Gibson vs. Obama; Gibson vs. Palin

[Tex]

Powerline compares the Gibson interviews of Obama (after he clinched the nomination) and 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]

They acknowledge the comparison isn't entirely fair, because Obama had gone through some vetting already and Palin hadn't.

Nonetheless, "How does it feel to 'win'"? ... "What issues is your campaign about"? Heh, talk about a contrast.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

The comparison "isn't entirely fair?" No, the comparison is pointless. Obama and Palin were in completely different places by the time the interviews occurred. People knew nothing about Palin (still don't) or her policies (still don't). She hadn't been vetted, nobody had cast a vote for her nationally, and the pick was a total surprise. Is it really shocking to you that she was asked tough policy-driven questions? Obama had been through dozens of debates, the media had interviewed him countless times, he had given thousands of speeches, etc. His views were well-established by then.

No, I'm not shocked she was asked tough questions. His condescending attitude and false quotations aside, the questions were pretty fair and anticipated.

The softballs lobbed at Obama is what truly surprises me (though I guess it shouldn't). I don't care if Gibson produced an 8-hour documentary on Obama's life, there's no excuse for such lame questioning. If his views are all "well-established" why is he still doing interviews?

In the end, it perpetuates the Obama-Palin comparison, which is wonderful.

[exUte]

Originally Posted by Tex

Powerline compares the Gibson interviews of Obama (after he clinched the nomination) and Palin:





They acknowledge the comparison isn't entirely fair, because Obama had gone through some vetting already and Palin hadn't.

Nonetheless, "How does it feel to 'win'"? ... "What issues is your campaign about"? Heh, talk about a contrast.

on the Bush Doctrine. Has he ever been asked about the Bush doctrine? Well he has. Guess what is answer was in the Democratic debate: (get a load of this....talk about not knowing what the Bush Doctrine is; at least according to Gibson)

"SEN. OBAMA: Well, I think one of the things about the Obama Doctrine is it’s not going to be as doctrinaire as the Bush Doctrine because the world is complicated. And I think part of the problem we’ve had is that ideology has overridden facts and reality.

But I think that the basic concept — and I’ve heard it from some of the other folks — is that, increasingly, we have to view our security in terms of a common security and a common prosperity with other peoples and other countries. And that means that if there are children in the Middle East who cannot read, that is a potential long-term danger to us. If China is polluting, then eventually that is going to reach our shores. We have to — and work with them cooperatively to solve their problems as well as ours."