Amy Goodman's Nasty Streak

[SoDesuKa]

Amy Goodman has a nasty streak regarding Bill Clinton. Like Maureen Down, she never passes up an opportunity to Clinton-bash. It's oddly out of character for Goodman, who is one of the better journalists around.

Today, Goodman marked the launch of Clinton's book by re-playing her interview with him on Election Day, 2000. In that interview, Goodman was gratuitously antagonistic to the point where Clinton finally had to say something. He called her disrespectful - which she certainly was.

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/06/21/1613218

Clinton governed as a centrist; he wasn't all things to all people. No doubt he disappointed some progressives. Goodman gave him grief about everything imaginable; she didn't give him any relief at all. To his credit, Clinton handled every question confidently, without stumbling or pausing. But after a while he got irritated with Goodman's relentless attack.

Clinton had called to get out the vote for Al Gore in what was shaping up to be a close election. Goodman used this inappropriate occasion to sink her teeth into him. She kept him on the phone, badgering him with hostile questions.

[meow2u3]

1. Perhaps Goodman is peeved about Clinton's corporatist streak

She also resents his not pardoning Leonard Peltier, his stand on the death penalty, the DLC, etc.

[GreenPartyVoter]

3. I'm with you there.

[hlthe2b]

24. ditto... but, I still have to look at Clinton

or any other former President or current candidate on balance. There will never be one who fufills all of my criteria nor does everything that I am convinced he/she should. Frankly, no candidate COULD until we move this country (over time) back to the left of center. Reality is that we've moved so far to the right, that even fairly radical, though still feasible, steps towards a more progressive position appear so centrist as to suggest "sell-out."

It is very hard to be patient, given the current state of our country, but Clinton was a pragmatic "realist," in many ways. I think he compromised on many things that he should not have, but,I still believe he proved ON BALANCE to be a good President, personal flaws aside.

Of course that is extremely easy for me to say in consideration of what we have NOW. But, I also think we are all going to have to expect that Kerry's (God willing and the anti-BBV efforts successful) moves leftward will have to be incremental as well. We are going to be frustrated at this, but I think we need to both expect it and try to muster support for it.

[prodigal_green]

13. yep

which is why I voted Green in 1996. I like Clinton, but I expected a lot more.

[AP]

23. He answered her questions, and rather than engage his answers, she

went on to another one.

It wasn't very cool of her.

She may feel great that she got through here laundry list of attacks, but he answered every question she asked and she had no follow-up. You're left thinking he's right and she's an ass.

I don't know if that was her intention, but that's how it came off.

[alittlelark]

84. That's exactly how I felt when I heard it this morning

He sounded coherant and thoughtful - Amy sounded hostile and off-point.

I was quite suprised!! Democracy Now! is a great show.....on the day that interview took place it was not.

[Trajan]

2. Clinton has some enemies here at DU as well ...

Oh well: ... I still like the man ... He drove the nation down a moderate path that brought the greatest number of citizens the greatest good of any state that I know of ...

The idealist in me wanted more: the pragmatist in me was very pleased by what we got ....

Nothing is ever perfect ....

[Delano]

46. Don't call us enemies.

A lot of us felt we deserved a bit more from Clinton, and he might have done more if he hadn't been so distracted by frivolous scandals of his own making. Sure the right were dirty in the way they dogged him. They're lying criminal thugs - what else would you expect them to do? Clinton should have kept it zipped until Gore's inaugration day.

That being said, I personally like Clinton a lot. I don't care who he bangs on his own time, and I doubt Hillary really does either. Overall he was an effective, conservative president, and I would vote for him again over any republican. I'm not an enemy, but that doesn't make Clinton above reproach - he let a lot of people down in a number of ways.

I guess we're supposed to love everything about him because he wasn't pure evil and incompetence like Dumbya?

[Trajan]

48. Hey ? ...

WHO said I didnt respect your freedom to dislike someone ? ...

I said "Clinton has his enemies here at DU as well" ... this is established fact ....

IF the shoe DOESNT fit, then DONT put it on and try to dance on my arse ....

I said "HE wasnt perfect" ... so: why argue as if I said he was ? ... IS ANY man above reproach ? .... not a one ...

Geeez ....

[Delano]

49. I prefer to think of heim and his ilk as allies...

even though they're not quite on the same team.

I just didn't care for the word "enemy"

[Feanorcurufinwe]

4. Both Goodman and Clinton mean well, and I'm not a fan of either.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

59. Bookmark this.

You'll basically get a Clinton redux with the forthcoming Kerry Presidency. Middle of the road, baby! Criteria in ().

No meaningful health care reform. (cutting the 40m chronically uninsured in half)
No meaningful tax reform. (top rate to exceed 33%, avg. corp rate exceeds 20%)
No meaningful media reform. (ownership rule returns to 25% or less, and/or return of Fairness Doctrine)
No meaningful defense/fp reform. (significant budgetary decrease-$75B+, no ongoing "hot" wars)
No meaningful move to the left. (any of the above)

Better than Chimp? Yep. Will I vote for him over Chimp? Yep. Will I apologize if I'm wrong and he addresses these core issues in a meaningful way? Yep.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

65. Since you are so set on the idea of Kerry disappointing you

I'm sure it will become a reality. I fully expect that you will continue to dislike Kerry in the future, just as you always have. And I appreciate you reminding me how unhappy you are that Kerry will be the next President, because it shows that sometimes there is some justice in the world.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

100. Au contraire, mon frere.

I very much hope that, as you and others have said for months, Kerry will surprise me and be a great Liberal President. Believe me, I want you to be right and me to be wrong. We'll know for sure in a couple of years and have a good idea of the tone after the first 100 days.

Here's to hoping I'm dead wrong. :toast:

[Feanorcurufinwe]

108. I guarantee you will be disappointed

Kerry will surprise me and be a great Liberal President.


I don't believe that at all. I believe that Kerry will be a great liberal President, and you will still hate him and oppose him.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

136. Oy.

I don't hate or oppose him right now. Merely uncomfortable with the status quo choice- we've been down that road. But hey, you don't have to believe that I'll start an "Eating Crow" post the moment he accomplishes any of those things I listed. A great Liberal Prez would do them all--all I need is one. Bookmark it, Danno!

You are now free to continue enjoying your DU experience. Buh-bye.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

138. Oy

I don't hate or oppose him right now.

Ok, I'll admit I don't know what is in your heart. Nevertheless, I don't believe this statement is the truth.


As far as the 'accomplishments you listed' it won't happen because your criteria is bullshit.

[IrateCitizen]

5. Disrespectful? Bullshit.

She was aggressive in her questioning, something that US politicians are NOT at all used to. Clinton performed well in the questioning, but I think that his using the term "disrespectful" to describe the questioning only served to undermine his position. Even if he was the President, he still serves the PEOPLE in the end, and the press not only should, but MUST ask him tough and challenging questions.

I would suggest that you check out a British press conference some time. You'll see journalists asking tough, challenging questions of even the prime minister that will make Goodman's interview with Clinton seem rather ordinary. It just seems disrespectful because we're too used to having a cowed press corps here in the states.

[indigobusiness]

11. I agree with agressive reporting.

I disagree with agressive reporting with an agenda.

[Zan_of_Texas]

70. Exactly, Irate Citizen.

It just seems disrespectful because we're too used to having a cowed press corps here in the states

In fact, a journalist friend and I listened to the segment this morning. We both reacted the same way. NOT disrespectful at all. Tough questions, yes. Not argumentative, even. Just no softballs, no going for Miss Congeniality. We agreed that the President (more so now) can deny access to tough questioners in the White House Press Corps., so is not used to a challenge.

In fact, read about Karen Hughes and her sharpening the denial of access tool while Shrub was governor, in Bushwomen by Laura Flanders.

It is NOT true that Amy should have limited her questions to the softball two-minute get out the vote thing that Clinton wanted. He actually seemed to enjoy the repartee -- citing statistics easily, saying he'd done this or that. (And, speaking in complete sentences without a teleprompter or coaching, I might add.) Only when she asked about Israel/Palestine did he finally lose patience, and say he had to go -- then he STILL stayed for another question.

Don't take my word or anyone else's word for it.

Listen yourself.

www.democracynow.org for June 22.

[Malva Zebrina]

6. Clinton is being mythologized

it is good that there are people around who will soberly assess this.

I did not hear it , but I will stick to my convictions to "question everything" even the superstar status of Clinton.

[diplomats]

18. Clinton being mythologized?

Certainly not by the media. Hey, I want him to be appreciated for what he did right but certainly not deified.

[SoDesuKa]

20. Not Deified

Clinton was a sitting president at the time of the interview. She should have treated him with courtesy, not interrogated him the way a prosecutor might.

A sitting president deserves some respect. Clinton gave straightforward answers to her questions. She was rude to him.

[Malva Zebrina]

37. How was she to know if the answers were straightforward?

If she did not ask or follow up with some tough questions?

You assume they were straightforward because perhaps you have been smitten with the Clinton mythology. But you do not know either.

It is her job not to assume the politician, who is well known for his/her spins and obfuscations, to ask the questions. We need them to do so.

She strikes me as the type of journalist who does her homework.

We complain about those who are not real journalists, lilke Katie Couric the entertainer, being rude to a Michael Moore, but Moore says that they have failed us who NEED them to dig deeper than the orders the White House sends down to them, which they report without question.

and now, apparently when we do get real hard questioning, but to the one we adore, it somehow is criticized.

You tell me. A journalist asks the qauestions--the problem with what has happened over the past three and half years is that the so called journalists, who are really entertainers who make a lot of money, are jealously guarding that salary.

Apparently Goodman knows what her job is and is not about to succumb to Clinton adoration for the sake of something else beyond that which is her job.

[republicansareevil]

40. Clinton adoration has nothing to do with it.

She was treating him as a hostile witness when he could not have been more forthcoming. She even started to cut him off in the middle of an answer. Anyone can ask questions. Getting answers is the real trick. But getting answers from BC is no trick at all, because he always answers questions. He was being completely cooperative and candid here. She had no reason to treat this like an interrogation. Even if he weren't the President, he was still a human being. That alone entitles him to basic respect.

[linazelle]

140. And there is a WAY that questions can be asked which is disrespectful

It's not just the question, but the tone and manner of the questioner as well. As much bunk as we hear about "respecting OUR president" today, it's obvious the same line and approach to questioning would not have been tolerated by the America-hating Bush supporters.

[Malva Zebrina]

32. yes, there are some who simply adore Clinton

and are not seeing him or his administration in a reasonable manner.

He did some things that were not so good. He did some things that were very good.

I would hate to see Clinton end up being adored like Ronnie. That is, imo, a total embarassament.

No, we do not n eed to assigne sainthood or some magical status to Clinton. He was a good president, but he also had some faults that were not so good for this ocuntry.

See him as he is--a vulnerable human being, who was one of our presidents, and who made mistakes.

We need to shake the myths that arise around our well publicized and romanticized leaders.

[SoFlaJet]

7. After reading the interveiw

the only word that came to my mind about Amy Goodman was ......... Cee U Next Time

[gottaB]

8. I learned that about Goodman from the way she treated Carol Moseley Braun

Disrespectful. No better word for it. Being wrongheaded is one thing. But lack of civility, antagonism, viciousness--there's no reason to listen to that.

[LandOLincoln]

110. And the way she (and those a**holes Jeremy Scahill

and Mike Taibbi) dealt with Wes Clark.

I remember hearing the Clinton interview in November 2000, and I was a little taken aback and peeved then, that on that day of all days she should be so antagonistic when he was giving her so much time and being so forthcoming.

Just another one of many reasons I'm coming more and more to dislike the far left almost as much as the far right.

[gottaB]

111. the transcripts

Here are the two shows:

Clark: http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/01/26/1632224

Moseley Braun: http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/01/06/1554239&mode=thread&tid=25

I don't know what bugs me more, the shrillness of the interview tactics, or the dishonesty. Clark, for instance, had intellegent responses to Scahill's questions. He sounded reasonable, and there was a news value to what he was saying. And yet the headline and intro was all confrotnational, like they were bragging that they had cornered him and made him squeal. They seemed to truly believe that nobody else had considered the question of Clark's involvement in the Kosovo conflict, when the truth is that many have examined it and have come the conclusion that Clark is not guilty of war crimes. What prevented them from respecting that view, even if they disagreed with it? Communist ideology? Communist loyalties? Narcissism? Ick.

[69KV]

135. I'm with you on this

The extreme left can get pretty shrill sometimes. "My way or the highway." What they don't understand I think is that it is the pragmatic political mainstream where issues get discussed and laws made, while they are off in a corner debating among themselves over who is more ideologically pure.

The question is whether those of us left of center have natural allies in the far left, or whether our natural allies are in the political center, and whether the far left is just as much to be opposed as the far right.

Another question is whether a temporary tactical alliance with the far left is needed, in the current situation where the extreme right is in control of the White House, both houses of Congress, and much of the media.

I haven't yet made up my mind on either question. Right now it appears that the far right needs to be driven from power, by left-of-center liberals and by centrists. If the far left wants to help, that's their call. If they want to hinder, that's their call too. But if they want to hinder, they shouldn't expect any sympathy once we have taken care of the far right.

There's a good book that every liberal should read. "The Vital Center" by Arthur Schlesinger. It's an old book but still hits the nail right on the head. That book along with Eric Hoffer's "The True Believer", and Richard Hofsteder's "The Paranoid Style In American Politics" should be required reading in high school civics classes. That they aren't, says a lot about why our schools are failing our kids. Those books might even save a few kids from falling for extreme ideologies and making juvenile, immature mistakes that will haunt them later in life.

[sangh0]

9. She sounds like a Republican

cutting him off constantly because, obviously, the answers don't matter.

[RoBear]

12. My thoughts exactly.

Wonder if she treats Repugs that way?

[SoDesuKa]

15. Hard Nosed Journalism

Tim Russert is called a hard nosed journalist because of the hostile style of his interviews. But he's a corporate patsy just like the rest of them. I remember the day he virtually demanded an apology from Hillary Clinton for staying loyal to her husband. What a dork he is.

[Adenoid_Hynkel]

122. i bet you love it when randi rhodes does it though

amy goodman is one of the best journalists out there-along with helen thomas

it almost makes up for the loss of the great sarah mcclendon

[Catherine Vincent]

10. I heard most of the replay today and Goodman didn't seem

hostile to me. I was surprised when Clinton said she was combative and disrespectful to him. Maybe I wasn't paying attention. I think maybe at the time, Clinton was bombarded with all the right wing crap from journalists he took it out on Amy.

[jasmeel]

14. I read the interview and thought it is so interesting

how things have changed since then. Now we know how we know the 2 parties differ and also how there were ideological differences between the parties. Clinton was right on all those points. The interview made me respect him even more. The "W" years have proven the Nader supporters wrong! There are differences between the parties.
Goodman meant well but I think he should have probably known better than to call her.

[SoDesuKa]

19. She Was Rude

There was no excuse for her behavior. He honored her by calling her program. She didn't have to go on the attack, especially on Election Day.

[madfloridian]

16. She went after Dean in an interview.....ugly.

Here he was standing up for womens' rights at the march in DC, and she really gives him a rough time.

So who does she like?

[info being]

17. Get ready for "Kerry-Bashing" should he win

Progressives don't line up behind people, but ideas and policy. If a person promotes bad policy, they will be called on it. Call it "bashing" but that's just the way it is.

[WilliamPitt]

21. That's a damned good interview

I don't care if it was Bill Clinton, Idi Amin or the ghost of Steve McQueen on the phone. A journalist challenges the person being interviewed, and if the interviewee is the highest officer in the land, the need to do that is paramount.

Look at it this way: If you had George W. Bush on a tape-recorded phone call, how would you speak to him as a journalist?

[SoDesuKa]

26. She Dried Up the Well

One result of attack journalism is that high government officials know better than to grant interviews to hostile interrogators. Goodman presents the issue as trading principles for access, but that's self-serving. I'd call it having a sense of propriety.

Clinton was trying to drum up support for a Democratic victory and had a number of phone calls to get through. She took up a lot of his time treating him like a suspect. The White House press office called her rude, and she definitely was that.

[WilliamPitt]

27. So journalists should be nice?

Every single day since January 20, 2001, there has been minimum one, usually 5,000, postrs on DU decrying the lapdog media. Goodman acted as a journalist should, and because it was Bill on the receiving end, somehow she should be scolded and denounced?

I don't think so, and I don't think so.

[AP]

30. She doesn't have to be nice, but her series of questions suggests an

editorial angle -- you pretend to be liberal, Mr Clinton, but you've done X, Y, and Z.

I think he gave reasonable answers, so at some point in this line of questioning, Goodman starts to lose the thread connecting the questions.

It seems like a good journalist would step back and say, well, OK, there's a good answer, if I want to continue this line, I'm going to have to tie my thread back together and follow up on his answer to my question.

She didn't do that. She just ignored the answer and kept on going down the laundry list.

It doesn't make her a bad journalist. But it doesn't make her a good journalist. (And I'm also not saying that she couldn't have tripped him up with a follow-up question, but it was lame of her not to even try).

[IrateCitizen]

39. Now THIS is a critical assessment I can somewhat agree with

I listened to the interview today, and ended up thinking that Amy Goodman was utterly and completely upstaged by Clinton, for exactly the reason that you discuss here. She appeared to just have her laundry list of questions ready, and didn't follow up on Bill's answers at all. For instance, when discussing the issue of Iraqi sanctions, she didn't once hit on the idea that the sanctions themselves were inhibiting the possibility of an internal rebellion against Saddam from within Iraq itself, so Clinton's response stood.

On each question the result was the same. She tried to hit him, but his responses were well-informed and deflected any and all damage the questions could have done. I didn't necessarily agree with Clinton on his answers, but I do have to say I was EXTREMELY impressed by him, and his handle on the issues without any script beforehand. The end result was that he looked like a consummate professional, and Goodman looked like a second-rate journalist. Rudeness had nothing to do with it.

[sangh0]

42. She didn't follow up on Clinton's answers at all because

she didn't even let him finish giving his answers. During every signle one of Clinton's responses, Goodman interrupts. Confrontational is one thing; Rudely ignoring the responses (which is supposed to be the point of an interview, right?) is a whole other bag of crap.

[AP]

47. This was basically a "go vote for Nader" interview on election day morning

without making a good argument for doing so.

The other thing that is totally lame about Goodman is that she wraps this up by saying, "how dare the WH press office call me the next day and complain that I broke the rules."

Clinton stayed on and answered all her questions. He did everything she wanted him to do, so she has to say that someone other than Clinton complained the next day, so she's the noble journalist?

If Clinton did hang up on her or dodged her questions, she'd be entitled to her high horse, but to act like she's on a high horse because some underling in the press office for an outgoing administration called to chew her out after she got away with all the shit she wanted to get away with in that interview? That's lame.

[Zan_of_Texas]

71. That is just not true. She did not interrupt after every response.

How many of you listened to the interview?

I also read the transcript beforehand. But, during the interview, she does occasionally start to say a word, but when Clinton keeps talking, she ALWAYS let him continue, except for once when she tried again to say a word.

I agree with Will -- it was a good interview. A person (a woman no less) broadcasting on community radio (and it wasn't 200 stations then either) stands up to the most powerful government official on the planet and asks him tough questions ON THE SPUR OF THE MOMENT with no preparation.

If the NY Times and W Post and LA Times and 10 other "newspapers of record" asked tough questions every day of the week, and made sure the answers were true before they printed them unquestioningly, this country would be in a helluva lot better shape than it is today.

[sangh0]

109. She interrupted EVERY response

But, during the interview, she does occasionally start to say a word, but when Clinton keeps talking, she ALWAYS let him continue, except for once when she tried again to say a word.

That's an interruption. Trying to interrupt is just as rude as actually succeeding at interrupting.

And yes, she asked tough questions. Unfortunately, she didn't allow responses. I like to hear how a politician defends their acts. Your mileage may vary.

[G_j]

55. I remember listening to it

I was entirely caught up in the effort to get Clinton to pardon Leonard Peltier. She asked him about this but I believe he refused to answer yes or no. He ended up pardoning a bunch of sleaze bags instead. I will never forgive him for that.

[AP]

63. He said he'd consider it along with everyone else.

I'll tell you, the only politician who will ever get away with pardoning Peletier will be a Republican -- kind of like the way a republican was the only person who could get a moratorium on the death penalty in IL, but that doesn't mean I'm going to start voting for moderate Republicans.

[al bupp]

104. What Did Clinton Have To Lose?

Why shouldn't Clinton have pardoned Peletier? How was it going to come back to bite him? So what if Dinosaurs in the FBI and on the right complain?

Oh wait, I see, it wasn't his, but Hillary's political career he was worried about.

[SoDesuKa]

45. It's Not About Amy

Amy Goodman is a former journalist who has become a leftist celebrity. Today's re-broadcast of an old interview wasn't about reporting the news, because it had little news value. Goodman started her career trying to get The Story; now she's part of The Story.

Power-tripping Amy didn't ask any thought-provoking questions in that interview. She just hammered Clinton with a number of accusations, to which he offered the standard replies. No new ground was broken. It wasn't about getting the story; it was Amy Disses the President.

Stenographic journalism is a separate issue. Goodman's rudeness ensured that Clinton would never call WBAI again. It doesn't seem worth it to me.

[TeeYiYi]

41. An interesting observation . . .

re: "One result of attack journalism is that high government officials know better than to grant interviews to hostile interrogators."

. . . An example of this theory was played out on Monday morning when Katie Couric did the follow up interview with Michael Moore rather than the angry and vitriolic Matt Lauer.

TYY

[republicansareevil]

35. You think so? I don't.

As AP pointed out, Clinton "answered her questions, and rather than engage his answers, she went on to another one." It was indeed just a "laundry list of attacks." She even tried to cut him off when he was in the middle of a response. One of the greatest things about Clinton as President is how accessible and straightforward he was. When he gave press conferences, he actually took questions. He even addressed hecklers and answered their questions! And his answers were always substantive and on-topic. He didn't blather on like Bush does. So I don't think Goodman did anything so great by getting Clinton to answer these questions. Getting Bush to answer them - now that would be an impressive feat.

I never listened to Goodman before and I didn't listen to this - just read it. So I won't judge her on the basis of this one interview. She may have been over-excited or having a bad day. And maybe it comes off as less rude when you actually hear it instead of reading it. But she was rude, she did violate the ground rules, even if they were implied rather than expressed. Anyone can just bombard someone with questions. It takes finesse to actually get some good information from an interview. And this was not supposed to be an interview.

[wtmusic]

38. It sucked

She was rude and interrupted him on several occasions. Asking tough questions is one thing; not letting your interviewee answer is another.

Fine, she closed the door. Too bad. I doubt if Kerry would grant her an interview as President.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

53. Okay, Will, I respect you as a journalist and a very good writer...

...would you have cut off Clinton's responses to the point of being rude? Would you have basically ignored his responses and continued to read from your laundry list?

Based on what I've read and heard from you to date, I'm betting you will answer "no" to each one of my questions above.

[IrateCitizen]

105. While I agree that Amy did not address his responses...

... the idea that she cut him off repeatedly is just plain wrong.

I listened to the interview yesterday morning for the first time, and there was only one question at the end in which she really tried to cut him off. There might have been a couple of other times throughout the interview where she attempted to interject, but when Bill kept talking, she allowed him to continue.

The laundry list with lack of follow-up made her look like a second-rate journalist. But she did NOT continually try to interrupt him -- that's about as accurate as the media claims that Al Gore was "screaming" during his entire recent speech to MoveOn.org.

[Richardo]

22. There is no pleasing Amy Goodman...if she were happy she'd be miserable

All she does is complain and talk about her glory days in East Timor. I don't think I've ever heard her propose a pragmatic solution to any of the many injustices she goes on and on about.

She's one of those uber-serious, too-earnest socialists who cannot get it through their heads that the American public are by-and-large centrists and if you want to be elected to a position where you can do ANYTHING to address injustice you have to have those centrist votes. Then you might be able to lead them incrementally toward reform. And "incremental" will never be good enough for her.

:eyes:

[Freddie Stubbs]

25. "Badgering him with hostile questions?"

Isn't that what good reporters do? That is exactly what Helen Thomas does.

[SoDesuKa]

29. Not a Press Conference

Clinton called to drum up support for Democrats. Goodman kept him on the line asking him questions unrelated to the purpose of the phone call. It was opportunistic, but it also had the down side of drying up the well. She could have been gracious; instead she acted like a prosecutor.

[Freddie Stubbs]

31. It's not the job of the press

to help politicians drum up votes. If he wanted softball questions, he should have gone on Larry King.

[sangh0]

43. Is it their job to ignore and interrupt the responses?

If she wanted hardball responses, why did she constantly interrupt Clinton?

[latebloomer]

28. Amy does good work but she's a narcissist

and basically it is all about Amy ( to the detriment of Pacifica, but that's a long story)... I don't know how many times she has played and replayed this interview. I was actually quite impressed, even in those pre-Bush days, at how smart and well-informed Clinton was about virtually everything.

[SoDesuKa]

33. At His Fingertips

He had all the facts and figures at his command. He didn't hem and haw at all. This president did his homework.

[info being]

50. Right, that's what every Right-Winger says about anybody...

passionate about telling the truth.

[latebloomer]

57. So I'm a right-winger?

Listen to Amy for 15 years, as I have, and be in on all the struggle involving the take-back-Pacifica movement, and then give me your opinion about Amy.

[MUSTANG_2004]

54. Does she do good work?

Brian Lamb recently replayed her questioning of Gingrich, and I thought she appeared childish. It's about 2/3 of the way down the Booknotes interview:
http://booknotes.org/Transcript/?ProgramID=1783

She had an opportunity to question/grill the House leader and she spent it on why he hadn't apologized to all American women for having called Hillary a bitch in a private conversation with his mother.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

34. Mike Ruppert seems to think that Amy Goodman is an opportunist...

<http://www.questionsquestions.net/docs04/0518_ruppert911.html>

Excerpt:

"On May 14 I watched Amy Goodman, producer and anchor of Pacifica Radio's 'Democracy Now,' appear on CNN discussing the bombings in Saudi Arabia and recently well-publicized statements by Senator Bob Graham -- former chair of the Senate intelligence committee -- suggesting that the Bush administration was engaging in a cover-up of 9-11. It was a pyrrhic vindication for me. Make no mistake, Graham is nothing more than damage control as he describes what happened as 'intelligence failures.' He should not be trusted under any circumstances. But Goodman's repeated focus on the inconsistencies, deceptions and lies of 9/11 -- on CNN no less -- was a bittersweet and ironic validation of positions I took on three Pacifica stations (WBAI, KPFA and KPFK) more than 18 months ago. I was labeled as: a money grubbing, conspiracy theorist; libelously as a fired ex-cop; and as an unstable mental case who did sloppy research by the likes of David Corn of The Nation, Norman Solomon, Larry Bensky, Sonali Kolhatkar and Marc Cooper.

Goodman has merely ignored my work. Yet, according to someone who gave it to her, she has had my tape "The Truth and Lies of 9-11" for many months. And she knows that what I was saying eighteen months ago is exactly what Graham is trying to spin now. I know this because many people who emailed her asking her to have me as a guest sent me copies. Gore Vidal has had the tape for quite a while too. Vidal used every one of the quotes from Zbigniew Brzezinski's book "The Grand Chessboard" which I brought to public light in the fall of 2001 in his own lengthy 9/11 article and conveniently forgot to mention the person who did the work or what he was trying to say. Now, a day late and a dollar short, the Lilly Livered Left has arrived on the scene with the brilliant observation, 'Wait, we have to look at 9/11! We have to look at 9/11!'

This is so much more than 'I told you so.' The danger and power of a fascist empire in warp drive to control global oil reserves and crush opposition grows every day. This is all about the fact that the consequences arising from the peak and inevitable decline of world oil production are going to be the most cataclysmic events in human history. That realization is all too slowly dawning upon people who might be in a position to change the way this bloody game is being played. Richard Heinberg's new book 'The Party's Over' and the diligent work of world-class oil experts like Colin Campbell of the Association for the Study of Peak Oil- www.peakoil.net - are finally making inroads into the collective consciousness of governments, business and activists."

[thebigidea]

36. talk about sour grapes. Is it about the truth or is it about Ruppert?

Cute that he now even claims quotes from someone else's book as his. That's a new angle.

So now he thinks the "truth" re: 9/11 is his exclusive intellectual property? Fat chance. The only market he has cornered is the Delmart Vreeland red herring market.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

51. You seem awfully bitter. Why is that? Ruppert's been around...

...quite a bit longer than Goodman, and has been leading the fight to find the truth about 911 since the day it happened.

So, tell me why you believe Vreeland is a "red herring"? Do you have anything that proves he was wrong and/or lying?

[thebigidea]

52. Leading the fight down a blind alley, maybe

>So, tell me why you believe Vreeland is a "red herring"?

People still believe that hooha?

After his ridiculous message board and the like?

And as far as being bitter goes, hey - I'm not the one claiming exclusive ownership of anything related to 9/11 like Ruppert is and grousing that I'm not getting as much attention as Gore Vidal.

Whining about GORE VIDAL? How ridiculous. He should welcome the interest Vidal's work brings to this shady area, not moaning about how he was the first to quote Carter's NSA.

Is he going to claim Michael Moore stole his thunder next? Or has he already?

[durutti]

94. Sane people seem to think Ruppert is a nut.

Mostly because he is.

[Delano]

44. Clinton governed as a conservative, not a centrist.

Just because the GOP slid to the extreme nutjob right thrroughout the 80s and 90s does not make Clinton a "centrist". Being at what is now the "center" in America is pretty far right compared to most countries...

Clinton bombed Iraq constantly, bombed Kosovo, passed NAFTA, Deformed welfare, made a a single futile attempt at a NON-single payer health plan, and showed no interest in ever trying again.

He did a fine job as president if you look at him as a conservative. That's the only way I can look at it.

I'm so sick of privatizing, globalizing, safety-net-slashing politicians being called "Centrist". It sets us up to be forever on the defense, trying to hold back the tide.

GOODMAN: Yes, we can. You are calling radio stations to tell people to get out and vote. What do you say to people who feel that the two parties are bought by corporations, and . . . at this point feel that their vote doesn't make a difference?


CLINTON: There's just not a shred of evidence to support that. That's what I would say. . . .The truth is there is an ideological struggle between those who believe that the best way to grow the economy is to give more money to the wealthy, and the Democrats, who believe that the wealthy will make more money if average people do better.

No evidence that both parties are bought by corporations? From the first question he's dishonest. I can see why Goodman would get a chip on her shoulder. Only the most naive of democrats really believe that corporations don't have an undue influence over the party. Clinton's "Health Care Plan" was a perfect example of that. He could have at least conceded that corporations have a strong influence on both parties...

Her questions were pointed, b ut not disrespectful. In spite of his obvious inexpreience in having to listen to the concerns of the political left, Clinton obviously held his own. So what's the big problem?

[deutsey]

56. Goodman has her faults, but I think she did great on this interview

especially considering she had absolutely no time to prep for it. Her job as an "alternative media journalist" is to voice the concerns and issues that are important to people whose views are marginalized or ignored by the mainstream media.

She does seem to be overly impressed with herself and the Latino man who interviewed Clinton, but I think she over all she did a great job. I voted twice for Clinton and would have voted for him again, but I was also deeply disappointed by a lot of what he did and didn't do in his two terms. Goodman gave expression to those concerns and disappointed questions of mine and Clinton, to his credit, gave well informed responses, some I agreed with, some I didn't.

Wow. Amazing. An independent journalist asking tough questions and an intelligent leader giving informed responses.

[KG]

58. heh. clinton calls her out of the blue, thought he could just shill.

amy goodman is tuff on TPTB. good on her.

[Toucano]

60. I still respect Amy.

She knows her job is to question EVERYTHING. It doesn't matter if the person has a (D) or (R) behind their name, they should be able to withstand serious inquiry. I can count on Amy for that.

I may not agree with her all the time, but I always respect her. She's one of the last true jouralists.

[cornfedyank]

61. I listened to it today. I wish she'd interview shrub that long.

I kept waiting for a big todo . It seemed to me, bill wanted a shorter "get out the vote" type talk. There was an election or something going on.

I was impressed with BC's knowledge of details on many topics at an impromptu news conference. I could almost hear shrub in the background saying "Gee, I just can't think of anything under all this pressure."

[John_H]

62. Everything that comes out of Amy Goodman's mouth is a bumper sticker

which means that she's a huge hit with one percenters, who tend to think in bumper sticker sentiments. I completely missed that interview. It sure was fun reading Clinton, who tends to speak and think in actual adult thoughts, kicking her ass but good. Thanks for posting this!

[AP]

64. Is it hypocritical to approve of this interview and disapprove of Nader?

This was election morning and this is what very liberal voters heard from Pacifica Radio: Clinton is no liberal (vote for Nader).

How can you blame Nader for getting more votes than Bush's MoV, but not criticize Goodman for encouraging them on election day to resent the Democrats?

Personally, I don't blame Goodman or Nader, but I think anyone here who hates on Nader for 2000 is a hypocrite if they don't hate on Goodman for this interview.

[ConsAreLiars]

66. Great interview by Amy Goodman and Bill Clinton !!!

Amy asked important questions. Clinton had lots of time to answer and was candid and responsive. Relevant followup and further elaboration. Contrast this what passes for interviews today.

I can't agree with your characterization of this interview as rude or badgering. From the original post I expected Reich-wingish tactics of shouting and cutting the mike. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Instead of the typical sound bites of the "real" news coverage and softball questions, she asked hard questions (Clinton even called her hostile and combative) but he had and took the opportunity to give detailed and complex answers. He stayed engaged well past the allocated time, and seemed to enjoy the dialog. Neither lost their cool. Both get a thumbs up for candor from my point of view, apart from my opinions on the merits of the issues discussed. I wish this kind of interchange was the norm, rather than a rare exception.

(edit out misplaced '!')

[lostnfound]

67. Agreed - it's painful to listen to, but I respect BOTH of them more

after hearing it 3 times.

If this were the norm -- (Tony Blair gets a similar grilling on the floor of the House of Commons) -- I think we'd get a much better defined political landscape.

The interview made me cringe several times, but Clinton handled it quite well, and I learned quite a bit about how he thinks from it because her questions DID put him to the test.

[AP]

69. How 'bout the context? Election morning. Do you think she was getting

votes for Nader?

[ConsAreLiars]

72. Remember, he called her

But motives don't really matter as much as the actual interview that resulted. I would love to see this kind of discussion every day, where the interviewer asks questions important to a segment of the population and the office-holder has the opportunity and integrity to answer fully and candidly.

The constant spin and lies of the Fundicons and the sycophant ism of the interviewers today are revolting, and I found this discussion quite refreshing.

[AP]

75. Can I assume that you don't mind that Nader was running in 2000?

[ConsAreLiars]

79. Sorry, I forgot the "blame nader" agenda some hold so dearly

I didn't hear Nader mentioned at all. I just reacted to the actual content of the interview.

[AP]

81. I don't blame Nader. But I think you have to put this interview in context

It was election day and this interview probably got Nader a few votes.

So long as you don't blame Nader (I dont' blame Nader either) I think you're not being a hypocrite if you say this interview was cool.

[ConsAreLiars]

89. Fair enough

I understand that.

I think the blocking of the full count of votes in FL was one decisive factor, the purge of black voters another, the sabotage and manipulation of the vote-casting machinery another, etc. If the machinery of democracy had been allowed to function honestly we would have seen different results. Gore would have been Prez, Nader would have a significant showing and progressive politics a bit more clout, 9/11 would have been countered by effective measures, and Fundicon corporatism and Islamic fanaticism would not have begun their death dance.

I don't think the interview made any difference in the outcome. I'm pretty sure most listeners had decided by that time, and the number in FL who switched to Nader (if any) in FL was minuscule. I think the game was played out at a different level altogether.

The solution to the "Nader" dilemma is twofold: Honest voting tech (see BBV) and proportional representation, or "instant runoff voting" as a half step.

ALL that being said, my respect for both Goodman and Clinton went up because of the interview. He may not have been "right on" on many of the topics (my view) but he was candid and honest and was given the time he needed to explain how he saw things.

[AP]

90. Yeah, I doubt the interview made any difference either.

But I don't know how DU'ers who get enraged about Nader running can say that this interview was great journalism.

If you think Nader was such a threat to Gore (which I don't) I don't see how you can say that having Goodman discourage people from viewing Clinton-Gore as satisfying the left-wing litmus test on day when they were on their way to the polls to pick between Nader and Gore is OK.

Mostly, I'm saying if you're cool with the interview, then you should be cool with Nader running. (But I'm not saying that the reason to be upset with this interview is because it turned the election for Bush -- I don't think that's true. Goodman is definitely justified in askign those questions.)

[ConsAreLiars]

91. I liked the interview because

of the information it provided about Clinton's view of things. A lot more instructive about his strengths and limitations than any other I have seen. As for Nader running, I think we (progressives) need a better way to build influence within the system as it now exists, and we need system that is more truly representative of the will of the people in the long run.

[AP]

92. It would have been more interesting if it wasn't just a laundry list

and if she followed up on a question or two.

Someone above accused her of interrupting. I thought it was the opposite. At some points she didn't even seem to care about the answers. She just let him go. When he finished, she paused. Then she'd ask him another question completely unrelated to the previous quesiton except in that she was clearly trying to set up the argument that Clinton was far left enough for her or her audience.

[ConsAreLiars]

95. Too combative - too laid back ...

I thought she followed up and went on to new subjects competently. Not arguing, etc., but the difference in views is natural.

(Btw, I lived within a few miles of Louisville when "Cassius Clay" was first a local interest story about a young man who was going to contend in the Golden Gloves competition. Not a boxing fan, but he struck me then as an admirable human being, and my respect has only grown. Thanks for adding his image to your posts.)

[AP]

128. Too lazy. Anyone can read a laundry list.

[lostnfound]

73. No. I think she had only 5-10 minutes of warning..and

was just doing what she perceives her job to be, which is to question the powerful and try to hold them accountable to the people that they represent.

She also knew she had only a very limited opportunity to ask him a whole lot of questions that had been building up for years.

Maybe a bit of over-rotating against any tendency to be intimidated by the office. You'd think anyone would get a little intimidated by interviewing the president, with only a little bit of warning.

[AP]

76. She didn't HAVE to ask him a whole bunch of questions. She could have

asked him half the questions, and she could have followed up on his answers.

She could have related them to current events -- ie, the national election we were having that day.

[lostnfound]

96. True, but I for one was glad to hear his answers..

on all of those issues, which gave me new appreciation for the approach he took in dealing with them.

[AP]

127. Her line of questioning implied an argument about Clinton...

...that his answers were disproving. (And that argument has something to do with the fact that it was election day -- she was saying don't vote for Democrats, they're not liberal).

It seemed silly to continue with the line of questioning without acknowledging that his answers proved that the argument might have been failing.

To resuscitate her overall argument, it seemed to me that she should have been engaging with his rebuttals.

I think she was insulting the intelligence of her listeners just a little bit.

[lostnfound]

129. A reasonable interpretation, but maybe she was just being a bit overeager.

in trying to keep him on the phone by firing off the questions -- all the questions that the mainstream never asks.

It WAS a bit much..but so much better than the 'what can you say to those who say...this or that..about the Lewinski affair' garbage that you get from most reporters.

[AP]

68. What do you think about Goodman's wrap-up: that the WH complained

about here not sticking to the ground rules and than acting like, "what ground rules, I'm a reporter! Those bastards."

Regardless of whether someone called her the next day to complain, she got her interview. If not for that call she'd have NOTHING to complain about. And I'm not sure getting that call gives her any right to complain. Sounds to me like she was climbing up on a high horse without having any good reason to do so.

[ConsAreLiars]

74. I didn't hear that as a complaint.

More like a report on the reaction of the WH operatives and a rebuttal. (She never agreed to ask only "approved" questions, and in my view no honest interviewer should ever agree to such restrictions.)

Maybe, rather than kvetching, if I want to read attitude into that commentary, she was guilty of a showing a bit of a pride in being chastised by WH personnel. My guess: it was some lower level phone-call scheduler who got a bit peeved and wanted to bluster a bit.

[AP]

77. Why brag that you never agreed to ground rules when it was totally...

...irrelevant to the interview? Nobody tried to enforce any ground rules.

It was a totally superfluous addendum. It was like bragging about something that didn't happen.

I'm sure what happened is that someone got bitched out and that person decided to take it out on Goodman. To brag about going face to face with an minion is not that cool, especially after she had just gone chest to chest with the president.

It's like she would have been happier if she had gotten Clinton to hang up on her, but since he didn't, she's glad someone from the white house acted like an ass, so that she could get on her high horse viz that person.

[Zan_of_Texas]

78. I'm gonna say this once.

The 2000 election was not about Nader.

No. I'm gonna say it again.

The 2000 election was not about Nader.

Not only in Florida, but plenty of other states, votes weren't counted. Black votes weren't counted, disproportionately, and that means, Democratic votes weren't counted.

Greg Palast has done two new articles exposing the facts.

Please read them (instead of arguing that a reporter interrupted someone -- oh, heavens to betsy). Election flim-flam cost the presidency even before the Supreme Court did its magic act.

Vanishing Votes

by Gregory Palast
Published in the May 17, 2004 issue of The Nation
http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20040517&s=palast

On October 29, 2002, George W. Bush signed the Help America Vote Act (HAVA). Hidden behind its apple-pie-and-motherhood name lies a nasty civil rights time bomb.

First, the purges. In the months leading up to the November 2000 presidential election, Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris, in coordination with Governor Jeb Bush, ordered local election supervisors to purge 57,700 voters from the registries, supposedly ex-cons not allowed to vote in Florida. At least 90.2 percent of those on this "scrub" list, targeted to lose their civil rights, are innocent. Notably, more than half--about 54 percent--are black or Hispanic. You can argue all night about the number ultimately purged, but there's no argument that this electoral racial pogrom ordered by Jeb Bush's operatives gave the White House to his older brother. HAVA not only blesses such purges, it requires all fifty states to implement a similar search-and-destroy mission against vulnerable voters. Specifically, every state must, by the 2004 election, imitate Florida's system of computerizing voter files. The law then empowers fifty secretaries of state--fifty Katherine Harrises--to purge these lists of "suspect" voters.

The purge is back, big time. Following the disclosure in December 2000 of the black voter purge in Britain's Observer newspaper, NAACP lawyers sued the state. The civil rights group won a written promise from Governor Jeb and from Harris's successor to return wrongly scrubbed citizens to the voter rolls. According to records given to the courts by ChoicePoint, the company that generated the computerized lists, the number of Floridians who were questionably tagged totals 91,000. Willie Steen is one of them. Recently, I caught up with Steen outside his office at a Tampa hospital. Steen's case was easy. You can't work in a hospital if you have a criminal record. (My copy of Harris's hit list includes an ex-con named O'Steen, close enough to cost Willie Steen his vote.) The NAACP held up Steen's case to the court as a prime example of the voter purge evil.

more


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

1.9 million black votes didn't count in the 2000 presidential election
It's not too hard to get your vote lost -- if some politicians want it to be lost
San Francisco Chronicle
June 20, 2004

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004/06/20/ING2976LG61.DTL

In the 2000 presidential election, 1.9 million Americans cast ballots that no one counted. "Spoiled votes" is the technical term. The pile of ballots left to rot has a distinctly dark hue: About 1 million of them -- half of the rejected ballots -- were cast by African Americans although black voters make up only 12 percent of the electorate.

<snip>
How do you spoil 2 million ballots? Not by leaving them out of the fridge too long. A stray mark, a jammed machine, a punch card punched twice will do it. It's easy to lose your vote, especially when some politicians want your vote lost.

While investigating the 2000 ballot count in Florida for BBC Television, I saw firsthand how the spoilage game was played -- with black voters the predetermined losers. Florida's Gadsden County has the highest percentage of black voters in the state -- and the highest spoilage rate. One in 8 votes cast there in 2000 was never counted. Many voters wrote in "Al Gore." Optical reading machines rejected these because "Al" is a "stray mark."

By contrast, in neighboring Tallahassee, the capital, vote spoilage was nearly zip; every vote counted. The difference? In Tallahassee's white- majority county, voters placed their ballots directly into optical scanners. If they added a stray mark, they received another ballot with instructions to correct it. In other words, in the white county, make a mistake and get another ballot; in the black county, make a mistake, your ballot is tossed.

more

[AP]

82. I totally agree.

It's just that I see a few DU'ers here who do blame nader for 2000 (and don't want him running in 2004) but don't have a problem with Goodman campaigning for him on election day 2000.

I think that's inconsistent.

I don't blame Nader, and I have other problems with this interview.

[U4ikLefty]

80. Good job Amy...she asked him some tough questions on REAL issues

After all, it was the first & last chance she would have to ask him anything...he only had a few months in office.

I listened to the interview & they BOTH handled it well. Clinton was just a little pissed that he had someone who challenged him on touchy issues (like NAFTA, Iraq, etc).

Some folks make it sould like she was acting FoxNews-like. It was a great back & forth. To be honest, I think Clinton was a bad sport.

[AP]

83. And she might have convinced some audience members to vote Nader

or not vote at all.

Weren't there some other pertinent questions she could have asked, you know, conscerning some of the issues of the day?

Maybe she could have made a deal -- she asks questions relevant to the election on Tuesday and Clinton will come back for a full interview a week later on whatever she wants to talk about.

[U4ikLefty]

85. Those are some pretty big leaps in logic

How would an interview on Clinton persuade a Pacifica listener to do either of those things?

I think you are trying to say that its liberals like Amy Goodman that "made us lose the 2000 election"...how sad!!!

Amy is a friend of the left, NOT an enemy.

[AP]

88. The impression a listener is left with is that Clinton-Gore were not so...

...different from Republicans and if you want a real liberal, you should vote for Nader.

That interview was on election day.

I agree with you. Amy is a friend of the left. But I think on that day she thought being a friend of the left meant telling voters that Clinton-Gore weren't friends of the left.

[IrateCitizen]

101. Clinton wasn't much of a friend of the left, AP

He just wasn't nearly as big of an enemy as the wacko RW.

I view the relationship between the left and Clinton as an uneasy truce between competing viewpoints in the face of a much greater enemy. Given what I know now, if it were 1992 all over again and Clinton was running, I'd do what I could to help get him elected, and then do what I could to hold his feet to the fire and drag him away from the center-right.

Gore, OTOH, is proving now that he is much more of a friend of the left, if not a charter member himself. It's just a shame that he felt like he had to hide that fact during the 2000 election, at the behest of his DLC advisors.

[AP]

112. He wasn't the destination, but he was the road.

Politics is a process, and Clinton was the road in the right direction.

FDR was the road to the growth of the middle class and of democracy throughout the 50s and 60s and which ended in the early 70s. Clinton stuck his finger in the dyke of creeping fascism of the 70s and 80s. I didn't see Gore as progress, but definitely hodling the line, which has become apparent (Whatever Gore says now about Iraq seems to me to be opportunism -- he was for invading Iraq as VP, and he was for just about every piece of deregulation and privitization, and accounting rule relaxation there was, I'm discoverign). Bush has probably completely undone all the financial progress (building up wealth among people who work for a living) but not the feelings which could get voters to vote in someone who will get us back on the road to progess.

[IrateCitizen]

115. Well, we'll just have to disagree here, AP

I saw Clinton as a holding pattern. Made some decent improvements, but helped along the slow slide to fascism in other ways (1995 Effective Death Penalty and Anti-Terrorism Act, 1996 Telecommunications Act, Welfare "Reform" Act, etc.)

What we needed after 12 years of Reagan/Bush was a counterweight. Clinton provided a fulcrum instead.

[AP]

116. I think that's what I said. My point is you can't have democracy without

having power in the hands of the people -- and by power, I mean economic, political and cultural power.

Everywhere you looked, Clinton was flowing power downwards and outwards, whether it was bringing black culture out of the ghettos and into the public conscience, or it was increasing wages for everyone.

He gave us the tools, and I think Gore faltered. Gore should have fought harder.

[treepig]

123. unfortunately, clinton's road of progress in the right direction

was littered with the bodies of 500,000 iraqi children he killed.

but as long as he had his finger in the dyke of creeping fascism - well, like madeline albright said - the price of taking all those innocent lives was well worth it.

[AP]

125. Well, Hussein was still around, and the Republicans were able to use him

to rev up the fascist machine to eleven.

It would have been better for democracy long term if Hussein and OBL had been gone before the Republicans got their hands on the machinery of government.

Oh, well. Clinton tried. Poor execution, but the right idea.

[Algomas]

86. What's up with the negative waves???

I am reading lots of negativity towards Amy here. As far as I can tell, Goodman is heroic in her dedication and stamina. I wish more journalists would follow her example. After all, Bill Clinton is no Mahatma Gandhi, is he. Bill's snout is plenty calloused from digging in the trough!!!
Of course, I have only been studying this ball of snakes for a few years and certainly don't know where all the bodies are buried. Is there some hidden agenda with Amy that I am not aware of?

[U4ikLefty]

87. I agree, Amy is great.

She is one of my favorites & I love her show. These folks are trippin!!!

[gristy]

97. From the portion of the thread that I read, I believe people are critical

of her Clinton interview only. I like Goodman and I like her show, but I didn't hear the interview. It sounds like she didn't do a very good job.

[Laughing Mirror]

98. As always, Amy did an excellent job

A wonderful job. Why don't you listen to the interview for yourself, rather than relying on other people posting here who didn't seem to have listened to it either, just repeating idiocies other nonlisteners type into this thread reflecting their own biases.

Amy showed once again that she does not kowtow to the visiting dignitary, whoever they be, in this case Clinton calling her up with the express purpose of delivering a final last mintue sales pitch for his ex-partner, his ex-partner's partner, and his wife.

[IrateCitizen]

99. I like Amy, but she didn't do an excellent job this time

She simply went down through a laundry list of criticisms of Clinton stated as questions, and didn't do a follow-up question on a single answer he gave.

I didn't find her to be rude or disrespectful unlike many others on this thread. However, I did not find her interview to be overly effective. Based on the simple back-and-forth between her and Clinton, Bill came off looking like a pro and Amy came off looking like a second-rate journalist incapable of effectively interviewing someone offering a different view than her's -- especially someone able to articulate that viewpoint extremely effectively.

Furthermore, her choice to re-air the interview from 3.5 years ago just as a counter to the hoopla surrounding Clinton's book was a piss-poor choice. It does nothing more than make her appear self-absorbed rather than helping her maintain a reputation as an independent voice in the news.

[indigo32]

102. I respect Amy

and to be fair to her if I recall correctly (I heard this interview a long time ago... not yesterday) I don't think she even expected to get the opportunity to do this interview. So she probably didn't have alot of time to prepare, and wanted to get as much in as possible. But I have to agree wholeheartedlly with this...


"Furthermore, her choice to re-air the interview from 3.5 years ago just as a counter to the hoopla surrounding Clinton's book was a piss-poor choice. It does nothing more than make her appear self-absorbed rather than helping her maintain a reputation as an independent voice in the news."

[Laughing Mirror]

103. I don't know what her reason was for re-airing that segment

but I'm glad she did. I would not have heard it otherwise. It could be, with all the Clinton hoopla on every channel everywhere, this was her way of making a statement of why her viewers and listeners could not expect an Amy Goodman interview out of Clinton for his book this time, since she is clearly on his shit list after the election day interview.

I do not think it was "piss-poor choice." I think it was a great choice, and a great interview.

[Laughing Mirror]

107. She had a lot of questions she needed to get in

and did not have a lot of time for follow-up questions, and I don't think she needed to ask them. She let the listener decide, based upon Clinton's answers. Careful listeners can draw their own conclusions without the need to press a point, or expound on it. This is the way she generally interviews anyway, and it seems to have served her well.

Yes, she was critical of Clinton, but not disrepectful or hostile. He was the one that was disrespectful and hostile, according to my ears, I think because he was surprised anybody would have the nerve to ask him the questions she did, that he could not give a good answer to, such as the questions about sanctions killing Iraqi children. But the points is, Amy did ask those questions, and got in quite a bit in a very limited amount of time. And she told him that she had to because those were the questions her listeners wanted to know. And she is right. Those are the questions we wanted to know, questions nobody else would ask him. And Clinton hated it, because having to answer real questions took away from the time he thought he'd have to go down his own laundry list of talking points tailored to get people to buy his product.

[durutti]

93. Clinton disappointed every "progressive" worthy of the label.

A journalist who asks real questions! God forbid! How dare she question Our Great Leader?!!

[tinanator]

106. maybe if you survived a massacre you wouldnt be any different?

Clinton was a fucking crybaby whiny bitch when he went off on her, not the other way around.

[robbedvoter]

113. "Only Gore beat Gore" - Goodman at our protest (she voted Nader)

I had the joy of booing her. A proponent of the "no difference" BS. WBAI is crap - never made a difference - because they are kept there to keep the left from participating in politics.

She has been vicious to Joe Conason (a true journalist if I know one) - even more so than Faux was.

It's not that she can't behave like a journalist - I heard some good interviews - especially during the Iraq war. But her political agenda interferes with her ability. I have seen Sam Seder blowing an interview with Ed Koch the same way - he for lack of experience, smarmy Koch ran circles around her. Goodman has the experience, but needed to score points for Nader. Pacifica is the "no fifference, don't vote" station. That's why we needed Air America so badly. The majority in this country had no voice. Only the fringes on the right and left.

[IrateCitizen]

114. Now THAT is crap!

Pacifica is the "no fifference, don't vote" station.

You're judging an entire radio station here on the basis of one single radio personality. Whatever "crap" you're condemning Amy Goodman for, that's your business. But to say that the entire Pacifica network is scarred by one single show you don't agree with is beyond the pale.

I'll readily admit that I find some of the Pacifica programming to be even too far left for me. But would you also say the same for Doug Henwood's "Behind the News"? What about "Explorations" with Dr. Michio Kaku? "Counterspin" by FAIR? "Talkback" with Hugh Hamilton? Hell, I consider "Talkback" to the best call-in show I've EVER listened to. It's the only place you can call in and actually have a substantive DISCUSSION on a wide range of issues with the radio host.

You can have your issues with Amy Goodman, and even other shows on WBAI. But don't slam the whole network as a result, because it DOES produce some pretty damned good shows, whether you like to admit it or not.

[LibDemAlways]

117. Amy didn't feel the need to

kiss Bill's ass no matter what day it was. Good for her. She put his feet to the fire, and he rose to the challenge. I think he was just pissed because he didn't expect a grilling on a progressive show.

Since Amy isn't going to be interviewing the chimp anytime soon, it would be great if someone - anyone - would ask him a tough question even once. However, I'm not holding my breath.

[wyldwolf]

118. like so many RIGHTwingers who take on Clinton, Goodman seemed surprised...

...and unprepared for Clinton's intelligence.

"I don't care what they say about Clinton, I can take him on in an interview..."

Then they find out...

[Catherine Vincent]

119. Not a nasty streak, she was just trying to get answers from the president.

If any wing nut tries to say that Amy Goodman is just some other liberal media hack, we only need to replay the interview she did with Clinton. That should shut them up.

[Guava Jelly]

120. Still pissed at goodman for her anti clark crap

also cancelled my nation subscription.
because they trashed Wes..screw them.
Democracy now is a good show i must admit though

[Adenoid_Hynkel]

121. goodman was right to go after clinton

contrary to popular belief, he was not on our side. unlike so-called liberals like bill press, paul begala, etc, ms goodman did not accept every neocon thing clinton signed on to simply on the basis that 'he's not a republican"

bill clinton sold us out to save his political ass every chance he got. he moved the party so far to the right that it no longer standfs for anything. we have him to thank for losing both houses of congress and all of those state governorships

[JustinF]

134. Amen to that

Thank god for Amy Goodman, one of the few progressive journalists out there who isn't afraid to hold powerful people accountable regardless of their position or party affiliation.

[Michael Costello]

124. This interview has Clinton's most honest quote

"The truth is there is an ideological struggle between those who believe that the best way to grow the economy is to give more money to the wealthy, and the Democrats who believe that the wealthy will make more money if average people do better."

I posted this quote here once. I guess it is like a Rorschach test, people hear what they want to hear with it. Clinton says there is "an ideological struggle between those who...give more money to the wealthy, and the the Democrats who believe the wealthy will make more money if..." What Clinton is saying is that the primary aim of either party is to help the wealthy, and Clinton thinks his method is a better one than the Republicans. Watching him cut welfare, sign NAFTA and so forth, I'm perfectly convinced that he and the Republicans have the same objective, how to make the wealthy wealthier, and simply have different strategies as how to do so. Clinton would have never been so honest if he hadn't been talking to listener-sponsored media (which he never did until election day, 2000, when it didn't matter for him any more).

Oprah talked endlessly about Clinton's affair yesterday, the corporate media said this is what we are supposedly really interested in, but the real story is how the Republicrats have been stabbing working people in the back since their party formations.

[AP]

126. It's not just money, it's power. Democrats want power to flow down to the

people and broadly. Republicans want it to flow to the top of a very tall and steep power pyramid.

You can't have all that other good stuff Goodman wanted to talk about until you get more power down to the people. Clinton understands the essence of the struggle and did everything he could to get that power down to the people so that the next president could keep things moving forward.

It almost worked. Bush had to steal the election and Gore had to be his own worst enemey in order for Clinton's progress to be reversed.

I don't think people appreciate how much power and wealth has shot back up to the top in the last 3.5 years. People's attitudes have changed alot in the Clinton years, but it's going to be very very hard to get back the economic power. And there's not much people who work for a living can do politically with the economic power.

[Lindsey]

130. I've always had respect for Amy Goodman

but was totally pissed about this interview. I don't have time to read everyone's reply about this but here's my take. We don't live in a country that will be electing a Dennis Kucinich right now(unfortunately). We MUST (unfortunately) compromise. That's just how it is. I have trememdous respect for Bill Clinton. I think he did a very good job for our country and truly had the little people's best interest at heart for the most part. Of course he made many mistakes and made poor decisions. He's a flawed human being like the rest of us. My belief is that no one in his or her right mind could possibly believe now (after the 3 1/2 years of sheer hell that * and his gang of thugs have given us) that there's no difference between the Democrats and Republicans.

[LisaM]

131. I read her account of this in her book

What struck me then (and now, reading this) is that he called her station to help get out the vote and she (even by her own telling) probably sabotaged it to some degree by haranguing him on election day.

[AP]

132. It's weird that she'd rerun that interview like she was proud of it.

[Cocoa]

133. he should be glad she asked those questions

Clinton's answers were pretty good, he came off looking good and scored some points against the idea that the two parties are the same. I'm sure a lot of Goodman's listeners didn't like some of his answers, but they probably weren't big Clinton fans anyway.

[dumpster_baby]

137. Good! We need to get nasty with the neoliberal corporate lapdogs

the ones that have sold us out for corporate profits, the ones who have ignored evidence from Europe and Canada and Australia that tax-funded universal healthcare gives longer and healthier lives, the neoliberal corporate lapdogs like Reagan, Bush 1, Bush 2, AND LIKE BILL CLINTON!

[CWebster]

139. Didn't hear it, but it wouldn't surprise meif she felt pressed

to cram in as many of the questions that never get asked--regardless of the responses.

If only to ask the questions that never get asked.