Patterico's Pontifications

I’m not shocked by the different tone of the two interviews. The Obama interview is advertised as part of the series “Who Are They” or something like that. It’s clearly meant as a biographical self-portrait through his questioning.

THe excuse you would get from Gibson and his cohorts in the media for the tone of the second is “Well, McCain has sprung her on the country, and we only have 55 days to try and flesh out who she is. Excuse us if we skip the niceties.”

Nevertheless, it would be nice if they were to follow up this grilling of her with a demand to conduct a similar probing of Obama with respect to specific domestic and foreign policy issues. Obama hid from the press, doing only local interviews and accepting few if any on-the-record questions from the national press traveling with him after he gained a delegate lead over Hillary and figured he could ride it to a win.

So, they want access to her to test the depth of her understanding, well, they’ve never done the same to him. Its simply given now.

WLS (06079b) — 9/11/2008 @ 11:20 pm

you misspelled ‘predictable’.

not only did did he lie when he said ‘exact words’, but when they got caught on it, they simply edited it out and pretended it never happened.

nope, no bias here….. what scum.

redc1c4 (27fd3e) — 9/11/2008 @ 11:54 pm

Interesting that Charlie uses the word “hubris” in both interviews- somewhat jokingly with Obama, definitely accusatory with Palin.

His manner and affect with Palin was more blunted than usual,almost as if annoyed with the arrangement.

Guvner (9af536) — 9/11/2008 @ 11:57 pm

“Dashing young man”?

Bout the ugliest fucker I have ever seen, truth be told.

peedoffamerican (389cf6) — 9/12/2008 @ 1:30 am

Obama’s dad that is.

peedoffamerican (389cf6) — 9/12/2008 @ 1:34 am

WLS wrote:

‘I’m not shocked by the different tone of the two interviews. The Obama interview is advertised as part of the series “Who Are They” or something like that. It’s clearly meant as a biographical self-portrait through his questioning.’

That sounds exactly right. Here are segments, from that same series, covering some of the Republican candidates. Complete fluff pieces.

http://abcnews.go.com/video/playerIndex?id=4035654

http://abcnews.go.com/video/playerIndex?id=3871458

Nels (364116) — 9/12/2008 @ 1:52 am

Definitely softball versus hardball. But one was early in the “career”, other late.

As has been said, just need to give O (and Joe) the same treatment. Mac has certainly had it before, but wouldn’t hurt to do the same with him.

MohDohing her prior speech was not fair, and shows a lack of preparation (or too much preparation). But that too can be equalized by tossing the others some beaners too. (In my dreams!)

Dan S (ca8a95) — 9/12/2008 @ 4:39 am

WLS wrote:

<‘I’m not shocked by the different tone of the two interviews. The Obama interview is advertised as part of the series “Who Are They” or something like that. It’s clearly meant as a biographical self-portrait through his questioning.’

The critical phrase of this passage is “self potrait”. If you allow a cipher (like Obama). To tell you about him / her self, they will paint a flattering, yet humble, sometimes melodramatic portrait of themselves.

To let the Obama interview off as part of a “Who they are” series is intellectually insulting. Obama’s gift was “Who they want us to believe the are” or “Who we want to believe the are”.

Obama is the ultimate Rorschach Candidate; people are prone to project their best intentions, hopes, and beliefs upon a person like this. People want to believe in clean energy, world peace, no nukes, no Bush, world socialism, a brotherhood of man…

Gibson came at Palin with a meat cleaver compared to the Obama interview, that was a tickle fest with a feather duster.

He gave Obama the mike and went to get a sandwich.

ibn sina (9a61eb) — 9/12/2008 @ 5:19 am

Linked to you.

yankeemom (fd7858) — 9/12/2008 @ 5:54 am

Like Chandler, I have to say, could it be any more obvious?

prom (e21847) — 9/12/2008 @ 6:04 am

I’m happy Gibson gave her a tough interview. It had to happen.

MayBee (1ddba1) — 9/12/2008 @ 8:03 am

MayBee!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

JD (6a8c0a) — 9/12/2008 @ 8:11 am

My wife almost went ballistic last night over this interview, she thought that Gibson’s demeanor was intentionally demeaning to Governor Palin. I replied that that’s what the press does. They are spies and assassins for the party of those who are more equal than others. Walter Duranty lives!

C. Norris (485ecd) — 9/12/2008 @ 9:14 am

I’m also glad to see how well Sarah Palin answered Charlie Gibson’s questions. I don’t fault him for asking tough questions, he should ask tough questions, and he did. He also did everything he could to trip her up, but since it didn’t work, Gibson and his ABC associates resorted to demonstrably disingenuous tactics. That’s the problem.

Anyone can see Gibson was faced with a choice, either give Palin short shrift, or suffer the shrill screams and toxic venom of Leftism’s revenge takers, and Charlie Gibson has a career to think about, and he ain’t going down that road, personal honor and professional integrity are flimsy and fungible, and a man’s got to do whatever it takes to maintain his status with the liberal elites who count in the news and entertainment business.

So, Charlie made the smart business decision, it was a dishonorable decision, but given the swamp he works in, and considering the downside, it was a no-brainer.

Ropelight (921f6e) — 9/12/2008 @ 9:28 am

They edited out the part at the end where Gibson knelt and kissed Obama’s ring.

Patricia (ee5c9d) — 9/12/2008 @ 9:29 am

Patricia – I didn’t think it was Obama’s ring. I thought I saw Gibson’s head bobbing up and down.

daleyrocks (d9ec17) — 9/12/2008 @ 9:34 am

Do you expect me to believe that Sarah Palin deserves our deference and respect, not as a person, but as an applicant for this job? Are you honestly saying that she is prepared for the responsibilities? As I said before, you’re embarrassing yourself, and this country.

I’m tired now, as I was when I posted as ‘Blah” of being called a “cocksucker” a “cunt” and a liar, for pointing out facts- literally in the past few days transcripts and videos of Palin and McCain saying the opposite of what they now claim.

In the interests of trying to reverse federal policies going back to the New Deal you’ve damaged this country and are in the process of destroying your own party. I only care to the degree that I do, out of some sympathy for Burkean political philosophy. Ideological individualism disgusts me, but conservatives can’t make up their minds. Community, or big finance? Small town life or Big town greed? $280,000 worth of jewelry hanging from Cindy McCain’s ears and neck?
You live by bitterness and panic, and avoidance of the issues.

To Patterico, WLS and DRJ: I asked your response to plans to deny voting rights to people in foreclosure, arguments for book banning, the refusal to prosecute sexual assault by high government officials [the links are all on these pages], and as of last night: war with Russia.
I don’t expect an answer. In fact all I expect is to be called a lying cunt (remember now that I’m a man) and to have this post removed.
Yes, you are idiots, lazy and corrupt. The first you can;t help. For the last two you should be ashamed.
So long (again)

JAR (6b0755) — 9/12/2008 @ 10:16 am

If you’re tired, why don’t you go somewhere where you are respected?

Oh.

Mike K (2cf494) — 9/12/2008 @ 10:19 am

Good riddance, JAR, you lying cunt.

Jack Klompus (cf3660) — 9/12/2008 @ 10:19 am

17, go to Daily Krap and be lost in the crowd, jerk.

PCD (1df2b5) — 9/12/2008 @ 10:27 am

? So JAR is AF, Blah, the disabled antisemitic carpenter from New York?

daleyrocks (d9ec17) — 9/12/2008 @ 10:34 am

Wow, someone’s clearly off their meds.

MOG (c949f7) — 9/12/2008 @ 10:38 am

For my part, I do not want JAR to go away. What I do want is for him to start being intellectually honest. If calling you a name has driven you away, that’s too bad. For what it’s worth, that was never the intent. I do not take it back, however, for you STILL have not retracted your false claim that Sarah Palin is not the Commander in Chief of the Alaskan National Guard. It’s one thing to argue from a different ideological perspective; if you want to say “liberals have all of the right ideas, conservatives have all of the wrong ideas,” have at it. It’s quite another thing, however, to argue from a position of denying the truth. Not the subjective truth, such as determining what level of “climate change” is caused by human industry; the objective truth . . . verifiable, undeniable, documented facts.

It is quite possible that this post (#17) is the longest one he’s ever written that did not consist of links and quotes from others. Too bad that his other posts have not taken similar form.

Icy Truth (0e4d32) — 9/12/2008 @ 11:10 am

and to have this post removed.

Yes, just like all of the other posts of yours that have been removed. Proving once again that unlimited tolerance sometimes has its limitations.

“What I do want is for him to start being intellectually honest.”

You’re asking for the impossible here, but I give you props for still trying.

Dmac (e639cc) — 9/12/2008 @ 11:25 am

#17 asked, “Do you expect me to believe…”

No, JAR, expectations are pretty low. Incidently, it’s rather presumptuous to expect others have any oblightion at all to either educate you, or read your drivel. So, can the crap.

Ropelight (921f6e) — 9/12/2008 @ 11:46 am

WLS wrote:

“…a demand to conduct a similar probing of Obama…”

Sounds like a job for Chris Mathews or Keef Olbermann!

Eric Blair (2708f4) — 9/12/2008 @ 11:46 am

Chrissie and Keef have been anal-probing Obama for most of the past two years.

Icy Truth (0e4d32) — 9/12/2008 @ 11:50 am

Icy, you are the nuclear tipped torpedo of truth!

Although that is not the best metaphor, in retrospect….

Eric Blair (2708f4) — 9/12/2008 @ 11:57 am

Hey, I got yer nuclear-tipped torpedo right here!

Icy Truth (0e4d32) — 9/12/2008 @ 12:01 pm

I spam myself –

Until someone starts a separate thread, I will post this here. During his appearance on The View today, the following took place (as reported, without shame, by HuffPo):

McCain was also pushed on his stance on abortion, saying he thought Roe v. Wade was a bad decision. Saying he’d nominate justices who interpret the constitution, Whoopi asked if that meant she’d be returned to slavery

– That tells you absolutely everything that you will ever need to know regarding Whoopi Goldberg and politics.

Icy Truth (0e4d32) — 9/12/2008 @ 12:03 pm

Whoopi couldn’t even qualify as a slave…there were no jobs on the plantation for someone who couldn’t do anything but run their mouth….

reff (4ab894) — 9/12/2008 @ 12:09 pm

You see, the Constitution was all about slavery, according to Caryn Johnson, I mean Whoopi Goldberg.

But then, she was interested in Sarah Palin’s involvement in an organization that wished to succeed from the US (her spelling). I note that she hasn’t apologized for spreading a…well…lie on that topic, since that story has been pretty well debunked.

Three words about Whoopi Goldberg: Jumping Jack Flash. That tells me everything I need to know about her judgement. Oh, let’s add Theodore Rex to the list. No amount of “Sister Act” sequels or reruns of Goldberg as Guinan on Star Trek will help.

Enough said.

Eric Blair (2708f4) — 9/12/2008 @ 12:38 pm

9/11/2008

Comparing Charlie Gibson’s Treatment of Barack Obama and Sarah Palin

32 Responses to “Comparing Charlie Gibson’s Treatment of Barack Obama and Sarah Palin”

Favorite Sites

Links

Patterico Sells Out