Of Ratings and Rantings

Um, and who featured the Monica crisis more than 200 straight nights on "The Big Show with Keith Olbermann," and then quit MSNBC in disgust?

Fox replayed excerpts of the interview about a zillion times yesterday--it's been downloaded on YouTube at least 800,000 times--and Condi Rice is punching back hard:

"Condoleezza Rice yesterday accused Bill Clinton of making 'flatly false' claims that the Bush administration didn't lift a finger to stop terrorism before the 9/11 attacks," says the New York Post , which also happens to be owned by Fox News boss Rupert Murdoch.

"Rice hammered Clinton, who leveled his charges in a contentious weekend interview with Chris Wallace of Fox News Channel, for his claims that the Bush administration 'did not try' to kill Osama bin Laden in the eight months they controlled the White House before the Sept. 11 attacks.

"'The notion somehow for eight months the Bush administration sat there and didn't do that is just flatly false -- and I think the 9/11 commission understood that,' Rice said during a wide-ranging meeting with Post editors and reporters."

Bill Kristol defends his Fox colleague:

"Let's do a thought experiment. Perhaps Bill Clinton, an experienced and sophisticated politician, knew what he was doing when he made big news by 'losing his temper' in his interview with Chris Wallace. Perhaps Clinton's aides knew what they were doing when they publicized the interview by providing their own transcript to a left-wing website as soon as possible Friday evening, and then pre-spun reporters late Friday and Saturday. Maybe it was just damage control. Or maybe Clinton did what he wanted to do when he indignantly defended himself, blasted the Bush administration, and attacked Fox News. What could Clinton have been seeking to accomplish? . . .

"In the Fox interview, and in other recent interviews (Meet the Press, the New Yorker), Clinton has shown himself well aware of Republican efforts (engineered by the dastardly Karl Rove) to paint Democrats as unreliable in the war on terror. Clinton would have known that these were doing some damage to Democrats, and that Bush and Rove have had a few good weeks on this issue. And he would know that the Democrats haven't fought back well (e.g., they're now in a difficult position on the Bush-McCain detainees legislation).

"In this interview, Clinton rallied Democrats. He reminded them of their talking points on Bush's alleged passivity in his first eight months in office (remember Richard Clarke!), and on the alleged distraction posed by Iraq from the more worthwhile war in Afghanistan . . .

"Chris Wallace stood up to him. Will others? Will his next interviewer raise the same set of questions? Will they be willing to take the criticism of being 'conservative hit men' or part of the vast, Fox-centered right-wing conspiracy? Bullying and intimidation sometimes work."

Ann Althouse : "Now that I've seen the reaction on the left, I'm convinced that Clinton went on the show planning to act the way he did. It wasn't Chris Wallace's specific question that set him off. He decided in advance to go on Fox News and unleash an attack on Fox News as soon as when he saw an opening. But he jumped too eagerly at what wasn't really an opening and he jumped weirdly."

Whether deliberate or not, Clinton's outburst has changed the debate, as this Boston Globe makes clear: