straightest commentary on this national episode to date.
Anyone else see it differently? Discussion?
FWIW, I thought the Rob Cordry (sp?) piece on Spam legislation was hysterical in it’s irony.
Wish I saw it, but I forgot it was last night. I need to remember to watch it tonight at 7 on the rerun. Thanks for reminding me though.
I love Jon Stewart, and although his show can be seen as just a small cable comedy show, it’s really how lots of teens and other people who just can’t stand CNN et al get their news. They have a unique way of telling you the facts, and then making jokes about it. At least for the Headlines part, and the interviews. The fillers are just pure comedy.
It’s deceptive to call the Daily Show a “small comedy show.” Every year around spring there’s another series of articles about how more people than ever are using the Daily Show as their primary news source.
I think this is reflected in the Daily Show’s more responsible selection (and treatment) of guests as well as in the willingness of major political figures to come onto the show.
Stewart is the pundit of choice for young voters, and the politicians know it.
Damn, Clarke is on Hardball tonight. That’s at 7, too. Not that Chris Matthews is a half as fun to watch as Jon Stewart, but I know I’ll be flippin’ back and forth now…
I wanted this segment to be better. Clarke didn’t seem to know what to do with Jon’s standard joking attitude. Serious guests are better when they play along.
I think Clarke did rather well, and wasn’t as dry as he could’ve been.
Stewart only made a few jokes, I think, because he was more interested in
asking serious questions.
Also, (he may be lying, but I doubt it) he seems to be one of the very few (if the ONLY) interviewers that actually reads his guest’s books!
Stewart may cut-up once in a while with guests, but he is one of the most intelligent interviewers out there. The comedy show aspect helps, perhaps because he can hide behind the comedy when in trouble, but I think Stewart’s sincerety and authenticity is greater than most.
That’s why I think it’s quite alright to get one’s news from his show.
Although they parody everything, they don’t twist the basic facts of what they parody (in the anchor segment, at least).
One of the interesting things pointed out during the Clarke interview is that the words and phrases that the Bush adm have been repeating over and over to combat Clarke’s assertions are the very same words and phrases that are said by the major news people and other talking heads.
Now, either they are all parroting eachother, or they are going by some very powerful Bush Co. propaganda blitz.
The Daily Show showed some of this last week, juxtaposing Condi and Bush’s press secretary’s statements, and they were word-for-word the same. It was scary, 1984 stuff.
The funniest thing was after last week’s 60 minutes interview with Clarke when he said, “I’m sure they’ll let their dogs out after me.” And Stewart played that clip followed by images of Bush Co. with the music “Who Let The Dogs Out?”
There’s still more to go in this drama, but I think Bush Co’s blitz against Clarke gained some ground last week, then lost it.
It was a good interview. One of the things that bothered me, however, was the fact that Stewart didn’t focus on what the Clinton administration could have done. After all, Bush was in power for 7 months before 9/11 whereas Clinton had 8 years from the '93 attack. Therein lies my major problem with Clarke. He exonerates Clinton (after attacking him in 2002) and seems to focus on the new administration. Furhter, his motives are more then questionably as are his facts. I wonder why Clarke won’t appear on Miller…
You know… I agree. I hadn’t really formed an opinion one way or the other. In fact (being what I call a “reluctant Republican” - or “a Libertarian that got sick of being ignored”) I was prepared to think GWB was in trouble. But then I heard some stuff on national and local radio that prodded me into looking into the issue deeper and it seems to me that Stewart is wilfully ignoring some questions about Clarke’s credibility.
*(NOTE: I haven’t made up my mind about his credibility myself, but it seems that he’s not the saint the media wants him to be. Stewart is acting like those questions don’t exist and that bothers me. Because you know if it were a Democrat in the White House, Stewart would be all up Clarke’s ass.) *
I would be more critical if he whipped that out in every interview, since it involves a certain amount of speculation.
Uh, okay.
So Dennis could sulk, make faces, and whine that he “just wants the segment to be over?” I think John Stewart has a better handle on the concept of an “interview.” As a bonus, he’s actually funny.
I watch the Daily Show every day, but I changed it during this interview.
Reason: Stewart was not trying to be funny and Clarke said nothing that he didn’t say on Meet the Press on Sunday. He even re-used his jokes. I am geeting Clarke’d out…
Now, as someone else already said, the Rob Courdy SPAM peice was great…
I haven’t read the book yet, but from what I’ve been hearing, there wasn’t much to attack Clinton on – he did a lot of anti-terrorism stuff during his term, and thwarted a number of planned attacks, but was restrained only by the limits of politics at the time. Supposedly Clarke’s coverage of Clinton in his book boils down to “This is the kind of anti-terrorism effort Bush should have had.”
Actually there is an awful lot to pin on the Clinton administration. Think about it logically for a moment, Clinton had 8 years to heed the warnings whereas Bush had 7 months. There was numerous direct attacks on American interests that Clinton simply didn’t respond to. It was his administration that placed homeland security (for lack of a better term) in the hands of the FBI who were singularly incapable of handling a task they were never designed to handle. Clinton ignored the Al-Quaeda connection and his sole military response was a rocket attack on an aspirin factory in the Sudan. Moreover, one must remember that Clarke was demoted by Bush and, as he was Clinton’s head of counter-terrorism, he has an agenda here. Stewart paraded him as if he were some sort of brave whistle-blower rather then a disgruntled civil servant. The fact of the matter is that the Clinton was well aware of the threat from 1998 onwards. Clinton flip-flopped on a response and that is as much to blame for the attacks as any alleged intelligence failure of the Bush administration.
Clarke himself has been critical of the Clinton administration failure to respond to clear evidence of bin laden’s involvement in the embassy attacks. Evidently, it was Reno’s reluctance to “violate international law” and Clinton’s prevarication that lead to the inaction of the Clinton administration.
Come to think of it, we’re letting Washington, Lincoln, FDR, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, and Bush The Elder off pretty easy too. They had plenty of time to do something about the terrorist threat, after all, but we got hit anyway.
Myself, I don’t think Eisenhower did enough to prevent 9/11 or Saddam’s WMD threat, so I’m not planning to vote for him in November. No way no how.
So let’s see- 120+ Marines die in Beirut, 1983. 100+ Americans die over Lockerbie, 1990. Other terrorist acts under Reagan and Bush I. Yet only about 50 or so Americans are killed by foreign terrorists under Clinton, while several plots were foiled (remember the Millenium scare?), and the first WTC attack was also within the first year of his presidency, and so goes the logic, should be blamed on GHWB. Who fell down on the job?
