I watched the interview again. Upon this second viewing, this time not surprised by Clinton’s reaction, one thing occured to me: Bush deals with these types of questions daily and does not react like this.
Along with that, “right wing” pundits do not come out of the woodwork to call the questioners “monkeys” (ala Keith Olbermann). On the contrary, when this happens to Bush or Cheney or Rumsfeld or Rice it’s called “tough but fair” or “hard-hitting journalism”.
I’ve seen interviews with Bush that cause me to cringe, not only because Bush’s reaction is often not great, but because of the behavior and obvious agenda of the person/people asking the questions. It usually gets pretty ugly when Bush gets in front of the White House Press Corps.
Yet I’ve not seen Bush wag his finger and talk about a “hit-piece” and tell them that they are trying to “get (sic) their bones” through this kind of interview.
Clinton is not used to being questioned to this degree. He is not used to an interview like this. He expected to be (rightly) praised about one of his charitable activities. And he got blindsided.
I don’t agree with this type of journalism. I hate it. Pretty much, I am disgusted by the entire “profession”. Journalists’ behavior is often reprehensible in my view. This goes for O’Reilly and Hannity and Couric and Rather. The only thing that’s different is the side they support.
I also have little problem with Clinton these days. I loved his and G. H. W. Bush’s work after Katrina. I thought his speech at the DNC was measured and effective. Personality-wise I think I’d like to sit down and bullshit with the guy about any number of things. He is a smart man and he deserves admiration and - above all - repect.
But like all of us, he’s also deserving of some criticism. The problem that I have is with those out there who think he’s beyond criticism. He’s portrayed as a saint that cannot be touched.
Clinton played key roles in welfare reform and some of his domestic policies spurred great economic growth. I’m a conservative and I can say that because I feel it’s true. I can also say that Bush does not show conservatism in his domestic policy (in some ways less so than Clinton) and I have issues with some aspects of his foreign policy.
My point is that there is good and bad in all people, especially presidents.
All bullshit aside. You can’t paint anyone as perfect, and the higher your status the more open you are to criticism and the more tough questions you are going to have to answer. Let’s not come down on the person asking the tough questions. Actually, I’m all for it if we do come down on them. Let’s just come down on ALL of them (if they don’t do it right and if they don’t do it with the respect that BOTH Clinton and Bush deserve).
One last thing. The only real problem I had with Chris Wallace is that he addressed Clinton as Mr. Clinton a few times. He’s “Mr. President” in my view. Just as Bush is and will always be. I think they deserve that much respect. But, that’s probably just me.