September 12, 200818 yr Questions from Gibson to Obama & Palin Obama interview: How does it feel to break a glass ceiling? How does it feel to "win"? How does your family feel about your “winning” breaking a glass ceiling? Who will be your VP? Should you choose Hillary Clinton as VP? Will you accept public finance? What issues is your campaign about? Will you visit Iraq? Will you debate McCain at a town hall? What did you think of your competitor’s [Clinton] speech? Palin interview: Do you have enough qualifications for the job you’re seeking? Specifically have you visited foreign countries and met foreign leaders? Aren’t you conceited to be seeking this high level job? Questions about foreign policy -territorial integrity of Georgia -allowing Georgia and Ukraine to be members of NATO -NATO treaty -Iranian nuclear threat -what to do if Israel attacks Iran -Al Qaeda motivations -the Bush Doctrine -attacking terrorists harbored by Pakistan Is America fighting a holy war? [misquoted Palin]
September 12, 200818 yr Entirely different situations. Let's compare the questions O'Reilly asked Obama to the questions Hannity will ask Palin.
September 12, 200818 yr Author Entirely different situations. Let's compare the questions O'Reilly asked Obama to the questions Hannity will ask Palin. Two different people doing interviews, the comparison makes no sense.
September 12, 200818 yr Author Here's an example of Gibson's "fairness". GIBSON: You said recently, in your old church, "Our national leaders are sending U.S. soldiers on a task that is from God." Are we fighting a holy war? PALIN: You know, I don't know if that was my exact quote. GIBSON: Exact words. No Charlie, here are her exact words. "Pray for our military men and women who are striving to do what is right. Also, for this country, that our leaders, our national leaders, are sending them out on a task that is from God. That's what we have to make sure that we're praying for, that there is a plan and that that plan is God's plan."
September 12, 200818 yr Entirely different situations. Let's compare the questions O'Reilly asked Obama to the questions Hannity will ask Palin. How so? Two inexperienced leaders, one wanting to be president and one wanting to be vice president. However, I would like to see the entire list of questions asked of each before I would question the interviews. Not just handpicked ones.
September 12, 200818 yr Two different people doing interviews, the comparison makes no sense.My thoughts exactly. Both Hannity and Colmes generally serve up softball questions and let the interviewees answer the questions. Colmes interviews Democrats and liberals and Hannity draws conservatives and liberals. I am sure that both Palin and Biden will be interviewed by O'Reilly before the election and those interviews are the ones worthy of comparison.
September 13, 200818 yr Two different people doing interviews, the comparison makes no sense. Wait a minute. I could have sworn you said there was a media bias. How so? Two inexperienced leaders, one wanting to be president and one wanting to be vice president. However, I would like to see the entire list of questions asked of each before I would question the interviews. Not just handpicked ones. Not really. Obama was interviewed directly after becoming the de facto Democratic nominee. This was Palin's coming out party with less than two months to go. In other words, we knew who Obama was, we don't know who Palin is and we don't have much time to figure it out. I think Gibson is a crummy interviewer to begin with, so why the McCain campaign hand-picked him is beyond me.
September 13, 200818 yr Author Wait a minute. I could have sworn you said there was a media bias. Not really. Obama was interviewed directly after becoming the de facto Democratic nominee. This was Palin's coming out party with less than two months to go. In other words, we knew who Obama was, we don't know who Palin is and we don't have much time to figure it out. I think Gibson is a crummy interviewer to begin with, so why the McCain campaign hand-picked him is beyond me. What is Hannity? Is he a journalist? What is Gibson? Is Gibson not the anchor of ABC World News? Hannity is nothing but an entertainer, no comparison. You know better than that.
September 13, 200818 yr Wait a minute. I could have sworn you said there was a media bias. Not really. Obama was interviewed directly after becoming the de facto Democratic nominee. This was Palin's coming out party with less than two months to go. In other words, we knew who Obama was, we don't know who Palin is and we don't have much time to figure it out. I think Gibson is a crummy interviewer to begin with, so why the McCain campaign hand-picked him is beyond me. Obama boycotted Fox News for months, preferring the friendly confines of the liberal media and friendly interviewers at BET, MSNBC, and others sympathetic to his campaign. This is a guy who refused to participate in a Fox News debate that would have been moderated by Chris Wallace because of alleged bias but eagerly participated in a debate hosted by the nutjobs at the Daily Kos. The idea that Obama has been thoroughly vetted by the media is, in Bill Clinton's words, a "fairy tale." After pandering to the Kos crowd Obama expects moderates and independents to vote for him? :lol:
September 13, 200818 yr What is Hannity? Is he a journalist? What is Gibson? Is Gibson not the anchor of ABC World News? Hannity is nothing but an entertainer, no comparison. You know better than that. Yeah, just an entertainer with a prime time political show on a 24-hour news channel. Hannity is media. So is O'Reilly. And really, these interviews aren't indicative of a bias. Maybe McCain should have chosen someone who could be conversant about foreign affairs and he wouldn't have to worry about "tough" questions. Anyhow, all this media bias caterwauling is a bit banal at this point. Stiff upper lip, mate.
September 13, 200818 yr Yeah, just an entertainer with a prime time political show on a 24-hour news channel. Hannity is media. So is O'Reilly. And really, these interviews aren't indicative of a bias. Maybe McCain should have chosen someone who could be conversant about foreign affairs and he wouldn't have to worry about "tough" questions. Anyhow, all this media bias caterwauling is a bit banal at this point. Stiff upper lip, mate.Nothing Palin is likely to say in an interview is likely to be as idiotic as Obama's initial statement on Russia's invasion of Georgia and Obama made that statement with the full benefit of hundreds of campaign advisors. When it comes to Obama's foreign policy expertise, his executive experience, and his judgment, you can put lipstick on a pig but it is still a pig. :lol:
September 13, 200818 yr Yeah, just an entertainer with a prime time political show on a 24-hour news channel. Hannity is media. So is O'Reilly. And really, these interviews aren't indicative of a bias. Maybe McCain should have chosen someone who could be conversant about foreign affairs and he wouldn't have to worry about "tough" questions. Anyhow, all this media bias caterwauling is a bit banal at this point. Stiff upper lip, mate. But Habib, you have to admit there has been a clear media biased in the election. I think that is the main point here.
September 13, 200818 yr Author Yeah, just an entertainer with a prime time political show on a 24-hour news channel. Hannity is media. So is O'Reilly. And really, these interviews aren't indicative of a bias. Maybe McCain should have chosen someone who could be conversant about foreign affairs and he wouldn't have to worry about "tough" questions. Anyhow, all this media bias caterwauling is a bit banal at this point. Stiff upper lip, mate. No sense debating with you if you can't see the difference. I don't mind tough questions at all, I say bring 'em on. But it would help if the interviewer knew what he was talking about to begin with. As you know, Gibson didn't even understand what the Bush Doctrine was, he wasn't even in the know that there are at least 4 parts to it. Palin was exactly right to respond with "In what respect, Charlie?"
September 13, 200818 yr But Habib, you have to admit there has been a clear media biased in the election. I think that is the main point here. I don't know. I don't watch TV. But, it's been my experience "liberal" media usually means "not conservative" media. I do think the media, as a whole, tends toward the left. Yet, legitimate claims of bias are lost in a sea of complaints about this monolithic media conspiracy to bring down conservatives. No sense debating with you if you can't see the difference. Nauseating. There is an evident difference between the situation and environment surrounding both interviews, which were several months apart. Besides, anyone who has picked up a newspaper in the last month should have been able to answer the questions Palin was asked. I don't mind tough questions at all, I say bring 'em on. But it would help if the interviewer knew what he was talking about to begin with. As you know, Gibson didn't even understand what the Bush Doctrine was, he wasn't even in the know that there are at least 4 parts to it. Palin was exactly right to respond with "In what respect, Charlie?" There aren't four parts to it. Krauthammer's article is more about reminding people he coined the term since it no longer has the definition he gave it. Anyone who hears "Bush Doctrine" in 2008 should think of Iraq, Afghanistan, and neoconservative foreign policy. Gibson was wrong because his two word definition (anticipatory self-defense) wasn't accurate. And no, Palin wasn't simply asking for Gibson to clarify which definition he meant. She obviously didn't know. When Gibson gave her his definition, she attempted to agree with it but gave an answer that was far from the Bush Doctrine (which, actually, isn't a bad thing).
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.