Q & A | 06/03/2009 11:00 pm
'From Struggle to Grace': Arianna Huffington Levels With Lesley Stahl

LESLEY STAHL: Arianna Huffington, thank you. Welcome to wowOwow. You’re the co-founder and editor-in-chief of the Huffington Post; you’ve written 12 books; you’re a political commentator. One does not know even where to start to ask you questions. But let’s try this. Every time I point my clicker at the television set and surf around, I see Barack Obama. He’s making announcements, he’s giving interviews, he’s there all the time. There’s a debate about why he’s in our faces so much and whether he’s overexposed. What do you think about that? What do you think about the president and is he overdoing it?
ARIANNA HUFFINGTON: I don’t think so, Lesley. I believe that Obama’s strength from the first time he burst onto the national scene with a speech at the convention in 2004, to the last speech he gave this morning …
LESLEY: Yes. Exactly, my point.
ARIANNA: That is one of his great gifts, the ability to communicate, the ability to be not just the commander in chief and the chief executive, but the teacher in chief. He’s a teacher. He’s a natural-born teacher and his speech that kind of most epitomizes that is his speech at Georgetown about the economy, where he literally walked us through what was happening.
| I love the current chapter. I love my day job. It’s endlessly evolving, endlessly surprising, and this is it. |
LESLEY: If he would do that, and let us absorb it, that’s one thing. But then every day there’s another subject. Today he announced the cyber czar and yesterday it was the cars. I begin to think maybe it’s a little too much.
ARIANNA: It’s working so far. I think it will stop working if the economy, the real economy as opposed to the stock-market economy, does not improve. If we don’t see any real shift in unemployment numbers, foreclosure numbers, credit-card default numbers, then I think people may begin to feel that they want results, and … and simply talking, which I think is incredibly important. I don’t think we should ever underestimate the power of leadership through rhetoric, through explaining, through spreading confidence – which has been working because, if you look at the numbers of consumer confidence, for example, they’re entirely based on imponderables. The numbers about how you feel about current conditions are not good at all because current conditions are based on data. But the numbers about the future are dramatically better because they’re not based on data. They’re based on hope.
LESLEY: One would have the impression, based on his popularity, that politically he is bringing the country over a little bit to the left, that he’s created a sea change – basically turning the country more bluish. But I saw a recent Pew Poll that said actually we haven’t changed all that much; in terms of liberal versus conservative we’re still pretty much a 50/50 country. What do you make of that? It’s interesting.
ARIANNA: Actually, you know, Lesley, I feel that this left/right way of looking at the world is very obsolete; that if you look at the major problems that we are facing – and let’s take health care, there is … you don’t have to be a progressive or a liberal or on the left to be in favor of some form of universal health coverage. I was just on CNN now and we discussed a poll they just brought out that shows large majorities in favor of government providing health care. Clearly it’s not just liberals or those on the left who want that.
























192 Reader Comments (so far…) Sign In or Register to comment
Joni
"This interview with Arianna Huffington by Lesley Stahl has much more interesting material, than the old Cheney vs Obama songs, doesn’t it?"
Not necessarily! There are 591 readers on the Dick Cheney and daughter thread! I am not at all a fan of Arianna’s songs but i find her quite sophisticated and gracious vs other women in the business!
Yes Barrett- some ‘complain’ privately, some do so in public.
The only thing that can be said in defense of Huff’s policies is that unpaid writers own the copyright to their work and may use it elsewhere.
Many other sites that operate in a similar manner have the audacity to NOT pay and own the writer’s work just the same.
Honor, you hit on a good point. Business owners are finding any mechanism, any loophole - whether it be 1099’ing people, or whatever - to avoid paying salaries and benefits. No wonder we’re becoming a nation of have’s and have-not’s. And the Republicans call what Obama is doing Socialism?! Without more of the things he’s doing, it will become, as you say, Feudalism.
On the other hand, businesses have to stay afloat. So, a bigger question might be, how do we fix the model that requires so many businesses to resort to this kind of compensation circumvention in order to survive?
James- thanks for your thoughtful post: No employee (or writer) in their right mind would want to see the business that employs them fail and that’s surely true of journalists and reporters.
But in order for capitalism to work, owners/managers need to be fair and reasonable. This 1099 business and not paying people has (as you rightfully stated) led to a bigger gap between haves and have nots. Yes- funding a new venture or a website is expensive, but there’s no justification for a publisher or owner buying their 4th house and/or 5th car on the backs of unsalaried (or grossly underpaid) employees.
DeBurca: because you want to limit your exposure to her views…
I’m exposed to her views every day on this site. 7 or 8 pages of an interview is more exposure than I can take at one sitting. For those who enjoy her, go for it. I’ll wait for Liz Peek’s comments tomorrow.
Hi, Margorie. I agree with you about the length of the interview. Nine pages is just too long for this format, no matter who is being interviewed. It would have been better if they had broken the interview into smaller pieces based on topic. I, for one, just do not have the time to read through that many pages of article and then plow through several pages of comments.
Zero: It would have been better if they had broken the interview into smaller pieces based on topic.
Yes, I believe so. They could have presented it as a series, 2 pages or so a day with a teaser at the end of each day along the line of, Tomorrow we will find out what Arianna thinks of Obama’s underwear…. Just being facetious, but you get the drift, and yours is a good suggestion.
If you expect that then I would suggest you do the same to everyone else here. Get off your back? You rant and rave and I have yet to see one comment you have made that is constructive. If you want to be left alone then behave in a manner respectful. Otherwise get ready to be called on it.I am quite sure you never bothered to check those historical facts.
Come on, Deborah, et al - you are not going to be labelled for your opinions, but the basis for the problem with this interview is not with Arianna it’s the interviewer. I would have walked out, if I was interviewed in that manner.
I am very disappointed in Stahl - the heading appeared to inform us it was an interview about the subject, herself, not a grilling about her (Arianna’s) opinions about the POTUS and others. It did not serve anyone, well. Worse, her questions were lame, for the most part.
I can understand you perhaps missing the actual folly here, but it should not be laid at the interviewee’s feet; only the interviewer. It reminds me of Barbara Walters’ interviews; often all over the place.