>Why not stick to a few questions and pursue them systematically. A leftist
>journalist has never had such a great opportunity, and she squandered it,
>embarrassing all leftist business observers to whom she owes a great
>apology.
>
I've only read the transcript of the exchange, but I've heard enough by Amy (I sometimes worked with her at WBAI) to know that she is anything but scatter-brained, and is serious about her activist journalism to the point of almost being killed by Indonesian troops (along wiht Allan Nairn). She never gives up and is extremely dedicated to her craft. That's more than I can say about a lot journos -- lefty and mainstream alike.
Look, how many of us, facing Clinton at election time, would have -- could have -- stayed on a single course with a master of doubletalk and manipulation? I'm impressed that Amy got Clinton at all. It's not often that a truly radical radio show snags the prez for an extended segment. From what I read, the only problem was Clinton's arrogance and refusal to extend the interview (not a "press conference" as he put it). Amy's attempts to go deeper with her line of inquiry were thwarted by Clinton invoking his "executive privilege." Why he didn't cite "national security" is beyond me.
In other words, no apology necessary.
DP