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:

 

Wasn't Obama's first night of the OReilly interview on the same night that McCain had his acceptance speech.

 

I saw that move as a smart strategic move by O to try and steal some of the McCain press coverage by FINALLY agreeing to being interviewed by OReilly.

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.

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

 

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).

OK, 4 meanings.

As Krauthammer said, and I agree, Palin came a lot closer to the right answer than Gibson did.

 

He also said, and I agree: There is no single meaning of the Bush doctrine. In fact, there have been four distinct meanings, each one succeeding another over the eight years of this administration — and the one Charlie Gibson cited is not the one in common usage today. It is utterly different.

Let's go back to 2004.

 

Newsbusters has Gibson’s interview with John Edwards in 2004 after being selected as John Kerry’s running mate. Edwards had less than a full term in the Senate as his entire political background, and no foreign-policy, military, or executive experience at all. Yet Gibson didn’t press Edwards on these points at all. In fact, the entire interview consisted of a hard-hitting interrogation … on how mean Republicans are.

RTS,

 

Palin is much more experienced than Obama and can handle these type of questions.:sssh:

I think the questions to Palin were legitimate. I agree there may have been some softballs tossed to Obama, but have no problem with the questions asked of Palin.

 

I don't understand why were are comparing questions asked to a presidential candidate to ones asked to a vice presidential candidate. To me, that's why there is no comparison as opposed to whether Hannity or O'reilly asked the questions

I think the questions to Palin were legitimate. I agree there may have been some softballs tossed to Obama, but have no problem with the questions asked of Palin.

 

I don't understand why were are comparing questions asked to a presidential candidate to ones asked to a vice presidential candidate. To me, that's why there is no comparison as opposed to whether Hannity or O'reilly asked the questions

And your opinion on the questions asked to Edwards in 2004 vs the questions asked to Palin?

Wasn't Obama's first night of the OReilly interview on the same night that McCain had his acceptance speech.

 

I saw that move as a smart strategic move by O to try and steal some of the McCain press coverage by FINALLY agreeing to being interviewed by OReilly.

Yes, the interview was an attempt to steal some of McCain's thunder. It also followed a meeting that Obama had with Rupert Murdock and Roger Ailles at which he whined about Fox News coverage of him.

 

Americans do not want a whining woe-is-me liberal victim as a president and the more Obama whines the further he will sink in the polls. The real question in this campaign may soon become whether Obama can carry the solid blue states like California and Massachusetts.

And your opinion on the questions asked to Edwards in 2004 vs the questions asked to Palin?

What's Edwards running for now? What about the questions Walter Cronkite aksed Nixon in 1972? Walter Murrow asked Eisenhower in 1956? Are we really comparing questions asked four years ago? Seriously?

What's Edwards running for now? What about the questions Walter Cronkite aksed Nixon in 1972? Walter Murrow asked Eisenhower in 1956? Are we really comparing questions asked four years ago? Seriously?

Yes, we are comparing the type of questions in the LAST election to this one from the same interviewer. It's completely fair to, so please, answer the question.

What's Edwards running for now? What about the questions Walter Cronkite aksed Nixon in 1972? Walter Murrow asked Eisenhower in 1956? Are we really comparing questions asked four years ago? Seriously?

The comparison is entirely valid. Edwards was a vice-presidential nominee with less experience than Sarah Palin and the interviewer was the same. Why is that not a fair comparison?

The comparison is entirely valid. Edwards was a vice-presidential nominee with less experience than Sarah Palin and the interviewer was the same. Why is that not a fair comparison?

Issues are a little different maybe? Experience of the candidates are different?

 

I don;t think Gibson is biased. He IS a snob and arrogant.

 

One other thing to consider. John Edwards had been a public political figures for several years prior to 2004. People were somewhat familiar with his stand on the issues. They knew of his background. They knew the answer to many of the questions before they were asked because they were basically in a straight line with the Democratic views.

 

A year ago, less than 10% of Americans had heard of Sarah Palin. Very few people have heard her views on the war. On the Economy. On education.

 

I don't care who the interviewer is. If they don;t know where the candidate stands on an issue, their question is going to come across as tough as opposed to one who already knows the answer to the question and is further trying to dissect a certain view.

Issues are a little different maybe? Experience of the candidates are different?

 

I don;t think Gibson is biased. He IS a snob and arrogant.

 

One other thing to consider. John Edwards had been a public political figures for several years prior to 2004. People were somewhat familiar with his stand on the issues. They knew of his background. They knew the answer to many of the questions before they were asked because they were basically in a straight line with the Democratic views.

 

A year ago, less than 10% of Americans had heard of Sarah Palin. Very few people have heard her views on the war. On the Economy. On education.

 

I don't care who the interviewer is. If they don;t know where the candidate stands on an issue, their question is going to come across as tough as opposed to one who already knows the answer to the question and is further trying to dissect a certain view.

I disagree, I don't think most of us knew what his answers on foreign-policy, the economy or eduction were.

If you were familiar with the Democratic platform, you should have. It was verbatim from the Democratic Playbook.

Issues are a little different maybe? Experience of the candidates are different?

I agree. Edwards was and remains less experienced than Palin in nearly every area other than experience in the legal system.

 

I don;t think Gibson is biased. He IS a snob and arrogant.

 

One other thing to consider. John Edwards had been a public political figures for several years prior to 2004.

Sarah Palin has spent more time as an elected official than Edwards had. Edwards had been little known outside of North Carolina before the 2004 campaign and there was nothing in his background to suggest that he had any competence in the foreign policy arena.

 

People were somewhat familiar with his stand on the issues. They knew of his background. They knew the answer to many of the questions before they were asked because they were basically in a straight line with the Democratic views.

No, when Edwards was named to Kerry's ticket, most Republicans were not aware of Edwards' positions on the issues because they did not follow the Democratic primaries closely. Did Gibson not have an obligation to inform those of us who were not Democratic primary voters?

 

A year ago, less than 10% of Americans had heard of Sarah Palin. Very few people have heard her views on the war. On the Economy. On education.

 

I don't care who the interviewer is. If they don;t know where the candidate stands on an issue, their question is going to come across as tough as opposed to one who already knows the answer to the question and is further trying to dissect a certain view.

The Gibson interview went beyond tough questioning. ABC's selective editing of the transcript was clearly aimed at making Palin look weaker on foreign policy than she is.

 

I am not complaining about the Gibson interview. I believe that it just reinforces the public's view that most of the media are actively working to elect their candidate, Barack Obama, even if they must resort to distorting the news to achieve their goal. In addition, the McCain campaign can point to this interview to deflect any future criticism as Palin submits to interviews that will allow Americans to get to know her positions in a fair and balanced way.

I just think it shows just how paranoid people are about the candidates they are backing, whether they be Democratic or Republican.

 

What's funny about this whole media bias thing is that it was all started by Fox News. When they became the mouthpiece for the Republican agenda, you saw other networks take the opposing view to counter that.

 

And don't even try telling me that Fox News isn't biased toward the Republicans just as MSNBC is biased toward the Dems.