Past Deadline

Somebody At Knott's Berry Farm Needs To Put In a Call To Bruce Vilanch, Stat

                             For some reason, the people who convert Knott's Berry Farm into Knott's Scary Farm each Halloween season thought that the above examples of TV show spoofy names -- included in the "Terror Vision in 3D Maze" section of the Buena Park, CA theme park -- were just incredibly clever. And hey, you know, they are, aside from the fact they have little tie in to any specific "scare" or "monster" theme and sound like pretty much the first things that popped into the head of the person in charge of "creative" over at that converted fruit stand.

First off, "American Idiot" was the title of a platinum album by the band Green Day, so putting it in an "American Idol" logo simply looks, well, idiotic. And "I Loathe Lucy"...I mean, why? Was that the revamped title that Desi Arnaz was hoping to install toward the end of the "I Love Lucy" run? Uh-uh. Don't think so.

And not to rant or anything (perish the thought), but what's the deal with converting a berry farm into a gargantuan amusement park, anyway? Did it ever occur to anyone back when the founding fathers of Knott's were turning it into a big-time family fun spot to maybe drop the "berry farm" reference entirely since it doesn't really do a whole lot to effectively convey that excitement vibe? "Ooh, I'm in the mood for hardcore thrills. Let's go to that 'berry farm'!" I suspect I'm pretty much blowing any shot I might have had at landing comp tickets to this joint over the next, say, 40 years, but such is the cost of purging one's soul. On the other hand, you can bet that I'll be all kinds of contrite the next time I run low on boysenberry jam.

Anyway, here are some free examples for you, Knott's people, that may not quite stand as singularly brilliant but at least represent a slight improvement on completely frigging lame:

• "Grave's Anatomy"
• "Survivor: Elm Street"
• "Dancing With the Zombies"
• "Six Six Six Degrees"
• "Salem's Next Top Witch"
• "Primetime Dead"
• "Twenty Good Fears"
• "Wife Swamp"
• "Gilmore Ghouls"
• "How I Met Your Mauler"
• "Crossing Satan"
• "Boston Fatal"
• "One Tree Hell"
• "My Name Is Nosferatu"
• "Without a Face"

You're welcome.

(Photos courtesy WireImage.com.)

If You're Ugly and You Know It Clap Your Hands!

It's getting ugly out there, and that's good — ABC's delightfully weird "Ugly Betty" had a viewership that actually beat out CBS's "Survivor: Wherever We Are" in its debut outing — if only in the second hour. It also debuted as the most-watch show of the new season, with 16.1 million, a large segment of whom were women. You can spin numbers any way you like, but ABC has already noted in a press release that "no other regular scripted program has delivered a higher Adult 18-49 rating for ABC in the Thursday 8 o'clock hour in more than 12 years."

Hey, that's good enough for me. Watching star America Ferrera bravely run around in garish outfits, ratted hair, thick retro specs and braces reminded me of my entire middle-school experience -- in which I would even have out-dorked her by having my initials stickered on the lower right hand corner of my way-too-large glasses. Pictures of me at the time show a completely self-conscious nerd with a ribbon in her hair, but America is clearly having a fine old time as both the butt of the jokes and the heroine of the show. Watching her stride confidently to her subway stop at the end of "Ugly Betty" last night, K.T. Tunstall's "Suddenly I See" rocking the scene perfectly captured the essence of coming to New York, securing that first job, but taking longer to feel secure yourself. ABC, keep "Betty" up front and center for a long while yet.

That said, memo to the network suits: While "Suddenly I See" is a great song, and should be purchased by everyone in order to better fund Tunstall's talent, it is not so great that two debut shows on the same night should feature it. Wasn't ABC once upon a time all about synergy? If so, tell the folks over at "The Nine" to clear songs with "Betty" first.

Thank you very much for your attention.

— Randee Dawn

Mayor Mayor Down the Hall, Who's the Worst-Dressed Of Them All?

My friend David Kronke, the esteemed TV critic at the Los Angeles Daily News (where I logged two previous tours of duty), has started an eccentric and oddly brilliant blog entitled The Mayor of Television that has quickly become indispensible reading. I say this not only because it's true but also because I'm shamelessly kissing up so he'll write something similar about Past Deadline.

Anyway, David is clearly very ill and in need of new meds to keep his schizophrenia in check, as will become instantly obvious upon reading his blog. He has taken to inserting himself into interview scenarios such as that of Fox News reporter Chris Wallace and President Clinton last weekend. He also wrote about how his alter ego recently had been dispatched to a luncheon for the purpose of assassinating Les Moonves. I'm worried about David, worried because I care. But it's nonetheless very funny stuff, marvelously twisted and sublime in that "How does he manage to get this stuff past his superiors? They must not be paying very close attention" sort of way.

Anyway, David went to an event last night at the Museum of Television and Radio in Beverly Hills at which 84-year-old TV legend Sid Caesar was to be honored. But in typical Mayoral style, the thing he focused on was the fact that poor Sid appears to have only one outfit that he wears to every event and is thus in danger of being thought of as...um...an old guy who likes to wear only one thing. So Mr. Mayor (he always refers to himself in the third person, which I believe to be either the first or second sign of madness) is campaigning to start a Dress Sid Appropriately Fund, promising that all monies pledged will go to paying for a snappier wardrobe.

Good luck, David. And may the voices inside your head pipe down real soon.

Charlie Sheen Soon To Have More Money Than God

Is Charlie Sheen worth about $350,000 per episode of "Two and a Half Men," as my ever so plugged-in Hollywood Reporter colleague Nellie Andreeva reported exclusively today? Well, let's see...the guy got nominated this year for an Emmy. He's also something of a taboid icon. And his show has for the past few years been primetime TV's highest-rated sitcom, though with TV comedy still trapped in something of a down cycle this is a bit like laying claim to being the top surfer in Omaha.

But making Sheen the highest-paid comedy star currently on the tube really has nothing to do with any of that. It's all about  bringing in the bucks. Sheen has been negotiating himself a huge raise from Warner Bros. Television the past few months, as Nellie reports, because his show just sold formajor bucks to both broadcast and cable syndication -- and whereas once there were a glut of off-network comedies competing in the rerun aftermarket, now there are a mere few. So it's supply-and-demand, baby.

CBS and WBTV could ill afford to lose Sheen on what's become a hit franchise, giving him genuine clout (as opposed to the phantom clout that some supporting players believe they have, only to discover they ain't all that if they overplay their hand with a salary holdout). It was never going to come to that for Sheen because if the show were reduced to "One and a Half Men," the diminished value of the series would likely be catastrophic no matter whom they got to replace him.

So you can bet that if Sheen is going to earn more than $8 million a season (covering 24 episodes), it's because he's worth it. Now, was Ray Romano worth nearly $2 million per episode during the last season of "Everybody Loves Raymond"? Yeah, probably, because of the show's reflective impact on the rest of the CBS schedule even as the series itself had to represent a loss leader.

If they are paying it to you, it's because you deserve to earn it, not because they just want to be nice. In fact, given the back-end riches the studio stands to earn, Sheen will no doubt represent a bargain.

Roger Ailes Shows His Fair and Balanced Favoritism

You may have seen how Fox News Channel chief Roger "You Say 'Bias,' I Say 'Buy Us!'" Ailes gave former President William Jefferson Clinton a nice little smack upside the head for his "wild overreaction" to reporter Chris Wallace's "professional, mild-mannered, respectful" questioning technique during Clinton's appearance last weekend on "Fox News Sunday." He said in an interview with the Associated Press that WJC's anger after being questioned about his inability to rub out Osama bin Laden prior to 9/11 proved that his "hatred for journalists is showing. All journalists need to raise their eyebrows and say, 'Hold on a second'."

Oh, we do? Ailes obviously understands that Clinton's outburst represents an indictment of all journalists roughly as much as Fox News typifies mainstream news coverage.

No, actually, Rog, I think perhaps it was Clinton's hatred for Fox News and his chronic antagonists on the right that was showing on Sunday. But you know, that's just kind of a guess. I don't believe that Clinton was ambushed by Wallace. You don't go behind enemy lines and walk in unarmed or without a clue as to the agenda in place to make you look bad/weak/dishonest. And I'm also pretty sure that the former Prez was indeed itching for a fight, the rage from a decade's worth of bashing having built up like a pressure cooker aching for release.

So what does Ailes honestly believe? That Clinton's character and performance long after the fact would be called into question and he'd simply sit there and gracefully nod? No. And Ailes is being entirely disingenuous to insinuate that's what he'd hoped for. The controversy and chatter and viral video distribution after the fact is a gift from the gods for Fox News, and naturally Ailes relishes it. Whether Wallace was made to look disrespectful or partisan is really immaterial. He landed this week on the national water cooler chatter map, which is all that matters.

I only wish FNC would cop to its right-wing bidding and bag the "fair and balanced" nonsense. This whole pretense of neutrality is borderline surreal and, quite frankly, an insult. MSNBC often leans to the left and doesn't much try to hide the fact. CNN leans...well, into outer space most of the time. Can we just call a spade a spade and quit playing games, Mr. Ailes, or is the denial of reality simply part of the charade?

Pretty Soon, You'll Be Able To Just Toss the TV Set and DVD Player Altogether

Earlier this week, my very talented blog colleague Steve Bryant and many others discovered a Website offering viewing online of pretty much every episode of "The Simpsons" ever to air, which means nearly 400 of them.

Now, there's a place in cyberspace that's done the all-"Simpsons" site one better -- or actually, four. It features not only all of the "Simpsons" installments but also what appears to be every episode of "South Park," "Futurama," "Family Guy" and "American Dad" as well, all in one convenient freeloading slice of cartoon heaven. And it's even reasonably fast, without much in the way of pauses and interruptions. Not terrible quality, either. Enjoy it while you can. The lawyers can't help but file that cease-and-desist order any minute now. The only reason it hasn't been taken down already is those same barristers are no doubt looking to pile up the billable hours first.

Keith Olbermann ReceIves a Death Threat, and the New York Post Thinks It's Pretty Darn Funny

The New York Post's unctuous Page Six "reported" it, but it's also been independently confirmed that MSNBC's Keith Olbermann -- whose brave commentaries of late taking to task the Bush Administration (and President Bush himself) have invited genuine comparisons to Edward R. Murrow -- opened a suspicious letter with a California postmark that was mailed to his New York City home late Tuesday night and out poured a white powdery substance. A threatening note inside reportedly indicated that this represented revenge for his outspoken on-air views of late.

It turns out the powder was laundry detergent and (thank God) not anthrax or any other toxic substance. But Olbermann obviously didn't know it was harmless until later on and, panic-stricken, called 911 at about 12:30 a.m. ET early this morning, according to the Page Six item. While preliminary tests of the powder confirmed the detergent finding, Olbermann, as a precaution, asked to be taken to the hospital just to be certain.

Now, whom among us would have treated this as a ho-hum, given the anthrax mail attacks of five years back? No one. Yet the famously right-leaning Post (published by Fox chairman Rupert Murdoch) naturally allowed its politics to get in the way while reporting what was in fact a legitimate and frightening death threat against a journalist whom someone was looking to intimidate and paralyze with fear.

Here is the Post item, and I also copy it here in full so you need not stain your computer hard drive by actually having to link to these reprehensible oafs:

POWDER PUFF SPOOKS KEITH

MSNBC loudmouth Keith Olbermann flipped out when he opened his home mail yesterday. The acerbic host of "Countdown with Keith Olbermann" was terrified when he opened a suspicious-looking letter with a California postmark and a batch of white powder poured out. A note inside warned Olbermann, who's a frequent critic of President Bush's policies, that it was payback for some of his on-air shtick. The caustic commentator panicked and frantically called 911 at about 12:30 a.m., sources told The Post's Philip Messing. An NYPD HazMat unit rushed to Olbermann's pad on Central Park South, but preliminary tests indicated the substance was harmless soap powder. However, that wasn't enough to satisfy Olbermann, who insisted on a checkup. He asked to be taken to St. Luke's Hospital, where doctors looked him over and sent him home. Whether they gave him a lollipop on the way out isn't known. Olbermann had no comment.

Note the sarcasm and cheeky snark, from the headline on down. They refer to a man who received a serious and authentic warning shot at his home address as "acerbic," "caustic" and a "loudmouth" who "flipped out" and "was terrified," as if being badly shaken after receiving what he understandably presumed was a deadly biological agent made him a wimp. Yeah I mean, gee, what moron would think it was actual anthrax, huh? And what relevence is there in noting parenthetically that Olbermann is "a frequent critic of President Bush's policies"? Because he is, the presumption is that he of course deserved it, right? And that he's a girly-man wuss to boot?

Page Six ought to be completely ashamed to publish a mocking dismissal of what is in fact a serious news story and try to pass it off as journalistic, not to mention putting its contempt for the left above its humanity. But then, it has a long and illustrious track record of being both shameless and inhuman, so this is perfectly in keeping with its style.

UPDATE! UPDATE! -- At 8 p.m. ET/5 p.m. PT on MSNBC's "Countdown" show tonight, not only will Olbermann be addressing the powder incident; he will also take time to point out how the NY Post (via Page Six) may have interfered with an FBI investigation of terroristic threats with its mocking item.

Just for fun, my friend Rich Procter crafted his prediction of how a Page Six item would have read had the same thing happened to Fox News personality and NY Post icon Bill O'Reilly rather than Olbermann. I present it here for your indignation and amusement.

TERRORISTS TARGET FOX PUNDIT -- COPS CLAIM AL QAEDA LINK

Beloved Fox news personality Bill O'Reilly was stunned by a terrorist attack in his home mail yesterday. The dynamic host of "The O'Reilly Factor" was wary when he opened a suspicious-looking letter with a California postmark and an anthrax-like powder poured out. A note inside warned O'Reilly, one of President Bush's most vigorous defenders that it was 'payback' for his implacable stance against Islamofascist terrorists. The stalwart commentator calmly dialed 911 at about 12:30 a.m., sources told The Post's Philip Messing. An NYPD HazMat united rushed to O'Reilly's home, but preliminary tests confirmed what O'Reilly himself suspected -- the substance was harmless soap powder. Although Mr. O'Reilly insisted the incident go no further, authorities persuaded him to go to St. Luke's Hospital, where doctors gave him a clean bill of health. O'Reilly, who reportedly has been a "high value target" for Al Qaeda terrorists, had no comment, but his steely glare and determined stride showed reporters he was unshaken by this attempt on his life.

Another Bravura Summation By Edward R. Olbermann

The full-on morphing of Keith Olbermann, host of MSNBC's nightly "Countdown," into Edward R. Murrow continues forth with his brave and blistering commentaries taking the Bush Administration to task having grown into a weekly staple. On Monday, in this remarkable 10-minute burst, he defends former President Clinton's combative tone during his interview by Chris Wallace on "Fox News Sunday." His basic argument is that Clinton was at least being honest in saying he tried to get Osama bin Laden but failed during his Presidency while President Bush did nothing but continues by proxy to try to lay blame for 9/11 at Clinton's feet.

An excerpt (speaking directly to President Bush surrounding the attempt, or lack of same, to capture bin Laden and prevent 9/11):

"You did not try. You ignored the evidence gathered by your predecessor. You ignored the evidence gathered by your own people. Then, you blamed your predecessor. That would be a textbook definition, Mr. Bush, of cowardice. To enforce the lies of the present, it is necessary to erase the truths of the past."

Olbermann also has this to say of Wallace, whom he charges with having sandbagged Clinton with his questioning:

"Had I in one moment surrendered all my credibility as a journalist, and been irredeemably humiliated, as was he, I would have gone home and started a new career selling seeds by mail."

What Bill Clinton's Righteous Indignation Looks Like In Handy Dialogue Form

From CrooksandLiars.com, here's a transcript of the juiciest part of the Chris Wallace interview with former President Bill Clinton on "Fox News Sunday":

Chris Wallace: When we announced that you were going to be on FOX News Sunday, I got a lot of email from viewers, and I’ve got to say, I was surprised most of them wanted me to ask you this question: Why didn’t you do more to put bin Laden and al Qaeda out of business when you were President? There’s a new book out which I suspect you’ve read called The Looming Tower. And it talks about how the fact that when you pulled troops out of Somalia in 1993, Bin Laden said, "I have seen the frailty and the weakness and the cowardice of US troops." Then there was the bombing of the embassies in Africa and the attack on the USS Cole

William Jefferson Clinton: Okay…

CW: …May I just finish the question, sir? And after the attack, the book says bin Laden separated his leaders because he expected an attack and there was no response. I understand that hindsight is 20/20…

WJC: No, let’s talk about…

CW: …but the question is why didn’t you do more? Connect the dots and put them out of business?

WJC: Okay, let’s talk about it. I will answer all of those things on the merits, but I want to talk about the context (in) which this…arises. I’m being asked this on the FOX network…ABC just had a right-wing conservative on 'The Path to 9/11' falsely claim that it was falsely based on the 9/11 Commission Report with three things asserted against me that are directly contradicted by the 9/11 Commission Report. I think it’s very interesting that all the conservative Republicans who now say that I didn’t do enough claimed (then) that I was obsessed with bin Laden. All of President Bush’s neocons claimed that I was too obsessed with finding bin Laden when they didn’t have a single meeting about bin Laden for the nine months after I left office. All the right-wingers who now say that I didn’t do enough said (then) that I did too much. Same people.

They were all trying to get me to withdraw from Somalia in 1993, the next day after we were involved in Black Hawk Down. And I refused to do it and stayed six months and had an orderly transfer to the UN. Okay, now let’s look at all the criticisms: Black Hawk Down, Somalia. There is not a living soul in the world who thought that Bin Laden had anything to do with Black Hawk Down or was paying any attention to it or even knew al Qaeda was a growing concern in October of 1993.

CW: I understand…

WJC: No wait…no wait…don’t tell me. You asked me why I didn’t do more to get bin Laden. There was not a living soul…all the people who criticized me wanted to leave the next day. You brought this up, so you get an answer.

CW: I’m perfectly happy to. Bin Laden says…

WJC: And secondly…

CW: Bin Laden says…

WJC: Bin Laden may have said that…

CW: Bin Laden says it showed the weakness of the U.S. …

WJC: It would have shown the weakness if we left right away, but he wasn’t involved in that. That’s just a bunch of bull. That was about Mohammed Adid, a Muslim warlord murdering…thousand Pakistani Muslim troops. We were all there on a humanitarian mission. We had not one mission - none - to establish a certain kind of Somali government or to keep anybody out. He was not a religious fanatic.

CW: But Mr. President…

WJC: There was no al Qaeda…

CW: …with respect, if I may, instead of going through ‘93…

WJC: You asked, you. It (was) you (who) brought it up.

CW: May I ask a general question that you can answer? The 9/11 Commission, which you talk about–and this is what they did say–not what ABC pretended they said…

WJC: Wait, wait…

CW: …They said about you and 43 and I quote, 'The U.S. government took the threat seriously, not in the sense of mustering anything like that would be….to confront an enemy of the first, second or third rank'…

WJC: That’s not true with us and bin Laden…

CW: …the 9/11 Commission says…

WJC: Let’s look at what Richard Clarke says. You think Richard Clarke had a vigorous attitude about bin Laden?

CW: Yes, I do.

WJC: You do?

CW: I think he has a variety of opinions and loyalties, but yes.

WJC: He has a variety of opinion and loyalties now but let’s look at the facts. He worked for Ronald Reagan; he was loyal to him. He worked for George H.W. Bush and he was loyal to him. He worked for me and he was loyal to me. He worked for President Bush; he was loyal to him. They downgraded him and the terrorist operation. Now, look what he said. Read his book and read his factual assertions - not opinions–assertions. He said we took "vigorous action" after the African embassies. We probably nearly got bin Laden.

CW: But..

WJC: Now, wait a minute…

CW: …cruise missiles…

WJC: I authorized the CIA to get groups together to try to kill him. The CIA was run by George Tenet, who President Bush gave the Medal of Freedom to and said he did a good job. The country never had a comprehensive anti-terror operation until I came to office. If you can criticize me for one thing, you can criticize me for this: after the Cole, I had battle plans drawn to go into Afghanistan, overthrow the Taliban, and launch a full scale attack/search for bin Laden. But we needed basing rights in Uzbekistan, which we got (only) after 9/11. The CIA and the FBI refused to certify that Bin Laden was responsible while I was there. They refused to certify. So that meant I would have had to send a few hundred Special Forces in helicopters and refuel at night. Even the 9/11 Commission didn’t do (think we should have done) that. Now the 9/11 Commission was a political document, too? All I’m asking is if anybody wants to say I didn’t do enough, you read Richard Clarke’s book.

CW: Do you think you did enough, sir?

WJC: No, because I didn’t get him.

CW: Right…

WJC: But at least I tried. That’s the difference in me and some, including all the right-wingers who are attacking me now. They ridiculed me for trying. They had eight months to try and they didn’t.  I tried. So I tried and failed. When I failed, I left a comprehensive anti-terror strategy and the best guy in the country: Dick Clarke. So you did FOX’s bidding on this show. You did you nice little conservative hit job on me. But what I want to know...

CW: Now wait a minute, sir…

WJC:   [..]

CW: I asked a question. You don’t think that’s a legitimate question?

WJC: It was a perfectly legitimate question. But I want to know how many people in the Bush administration you’ve asked this question of. I want to know how many people in the Bush administration you asked ‘Why didn’t you do anything about the Cole?’  I want to know how many you asked ‘Why did you fire Dick Clarke?’ I want to know…

CW: We asked…

WJC: [..]

CW: Do you ever watch FOX News Sunday, sir?

WJC: I don’t believe you ask them that.

CW: We ask plenty of questions of…

WJC: You didn’t ask that, did you? Tell the truth.

CW: About the USS Cole?

WJC: Tell the truth…

CW: I…with Iraq and Afghanistan, there’s plenty of stuff to ask.

WJC: Did you ever ask that? You set this meeting up because you were going to get a lot of criticism from your viewers because Rupert Murdoch is going to get a lot of criticism from your viewers for supporting my work on Climate Change. And you came here under false pretenses and said that you’d spend half the time talking about…

CW: [laughs]

WJC: You said you’d spend half the time talking about what we did out there to raise $7 billion plus over three days from 215 different commitments. And you don’t care.

CW: But, President Clinton…

WJC: [..]

CW: We were going to ask half the [interview time] about it. I didn’t think this was going to set you off on such a tear.

WJC: It set me off on such a tear because you didn’t formulate it in an honest way and you people ask me questions you don’t ask the other side.

CW: Sir, that is not true…

WJC: …and Richard Clarke…

CW: That is not true…

WJC: Richard Clarke made it clear in his testimony…

CW: Would you like to talk about the Clinton Global Initiative?

WJC: No, I want to finish this.

CW: All right…

WJC: All I’m saying is you falsely accuse me of giving aid and comfort to Bin Laden because of what happened in Somalia. No one knew al Qaeda existed then…

CW: Did they know in 1996, when he declared war on the U.S.? Did no one know in 1998…

WJC: Absolutely, they did.

CW: …when they bombed the two embassies?

WJC: [..]

CW: Or in 2000, when they hit the Cole?

WJC: What did I do?  I worked hard to try and kill him. I authorized a finding for the CIA to kill him. We contracted with people to kill him. I got closer to killing him than anybody has gotten since. And if I were still President, we’d have more than 20,000 troops there trying to kill him. Now I never criticized President Bush, and I don’t think this is useful. But you know we do have a government that thinks Afghanistan is 1/7 as important as Iraq. And you ask me about terror and al Qaeda with that sort of dismissive theme when all you have to do is read Richard Clarke’s book to look at what we did in a comprehensive, systematic way to try to protect the country against terror. And you’ve got that little smirk on your face and think you’re so clever…

CW: [Laughs]

WJC: I had responsibility for trying to protect this country. I tried and I failed to get Bin Laden. I regret it, but I did try. And I did everything I thought I responsibly could. The entire military was against sending Special Forces into Afghanistan and refueling by helicopter and no one thought we could do it otherwise.  We could not get the CIA and the FBI to certify that al Qaeda was responsible while I was President. [Not] until I left office.  And yet I get asked about this all the time and they had three times as much time to get him as I did and no one ever asks them about this. I think that’s strange.

CW: Can I ask you about the Clinton Global Initiative?

WJC: You can.

CW: I always intended to, sir.

WJC: No, you intended to move your bones by doing this first. But I don’t mind people asking me. I actually talked to the 9/11 Commission for four hours and I told them the mistakes I thought I made. And I urged them to make those mistakes public because I thought none of us had been perfect.  But instead of anybody talking about those things. I always get these clever little political…where they ask me one-sided question. It always comes from one source. And so…

CW: [..]

WJC: And so…

CW: I just want to ask you about the Clinton Global Initiative, but what’s
the source? You seem upset…

WJC: I am upset because…

CW: …and all I can say is, I’m asking you in good faith because it’s on people’s minds, sir. And I wasn’t…

WJC: There’s a reason it’s on people’s minds. That’s the point I’m trying to make. There’s a reason it’s on people’s minds because they’ve done a serious disinformation campaign to create that impression. This country only has one person who has worked against terror…[since] under Reagan. Only one: Richard Clarke.  And all I’d say [to] anybody who wonders whether we did wrong or right; anybody who wants to see what everybody else did, read his book. The people on my political right who say I didn’t do enough, spent the whole time I was president saying ‘Why is he so obsessed with bin Laden?’ And that was ‘Wag the Dog’ when he tried to kill him. My Republican Secretary of Defense, - and I think I’m the only person since WWII to have a Secretary of Defense from the opposition party - Richard Clarke, and all the intelligence people said that I ordered a vigorous attempt to get Osama bin Laden and came closer apparently than anybody has since.

CW: All right…

WJC: And you guys try to create the opposite impression when all you have to do is read Richard Clarke’s findings and you know it’s not true. It’s just not true. And all this business about Somalia  – the same people who criticized me about Somalia were demanding I leave the next day. Same exact crowd.

CW: One of the…

WJC: So if you’re going to do this, for God’s sake, follow the same standards for everybody.

CW: I think we do, sir.

WJC: Be fair.

CW: I think we do. One of the main parts of the Global Initiative this year is religious reconciliation. President Bush says that the fight against Islamic extremism is the central conflict of the century and his answer is promoting democracy and reform. Do you think he has that right?

WJC: Sure. To advocate democracy and reform in the Muslim world? Absolutely. I think the question is: What’s the best way to do it? I think also the question is how do you educate people about democracy? Democracy is about way more than majority rule. Democracy is about minority rights, individual rights, restraints on power. And there’s more than one way to advance democracy. But do I think on balance, that in the end, after several bouts of instability, do I think it would be better if we had more freedom and democracy? Sure, I do. …[Do I think] the president has a right to do it? Sure, I do. But I don’t think that’s all we can do in the Muslim world. I think they have to see us try to get a just and righteous peace in the Middle East. They have to see us as willing to talk to people who see the world differently than we do.

CW: Last year at this conference you got $2.5 billion in commitments, pledges.  How did you do this year?

WJC: Well, this year we had $7.3 billion, as of this morning.

CW: 7…Excuse me…

WJC: $7.3 billion, as of this morning. $3 billion of that is…that’s over a multi-year [commitment]. These are at most 10-year commitments. That came from Richard Branson’s commitment to give all his transportation profits to clean energy investments. But still that’s over $4 billion [raised excluding Branson’s donation]. And we will have another 100 commitments and probably raise another billion dollars. We have a lot of commitments still in process.

CW: When you look at the $3 billion from Branson, plus billions that Gates is giving and Warren Buffet, what do you make of this age of philanthropy?

WJC: I think that for one thing, really rich people have always given money away. They’ve endowed libraries and things like that. The unique thing about this age is first of all, you have a lot of people like Bill Gates and Warren Buffet, who are interested in issues around the world that grow out of the nature of the 21st century and its inequalities - the income inequalities, the education inequalities, the health care inequalities. You get a guy like Gates who built Microsoft and he actually believes that he can help overcome all of the health disparities in the world. That’s the first thing. Second thing, there are a lot of people with average incomes who are joining me because of the Internet. Take the tsunami, for example. We had $1.3 billion given….by [average income] households. The third things you have all these NGOs [non-governmental organizations] that you can partner with along with the government. So all these things together mean that people with real money [can contribute] in ways that help people that before would have been only the object of government grants and loans.

CW: I know we’re over, but can I ask you two political questions? Let’s talk some politics. In that same New Yorker article, you say you’re tired of Karl Rove’s BS. I’m cleaning up what you said.

WJC: I also say I’m not tired of Karl Rove. I don’t blame Karl Rove. If you’ve got a deal that works, you just keep on doing it.

CW: So what is the BS?

WJC: Well, every even number year–right before an election–they come up with some security issue. In 2000, right before the election. In 2002, our party supported them in undertaking weapon inspections in Iraq and were 100% behind them in Afghanistan and they didn’t have any way to make us look like we didn’t care about terror. And so they decided they would [push] the Homeland Security bill that they opposed and they put some pill in it that we wouldn’t pass–like taking the job rights away from 170,000 people–and then [they could] say that we were weak on terror if we weren’t for it. This year I think they wanted to make the question of prisoner treatment and intercepted communications the same sort of issue until John Warner came and Lindsey Graham got in there and it turns out there were some Republicans who believe in the Constitution and their convictions…some ideas about how best to fight terror.

As long as the American people believe that we take this seriously and we may have our differences over Iraq, but I think we’ll do fine this election. Even if they agree with us about the Iraq war, we could be hurt by Karl Rove’s new foray if we don’t make it clear that we care about the security of this country. We want to implement the 9/11 Commission recommendations, which they haven’t [done] in four years. We want to [..] Afghanistan against bin Laden. We want to make America more energy-independent. If they want to talk about Iraq, say what they really want about Iraq.

But Rove is good and [that is] why I honor him.  I’ve always been amused by how good he is. But on the other hand, this is perfectly predictable. We’re going to win a lot of seats if the American people aren’t afraid. If they’re afraid and we get divided again, then we’ll only win a few seats.

CW: Do you think the White House and the Republicans want to make the American people afraid?

WJC: Of course they do. They want another Homeland Security bill and they want to make it not about Iraq but some other security issue, where if we disagree with them, we are by definition endangering the security of the country. And it’s a big load of hooey. We’ve got nine Iraq war veterans running for House seats. President Reagan’s Secretary of the Navy is the Democratic candidate for Senate in Virginia. A three-star admiral who was on my NSC staff - who also fought terror, by the way - is running for the seat of Curt Weldon in Pennsylvania. We’ve got a huge military presence in this campaign and you can’t let them have some rhetorical device that puts us in a box that we don’t belong in. That’s their job. Their job is to beat us. But our job is to not let them get away with it and if we don’t, we’ll be fine.

CW: Mr. President, thank you for one of the more unusual interviews.

WJC: I promise you, I was not trying to [..].

Maybe It's Because TV Sets Don't Talk Back

I love the Nielsen Media Research survey released last week that revealed the average American home now has more television sets in it than people. The breakdown: 2.73 TV sets per home, only 2.55 people. (I'm wondering who is watching a mere .73 of a TV set and what it's missing. It's no doubt being viewed by that .55 of a person, whose body mass index I don't even want to hear about.)

The typical home also has at least one television running for 8 hours and 14 minutes daily, or an hour longer than the average a mere decade ago. So much for the Internet and DVDs and video games and cell phones and iPods taking eyeballs away from watching programming on the tube. Why, you people are so addicted to TV that I doubt you're even reading this blog right now. And if you are, it's with at least .55 of yourself paying attention to the TV set. C'mon, you know I'm right.

Added note: I have also concurrently learned that there are more television sets in the U.S. than toilets. I'm loathe even to speculate about what this means.