NY Times' Healy omitted Rose's on-air comments about ending Clinton interview
In his December 16 New York Times article, reporter Patrick Healy discussed former President Bill Clinton's interview with host Charlie Rose, broadcast on the December 14 edition of the Public Broadcasting Service's The Charlie Rose Show, writing that "Mr. Clinton looked agitated at times" and that "[a]t one point, Mr. Rose said that, in his control room, aides to Mr. Clinton were trying to persuade the show's producers to end the interview." However, Healy did not report Rose's on-air comments indicating why Clinton's aides wanted to "end the interview." During the interview, Rose said to Clinton: "Let me -- let me just close with this, because it's important and fairly -- we're over and your people need to take you -- you need to go wherever you need to go." The interview then continued for several more minutes. Minutes later, Rose added: "Your people are pushing me, so I want you to finish, but it's not my --"
From Healy's December 16 New York Times article:
During the Charlie Rose interview, Mr. Clinton looked agitated at times as he talked about recent campaign problems faced by his wife, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, and her tough race against Mr. [Barack] Obama and former Senator John Edwards of North Carolina in Iowa, which holds the first nominating contest on Jan. 3. At one point, Mr. Rose said that, in his control room, aides to Mr. Clinton were trying to persuade the show's producers to end the interview.
In Iowa on Monday, Mr. Clinton praised the Democratic candidates as a great field. But on Charlie Rose, he criticized Mr. Obama for making "derisive" comments about Mrs. Clinton, including saying that she had long planned to run for president.
From Clinton's interview with Rose, broadcast on December 14 on PBS' The Charlie Rose Show:
ROSE: And when people say we don't need to go beyond looking back at the '60s, or even the '90s, then you -- you say, "I think a lot of good things happened in the '60s, and I think a lot of good things happened in the '70s, in the '80s, in the '90s."
CLINTON: Yeah, but the basic thing is that's irrelevant.
ROSE: Right.
CLINTON: Look at this decade. Look at this record. She has been a completely modern senator. She has sponsored -- she just passed the bill as a candidate for president, with [Sen.] Lindsey Graham [R-SC], who led my -- who was one of the impeachment managers --
ROSE: Impeachment managers -- right.
CLINTON: -- to extend the family and medical leave law to the families of veterans who were suffering physical or emotional trauma in Iraq or Afghanistan.
ROSE: All right. Let me -- let me close this one.
CLINTON: I mean, that's not nothing to do with the '90s. I mean, this -- that's sort of a superficial, you know, bigotry. That's like saying -- that's like ageism or something. You know, it's like -- if you fought and did good things, we've got to give you a gold watch and tell you goodbye.
ROSE: Let me -- let me just close with this, because it's important and fairly -- we're over and your people need to take you -- you need to go wherever you need to go.
I've said this to you before, because of your eight years of experience, because of your experience as a governor and because you have spent your time since doing good, but traveling around the world, sometimes with your friend President Bush 41. Tell me what you would put as the top five things for the next president if you were sliding a little letter into that Oval Office desk. You can make it as short or as long as you want from my point.
CLINTON: We have to restore America's standing in the world. We have to send a signal that we are going to get back in the cooperation business. And we're going to cooperate whenever we can, act alone only when we have to, including discontinuing our direct military involvement in Iraq as quickly as we can without making it worse.
We have to regain our economic momentum, to restore the middle class, which means we need more good jobs and significant changes in our education policy.
We have to have -- finally, we have to pass universal health care. Now what we're doing is costing us too much, doing too little, undermining our economic stability and our -- the moral fabric of our society.
We have to do something really significant on energy for reasons of national security, global warming, and most -- and our economic wellbeing. We have got to move back toward a clean, independent energy future. It will create millions of jobs and promote more equality.
And finally, we need to do this in a way that gives all Americans a chance to work together on it. One reason I like this whole idea of a clean independent energy future is it's inherently beyond politics. It gives people something to do across political lines, racial lines, income lines. It will benefit people in urban areas, suburban areas, small towns, rural areas.
We live in an interdependent world, where just a few people, as we found out on 9-11, or the British found out with their car bombings and their subway bombings, who don't feel part of the community, can do an enormous amount of damage. The only way to overcome our differences is not basically to try to erase the past, it's to get used to working together.
I mean, it's really kind of a metaphor for the Hillary argument. If you look at last Monday, the new --
ROSE: Your people are pushing me, so I want you to finish, but it's not my --
CLINTON: The new leaders of Northern Ireland came to Washington to see the president. They -- it represents a stunning change. I think everybody would admit, right? Stunning change in Northern Ireland.
ROSE: It's unbelievable.
so the actual situation was that like a lot of very important people, clinton's aides were suggesting he had a tight schedule. that sounds like what rose was saying. and healey turns that into saying clinton was "agitated", so therefore his aides were trying to "persuade the show's producers to end the interview". a different scenario altogether. and if that was not healey's intent, why was it even in the article? what exactly is newsworthy about someone like clinton having a tight schedule?
I think you are right Mefirst. I saw this interview. Clinton did at times seem agitated. You'd HAVE to get upset being asked the same old questions over and over again that have nothing to do with issues, but rather the politics of his wife's campaign. To me it seemed very understandable.
A few times he had to stop Rose from going on before he finished making his point. I took it as a guy (Clinton) who had 2 hours worth of thoughts and 30 minutes to say them and an interviewer who wanted to get in as many questions as he could. It was a good interview.
Charlie Rose is a class act in my view - one of the best at what he does. He has a good feel for his guests and knew when to let up - and would even throw in a chuckle to lighten it up when he thought he was pushing Clinton a bit too far. I saw it as an interview between two real gentleman – something you don’t see too much of anymore.
Not too surprised to see a virtually empty thread here.
Funny how MMFA had to find something, anything to carp about with this one.
After all they can't go after Bill Clinton for dumping on Obama & suggesting we'd be "rolling the dice" by putting him in the White House.
I think I finally have figured out the MMFA mindset ;-)
News story:
Bill Clinton was arrested today while wearing a sweatshirt, jeans & white sneakers attempting to put a knife in Obama's back.
MMFA write up:
Media claimed Clinton was wearing white sneakers. He was in fact wearing loafers.
this is not about "carping". it's about the fact that a newspaper reporter wrote something that made it seem like clinton's aides were trying to get rose to stop because clinton was "agitated". that was not the actuality of the situation, as you can see by reading the transcript of the interview.
"you need to go where you need to go". that's rose in the transcript. it's clear that it's a scheduling thing and not because clinton is "agitated".