Last Tuesday, two days after former President Bill Clinton's interview on "Fox News Sunday," Jon Stewart of the "Daily Show" referred to Clinton as "the new Lonelygirl15." It would have been more accurate, if less modest, for Stewart to call Clinton "the new Jon Stewart."
Stewart was pointing out that Clinton's dissection of Mike Wallace has become the latest YouTube hit, but that is probably the only point of similarity between the former president and the Web actress. Clinton's outburst - and the ensuing reactions to it from both parties - are more reminiscent of Stewart's appearance two years ago on the show "Crossfire."
Stewart's unexpected attack on "Crossfire," and, particularly, on right-wing host Tucker Carlson, instantly made him a folk hero to the left. People already knew that "Crossfire" was a ridiculous, stagy excuse for a debate show, but no one seemed particularly incensed about it until Stewart took on the show on its own turf and came out victorious.
What Stewart did was simply to point out the obvious. What made it so refreshing was that he pointed it out to the culprits themselves, the people who he thought symbolized the decadence of the American news media.
Last spring, Stephen Colbert followed Stewart's lead, addressing prominent Republicans and journalists at the White House Correspondents' Association Dinner with 20 minutes of biting satire aimed directly at their shortcomings. Like Stewart, Colbert got little to no positive reaction from his immediate audience, and, like Stewart, he found his real audience in legions of delighted YouTube viewers.
Clinton became the latest YouTube phenomenon on Sunday, when Wallace asked him why he had not done more during his presidency to stop Osama bin Laden. Clinton used the opportunity not only to answer the question but to attack the Republican "disinformation campaign" that included ABC's biased and inaccurate miniseries, "The Path to 9-11."
The miniseries, which aired on Sept. 11, was billed as a "docudrama," presumably to give viewers the impression that the fiction they were watching was entirely based in fact. It contained a number of scenes that lacked any credible evidence, and others that directly contradicted the report of the 9-11 Commission. All of the inaccuracies served the same purpose: to lessen President George W. Bush's responsibility for the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and to throw as much blame as possible on Clinton and his administration.
When Wallace asked Clinton about bin Laden, the "Fox News Sunday" host explained that he was doing so because of requests from his viewers. What he did not say - though he must have known it - was that these viewers had gotten their concerns from sources such as the ABC series.
In essence, Clinton attacked Wallace's implicit support for ABC's false allegations. He was criticizing journalists for doing the same thing they did in 2004 when the Swift Boat ads first aired. Most sensible people knew the ads were works of fiction, but the media failed to dismiss them as such, and Sen. John Kerry, D.-Mass., was forced to choose between angrily refuting them and dismissing them as beneath his notice. He chose to ignore them and was criticized for it; Clinton has chosen to refute such allegations directly, and conservatives are attacking him for it.
Conservatives discussing the interview have mainly focused on Clinton's red face, his jabbing forefinger and his invasion of a cowed-looking Wallace's personal space. They are, of course, exaggerating - Clinton may have been heated, but as the transcript of the interview shows, he remained phenomenally articulate throughout.
The criticisms are oddly reminiscent of those aimed at Stewart and Colbert. Carlson complained during Stewart's Crossfire appearance that Stewart wasn't being funny. After Colbert's routine at the correspondents' dinner, bloggers argued for a solid week over whether Colbert had been funny or not. In each case, the conservative response has been to criticize the style while ignoring the substance.
If the careers of Stewart and Colbert are anything to go by, Clinton will not suffer from his outburst. But the very tendency of the left to create folk heroes is dispiriting, because it highlights how very rare they are. Stewart and Colbert were put on pedestals for stating the obvious. They spoke well - and, in Colbert's case it took considerable courage - but they should not have been alone in speaking up.
The folk hero trend is, unfortunately, a self-perpetuating one. The more we laud the few people with the sense to speak out, the more we praise their courage, the more speaking the truth becomes an exceptional act instead of commonplace. The result is a political climate in which the right is outraged and the left is overjoyed by something as predictable as the former president defending himself against a demonstrably false accusation.
Katy Crane '07 is an opinions page folk hero.
