Predictable Cliché: Clinton And Wallace Smirking To Gomorrah

The Clinton/Wallace conflict, so to speak, clearly became the hot item over the past few days. Clinton critics and supporters alike found something to love -- and hate -- in the interview; all kinds of talking heads have since been rolled out and given the podium. Everyone has something to say. Howard Dean and John Kerry have heard the clarion call from their former commander-in-chief; Bill Clinton, according to both men, has shown the sort of courage we have come to expect of him, courage seasoned with passion, eloquence and brilliance. Less infatuated folks have pondered whether Mr. Clinton is rather less than stable; seemingly unhinged, the president exploded on camera (though duly repressing his rage with that charming smile), poking his finger at Mr. Wallace, even touching him. To those on the left, Clinton told the truth in a powerful way; to those on the right, Clinton's turgid posturing was naught more than a desperate attempt at maintaining illusions of grandeur: he was far more detumescent than tumescent, if you get my drift.

I have since come to doubt my conviction that the president knew what he was doing. Many shrewd pundits have made me doubt my own suspicion; I realize that I may be trapped by stereotype, basing my suspicions solely on the undoubtedly inflated idea that Mr. Clinton is a monumental mythomaniac, a pathological confabulator. Former Clinton advisor Dick Morris, who is so shrewd he might actually be directly tapped into the Dark Side, noted two things about his former boss and friend; first, that the strength and vigor of any Clinton denial is directly proportional to the veracity of the charge; second, that Democrats cannot be happy in any possible way that the country is now scrutinizing the Clinton administration's handling of terror. One recollection of Mr. Clinton's denial of his affair with Monica Lewinsky seems to prove Mr. Morris' first observation, since Clinton's adamantine certainty that he was not involved "with that woman" proved to be not so adamantine; the only unbreakable fact was the overwhelming truth. And now, as voters and journalists and bloggers pore over the 9/11 Commission Report, the Clinton record, the apparently infallible book by Richard Clarke, and the transcripts of countless news interviews, the Democratic Party cannot be happy; micro-examining the Clinton record will not be good for any DNC blustering about their party's alleged strong stance on terror.

I wonder about it all though. I wonder whether it was wise for Mr. Wallace to begin his "conservative hit job" (Clinton's words) by blaming the question on Fox News viewers who had emailed Wallace a particular question. That Mr. Wallace seems to be protecting himself here, with a "don't blame the messenger" sort of alibi, strikes me as bad journalism; besides, that sort of introduction to such an important question suggests Fox News cows to what sounds like a right-wing audience. And it feeds the left's long-held stereotype that Fox News is the Pravda of right-wing radicalism.

Moreover, if Fox News is going to shape interviews based on viewer suggestions gathered via email, then one might ask whether it is possible that such emails are not actually coming from fans of Fox News. Surely it is possible that the emails were NOT from Fox Fans at all; perhaps certain Clinton supporters inundated the in-boxes of Mr. Wallace's producers solely to steer the interview in a premeditated way. I am not saying this happened; I am saying that it COULD happen, and it could happen rather easily.

One thing, however, that stands out to me is something I've already noted: that Mr. Clinton reframed the question that Mr. Wallace actually asked. Recall with me that Mr. Clinton agreed with Mr. Wallace that the question asked was a "legitimate question". Also recall that Mr. Clinton then claimed the question was framed dishonestly, that Mr. Wallace accused the president of "giving aid and comfort" to Mr. bin Laden. And then recall that Mr. Wallace did no such thing.

How is it that the president could have misrepresented the question so egregiously? Is it that he wanted to deceive the audience, arguing against a falsehood that he himself created? Or was he already primed for the debate? Had he been brooding on this sort of issue for a long time; was he ready to pounce, and thus -- all too ready -- pounced on a question that was not actually asked? Or was this just a sign of his instability and gross self-absorption; was this all a desperate effort at maintaining the Clinton legacy? Who knows.

ANDY ROONEY ON CLICHÉ

Moments ago, on the Imus in the Morning radio program, CBS News essayist Andy Rooney let us all know that he hates clichés. It is reassuring to hear him speak so candidly; I am concerned that he is rather commonly prosaic. His announcement was given to highlight his astute analysis of the Clinton/Wallace interview. For he shared the following, some of which is a paraphrase and some of which is a direct quote (I am listening to Imus as I write this).

When asked by Imus whether he had seen the interview and what, if anything, he thought about it, Mr. Rooney, that sage of satire, told listeners that he had indeed seen the interview but could not undertand "why it’s such a big deal." He said that anytime someone begins a question with a cliché like "I realize hindsight is 20/20", as Mr. Wallace framed his question, Mr. Rooney could not take it seriously. "I sort of tuned out after that," he announced.

But when Imus mentioned that Mr. Wallace had based his question on email from Fox News viewers, Mr. Rooney offered this telling admission: "I didn’t hear that." What's fascinating is this is the exact thing Mr. Rooney should have heard, since it was the VERY THING with which Mr. Wallace began the question. Chris Wallace's 185-word question did not begin with a cliché at all. In fact, the alleged cliché came at word number 162; the cliché actually ended the question. Moreover, if Rooney had actually HEARD the question, then he would have known that it began with the reference to Fox viewers' emails.

What then, shall we conclude about Mr. Rooney's attentiveness? Was he lying when he said that he had listened to the interview? Was he lying when he said he had "tuned out after that"? Would it be at all irresponsible to suspect that Mr. Rooney's dismissiveness was a mere signal to his fans that they should be equally dismissive; that this was all a mere clichéd and predictable aspect of Fox News' and we all should just forget about it? One wonders.

But one need not wonder about Mr. Rooney's well-cast pox on all things cliché and trite. He transcends that sort of thing. Just look at the following attributed to Mr. Rooney's pen:

Taxes are important. President Bush's tax proposals leave no rich person behind. Voters approve of President Bush helping the kind of people they wish they were one of.

I am glad Mr. Rooney makes such fresh observations. Otherwise we all might begin to suspect that Mr. Rooney is really rather stale. But it is at least good for us that we are not prone to his sort of tuning out. We stay tuned-in just long enough to get the point.

Peace.

©Bill Gnade 2006/Contratimes - All Rights Reserved.

Technorati tags: Bill Clinton, Chris Wallace, Fox News, 9/11 Commission, Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace, The Path To 9/11, Richard Clarke, smirk, wag the dog, Andy Rooney, Dick Morris, Imus in the Morning, Imus