ABC's Gibson grilled Palin hard, but it may backfire

ABC's Gibson grilled Palin hard, but not Obama.

www.upi.com

Charles Gibson of ABC News was out for blood and inherently applied a double-standard compared with the kid gloves George Stephanopoulos used on Democratic presidential nominee Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois on Sunday night.

Gibson was out to embarrass Palin and expose her presumed ignorance from the word go. By contrast, when Obama referred to his "Muslim faith" on Sunday and did not correct himself, Stephanopoulos rushed in at once to help him and emphasize that the senator had really meant to

(visit the link for the full news article)




[edit on 13-9-2008 by Dronetek]




Edit to alter thread title in line with submission guidelines.

[edit on 13-9-2008 by SkepticOverlord]

I watched both interviews and I was stunned at the stark contrast presented. In fact, you can contrast it to any one of Obama's interviews. They are always friendly little discussion that serve to uplift Obama and not take him to task. In contrast, Palin's interview was hostile and served to discredit her.

I dont have a problem with Palin getting tough questions, but I do have a problem with the same media being completely uninterested in being just as tough on Obama.


The only thing that gives me some hope, is that it appears these tactics are starting to backfire. People are starting to see what has been obvious to many of us for years.

www.upi.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

[edit on 13-9-2008 by Dronetek]

reply to post by Dronetek


Mccain and Obama have had their flack over the past 12 months.
No one knows anything about her, she's a new comer, lets get to the core issues immediately.

Very good points and it should be obvious for any fair minded individual to see. The media are Obama fanatics. The other day they showed Obama onstage and an angry supporter about to ask a question. When he posed his question it was a demand that they gave Obama their support and MONEY so when was he going to hit back hard? The MSM has been plastering that staged clip everywhere since then, to prod the sheep into accepting more unfair dirty politics and journalism.

The Major would like to include the following for the edification and clarification of the troops:

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.

He asked Palin, "Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?"

She responded, quite sensibly to a question that is ambiguous, "In what respect, Charlie?"

Sensing his "gotcha" moment, Gibson refused to tell her. After making her fish for the answer, Gibson grudgingly explained to the moose-hunting rube that the Bush doctrine "is that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense."

Wrong.

I know something about the subject because, as the Wikipedia entry on the Bush doctrine notes, I was the first to use the term. In the cover essay of the June 4, 2001, issue of the Weekly Standard entitled, "The Bush Doctrine: ABM, Kyoto, and the New American Unilateralism," I suggested that the Bush administration policies of unilaterally withdrawing from the ABM treaty and rejecting the Kyoto protocol, together with others, amounted to a radical change in foreign policy that should be called the Bush doctrine.

www.washingtonpost.com...

To be honest, the Major hasn't had much interest in a "doctrine" since Brigadier General Billy Mitchell formulated the foundation of air support for the Major's troops, and strategic bombing. The Major may be a bit behind the times, but the Major could have brought up the Monroe Doctrine, the last relevant presidential doctrine. To be honest, the new fangled trend of the internets that compels witty labels and the "need' to be "in the know."

The Major expected better of Charlie Gibson, and is of the mind that an interview such as this should be intended to inform the public at large, not to denigrate or humiliate Sarah Palin. There will be ample time for all the candidates to parade before the electorate with pie and worse on their respective faces.

Dismissed.

This will make resolute those who will vote for the McCain/Palin ticket. It might even push a few more undecideds to their side.

A really dumb move. I'm surprised Gibson didn't anticipate the risk of what he was doing.

I agree that it may back fire.
It's also the other little things.
She was slouching and of course the camera was positioned to intentionally show this.
Her face was glistening which means there was no ABC Make Up artist at hand.
And of course she did a tiny dance around the doctrine question, yet folks are slamming her as if expecting her to know it by heart.
S-S-S-Strike

The truth is, if she had answered exceptionally well on this question, the left would be accusing her of being a total Bush suckup and die-hard.

Gibson was tough yet she surprisingly kept up.
A few other strikes perhaps but obviously she got plenty of hits.

Not bad at all for a so called "rookie", aye?

Originally posted by Alxandro
The truth is, if she had answered exceptionally well on this question, the left would be accusing her of being a total Bush suckup and die-hard.

Agreed. This is a point I've made repeatedly. Gibson was attempting to bait her into a trap with this question. If, as you say, she had given a 'yes' answer and laid out the so-called Bush Doctrne in detail, he would immediately have followed up with a question intended to lead the viewer to the conclusion that McCain/Palin is equivalent to Bush/Cheney.

It was a damned if you do, damned if you don't type of question.

Originally posted by Dronetek

I watched both interviews and I was stunned at the stark contrast presented. In fact, you can contrast it to any one of Obama's interviews. They are always friendly little discussion that serve to uplift Obama and not take him to task. In contrast, Palin's interview was hostile and served to discredit her.

I dont have a problem with Palin getting tough questions, but I do have a problem with the same media being completely uninterested in being just as tough on Obama.


The only thing that gives me some hope, is that it appears these tactics are starting to backfire. People are starting to see what has been obvious to many of us for years.

www.upi.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

[edit on 13-9-2008 by Dronetek]

DID any of you see the Bill O "interviews"???

PALIN had it easy in contrast.

I think the PALIN interview was fair and think the FOX has been feeding this "unfair" notion to its viewers.

reply to post by mental modulator


Actually, I think both interviews were reasonably fair. I have some problems with the way Gibson portrayed the 'exact quote' exchange as well as this question on the Bush Doctrine which, IMO, painted Palin into a corner regardless of her response, but otherwise, it was a typical, hostile interview, much as the O'Reilly-Obama interview was. Gibson and O'Reilly simply have different styles.

Note that I did not say that a hostile interview was necessarily an unfair interview.

Frankly, I think that all of the candidates should be handled as aggressively as needed. All of them should be ready to play hardball and expect to be hit with the hard questions. Problem is all of the Conservative vs. Liberal crap that the anchors, commentators, candidates and their respective parties love to wallow in.

Of course, viewers and voters are happily and lovingly rolling 'round in the mud, too.

Palin deserves what she gets. She's running for the highest office in the land. She's not just running for VP, she's running for backup of the Presidency. She is running for President as the second best choice. The country has six weeks to figure her out, and it should make every effort to do so.

Originally posted by vor78
reply to post by mental modulator

 

Actually, I think both interviews were reasonably fair. I have some problems with the way Gibson portrayed the 'exact quote' exchange as well as this question on the Bush Doctrine which, IMO, painted Palin into a corner regardless of her response, but otherwise, it was a typical, hostile interview, much as the O'Reilly-Obama interview was. Gibson and O'Reilly simply have different styles.

Note that I did not say that a hostile interview was necessarily an unfair interview.

I can agree with you on this to some degree. Both intended to "git" the other...

Fair enough

It's possible both sides attempted to git the other, if that's the case then we should especially be looking on how they responded.
Which means if we start keeping score on certain things like uhhs, mmmms, errrs and duhs, Obama is clearly in the lead.

Originally posted by vor78
reply to post by mental modulator

 

Actually, I think both interviews were reasonably fair. I have some problems with the way Gibson portrayed the 'exact quote' exchange as well as this question on the Bush Doctrine which, IMO, painted Palin into a corner regardless of her response, but otherwise, it was a typical, hostile interview, much as the O'Reilly-Obama interview was. Gibson and O'Reilly simply have different styles.

Note that I did not say that a hostile interview was necessarily an unfair interview.

I've been in the woods for a bit and haven't seen all of the Gibson / Palin interview yet (I've just seen clips from it). But, I did see the O'Reilly / Obama interview.

I did think both were "hostile" interviews. However, I noticed a couple of times O'Reilly smiled and joked a little bit (for instance asking Obama how many points he would spot him in basketball).

In the clips I've not seen Gibson smile at all and his general demeanor seems to be that of someone faced with the task of scraping something very unpleasant from the bottom of their shoe. I'm asking because I've yet to see the whole thing - Did he ever smile? Tell a slight joke to break the tension?

I watched the interveiw, and it was so obvious that Gibson was attempting to trash Palin, in his opinion like some upstart little child. And yet Obama gets a cozy little good neighbor session with anybody in the MSM...Gibson should be ashamed to call himself a reporter, or journalist, or professional, of any sort for that matter....what a gluteus maximus habidashery......or north end of a south bound mule......riff

I was actually wondering if the "Bush Doctrine" exchange may well have been a rehearsed stumble on Palin's part. It's a often shown and repeated moment when Palin is patently NOT in Dubya's pocket or his heir apparent. How can they be more of something if they don't even know what that something is?

Originally posted by mental modulator
DID any of you see the Bill O "interviews"???

PALIN had it easy in contrast.

I think the PALIN interview was fair and think the FOX has been feeding this "unfair" notion to its viewers.

Yes, I saw most of the O to O interviews.

For the O'Reilly haters here, I also saw O'Reilly defend Charles Gibson last night on his show, saying that he didn't think Gibson really meant to look so condescending towards Palin. BTW, I hardly always agree ith O'Reilly, and this is one of those times. IMO, Gibson was doing everything he did in a coldly, calculating way.

Why would it backfire?

Every candidate has been grilled to the point of being charred on the outside - half of the time with lies, rumor, and spin. It is disgusting. But what makes her special?

Why can she get away with not commenting? Why is it that she shouldn't be treated differently because she's a woman, but Hillary needed to take the heat and "quit hiding behind her apron"?

I listened to Rush Limbaugh today - to the point of getting ill - as he rambled on a rampage about how the "liberals" were the cause of all the world's problems. Do you know he said that "liberals" do nothing but plot and plan (while conservatives are out with their families and doing real things). Yes, he said that. He said liberals are responsible for Fannie May and Freddie Mac. Liberals are responsible for the downturn in the economy. He said it was liberal legislation caused the mortgage crisis. And don't get me started on him talking about this interview with Palin and how unfair it was.

But it was all just propaganda. It was all spin - salted with a little truth.

The fact is, even if every single piece of legislation that caused this crisis was brought in the "evil liberals", they've never had enough control to push it through themselves.

The Clinton era was countered by a very conservative Congress. The beginning of the Bush era... the "liberals" had little to no control. Now, they barely have control over Congress, and not nearly enough to overwhelm a Presidential veto. That means, of course, the Republicans had just as much to do with it. Sure, they may not have agreed at first, but once they were allowed to add riders and fill it with enough pork to satisfy them, they didn't care (which I think is one of the largest issues in US politics - pork filled riders and lobbyists).

As far as Palin... who's Rush to talk? His entire program is set up to slander any liberal who opens his mouth.

I know it's a bit off topic to talk about Rush, but I found it to be representative of this entire topic. By that I mean, it is useless.

[edit on 16-9-2008 by Sublime620]

This video has made up the choice of MANY independents i know..

She looked like ld running for VP . You could tell there were "keywords" that she could only reply with certain things to. Like the word "Israel"

It looked like prom night as she danced around the questions.