In yet another attempt to appear as a fair and balanced news source, Fox News has struck gold — and out — with their first-ever one-on-one interview with former President Bill Clinton.

If you haven't already seen it, you are not only possibly one of the few Internet users who hasn't helped make the video clip a top download in the last week, but you are also missing out. Big time.

The Fox News Channel Sunday interview with Chris Wallace was originally scheduled as a 15-minute segment that was agreed on by both parties. Half the time was to be spent discussing the Clinton Global Initiative, for which Clinton helped raise $7 billion for developing countries, and half the time on "anything else we wanted to talk about," according to Wallace's preamble. Needless to say, the guidelines were seemingly thrown out the window, and so ensued a war of words that has conservatives and liberals alike struggling to come out on top, or at least have the last word.

Conservatives have argued that Clinton lost his temper when he was questioned about his efforts to capture and kill Osama bin Laden. In a noteworthy phrase that is sure to live on in history, Clinton fired back, claiming that he did more about bin Laden than George W. Bush has done since the attacks of Sept. 11. Clinton added that while the former president was "ridiculed" for paying so much attention to bin Laden, Bush sat on a comprehensive package about the threats of bin Laden and his cohorts during the start of his first presidential term, arguably leaving the United States vulnerable to terrorists. Right-wing supporters have pegged Clinton's reaction as a temper tantrum and a foreshadowing of what another Clinton White House would be like, and have kept a close — and critical — eye on Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's reaction to the situation.

Liberals, including party-favorite Howard Dean, have applauded Clinton's public outrage and see the incident as a big step forward to crushing propaganda against the Democratic Party. Wallace, they argue, was accusatory and didn't abide by the rules set forth for the interview. More important, though, has been the Bush administration's reaction, or lack thereof, to the entire fiasco.

Whereas Bush himself declined to comment on the Wallace-Clinton debacle during a recent press conference, his wingman, or woman, so to speak, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, took the bull by the horns and addressed Clinton's claims head on.

In an interview with the New York Post, Rice claimed that not only was she never given information about terrorism from the Clinton administration (a fact that is contradicted by the 9/11 Commission Report, but who's counting, anyway), but she also doubted Clinton's dedication to the bin Laden saga, and, predictably, defended Bush relentlessly.

It's time to cut to the chase, though, and recognize this interview for what it is: a liberal politician finally standing up for himself, his party, and his actions and sticking it to the man (in this case Chris Wallace and the Fox News team). Finally.

Perhaps Clinton got heated, yes, but why not? Having someone question your actions throughout your eight years of presidency is sure to hit a nerve, and rightly so. Who would like being lambasted by a right-wing crony eager to get attention from his viewers for a controversial interview?

Even more unfair, though, is how critical conservatives have been of his wife, Sen. Clinton. It seems more than a little unfair to criticize her for doing what any wife would do for husband, let alone a wife who is a public figure. The statement that is up for debate is nothing more than a supportive claim by Sen. Clinton concerning the interview: "…My husband did a great job in demonstrating that Democrats are not going to take these attacks."

If conservatives are going to insist on shifting the focus of the interview away from Clinton's warranted plea of self-defense, then so be it. If focusing on Sen. Clinton's reaction predicates that terrorism will now be an important issue up for debate during the 2008 presidential campaign, then so be it. This argument, like the one Clinton had with Wallace, will only be another lost amidst the conservative finger-pointing, and will only serve to further fuel the liberal agenda to steer voters away from a conservative president who threatens to follow in Bush's footsteps.

The Nation's John Nichols said it best in his blog when he wrote, "Love Bill Clinton or hate him, but understand that his appearance on Fox New Sunday was one of those rare moments in recent American history when a target of our drive-by media shot back."

So, Wallace, how does it feel?

Emily Friedman ([email protected]) is a senior majoring in journalism and legal studies.