Michael (et al), I agree Wallace has been through the mill of late, but I’m not sure it’s all that fair. I cringed during the interview with Stewart, but mostly because I thought the whole interview was off. Stewart’s position is flatly untenable and I think that came through in the interview. Wallace asked him questions, Stewart answered them. To that end Wallace was fulfilling his obligation under the whole “we report, you decide” credo. I agree with much of your analysis of Stewart’s arguments and I wish Wallace had some different follow-ups. But it is not Chris Wallace’s job to “win” interviews and folks who suggest that it is are putting him a position he shouldn’t want.
As for the Michelle Bachmann interview, I think he misspoke and [rightly] apologized for it. But let’s not kid ourselves. Michelle Bachmann will be put through far, far worse if she’s the nominee (and even if she’s not). She has a lot of colorful statements that she deserves to be asked about and a record as a Representative that is entirely fair game. And even if you don’t think she “deserves” to be asked about them, she will be anyway. And if she’s not she’ll be in far worse shape politically if she’s the nominee and the Democrats start rolling them out. I’m a fan of Bachmann’s and I think she’s wildly underestimated (that doesn’t mean, by the way, she’s my first choice for the nomination. I don’t have a first choice yet). But some of the reactions to Wallace’s rough treatment smack of over reaction to me. She’s a tough woman and I don’t think it’s right or wise for her anyone to treat her like a china doll.
Update: Some folks are reading me as defending Wallace’s treatment of Bachmann. That was not my intent. I left out the word “rightly” before “apologized” above.