1. clock
  2. Was Clinton's interview with Mike Chris Wallace good or bad?

Was Clinton's interview with Mike Chris Wallace good or bad?

By clock on September 27, 2006.

Opinions are split.

Matt Nisbett think it is bad here, here and here.

Sara Robinson thinks it was good here and here.

Although I have no great love for Bill Clinton, I am siding with Sara here (read her posts to see why), just on gut feeling. But also, check out this AOL poll (never known to be a bastion of liberalism):

Who do you find more convincing?
Clinton62%
Rice38%
Total Votes: 67,769

Do you blame either administration for failing to prevent 9/11?
Yes, the Bush administration39%
Yes, the Clinton administration22%
Yes, both administrations22%
No16%
Total Votes: 69,827

What's your impression of Clinton in this interview?
Mostly positive62%
Mostly negative38%
Total Votes: 45,960

What's your impression of Wallace in this interview?
Mostly negative61%
Mostly positive39%
Total Votes: 44,447

How fairly do you think journalists treat politicians?
Somewhat52%
Not at all40%
Very8%
Total Votes: 42,719

How fairly do you think politicians treat journalists?
Somewhat60%
Not at all23%
Very17%
Total Votes: 42,332

This suggests that Sara is more right than Matt, methinks.

Tags
Politics

More like this

Just a correction: the journalist was named Chris Wallace, not Mike.

The key figure in these polls is 38%:

38% found Rice more convincing.

38% viewed Clinton negatively.

38% (plus 1% from Florida that punched the wrong chad) saw Wallace favorably.

And the cous de grax, 38% (the 22% that blame Clinton + the 16% that blame neither) do NOT blame Bush for 9/11.

So what this poll tells us is that 38% of the population and voters are going to support Bush and the Republicans no matter what. And that's 100% scary.

Those are th 38% if "hard authoritarians' that we will never ever woe to our side so trying to appease them is useless. Read Sara's series on how to woe "soft authoritarians" instead.