You had me going there, you really did, right up to the last sentence.
“Or do we want a belligerent liar and a paranoid drama queen?”
Now imagine if O'Reilly had started Obama’s interview with an equivalent dose of ungraciousness. I’m pretty sure Pretty Lady’s theory would be shot to hell and she’d have no videos to share with her readers.
Hey, Pretty Lady has made it very clear that she's not running for either President or Vice President. She has provided sufficient documentation for the McCain/Palin campaign's mendacity, penchant for belligerence, paranoia, and drama that she can conclude her essay in any way she likes. Certainly nobody from the McCain campaign is bothering to refute her charges.
You have misconstrued my comment. Of course you may post anything you like in any tone you like and come to any conclusion you like. I was not criticizing you.
I was only trying to suggest that a sometimes rude and buffoonish O’Reilly is hardly a test of Obama’s sangfroid. Befriending (and sometimes charming) the opposition is a long time modus operandi of politicians, at least the successful ones. The problem (and test) comes when one faces not the “opposition” but the “enemy”. Someone looking to smear you, damage you, or destroy you. Now that would be impressive.
By the way, I of course knew whom you were referring to as “ belligerent liar” but the first thing that popped to mind re “drama queen” - Mr. Biden.
Bill O'Reilly is not looking to smear, damage, or destroy Obama? Could have fooled me. This is one of the nastiest campaigns ever, and everyone's on board. Dictators (ever seen an interview with Saddam Hussein? Putin?) are usually much more reserved and polite than O'Reilly, who is an emotional pinball machine. Obama handled his part of the interview perfectly. Sorry, but you can't fault him for that. His detractors are always saying,"Yeah, he handled that well, but can he handle such-and-such, and then such-and-such comes along and they say yeah, he handled that well but what if...." yet so far he has run a seamless campaign, and has not faltered. Anyone who can do that can run a country, maybe two.
O’Reilly tried to destroy Obama!!! Here’s what I saw and a comparison.
O’Reilly/Obama: engaged each other face to face. Gibson/Palin: Gibson peered over his glasses and down his nose.
O’Reilly/Obama: a civil and engaging a conversation – but O’R interrupts too much. Gibson/Palin: Gibson throws Palin’s “exact words” at her. They weren’t.
O’Reilly/Obama: not one embarrassing Obama moment by way of tape edits. Gibson/Palin: countless tape edits to embarrass Palin.
O’Reilly/Obama: No gotcha hunt. Gibson/Palin: Gotcha hunt. It works – Gibson doesn’t know Bush Doctrine. Gotcha!!!
O’Reilly/Obama: O’R brings up Daily Kos attack against Obama to Obama’s advantage. Gibson/Palin: Gibson seems to enjoys strolling with Palin.
O”Reilly/Obama: O’R says Obama hangs with bad people – adds “if that’s not fair, I’m sorry”. Gibson/Palin: offers no apologies for edits, misquotes, quotes out of context.
O’Reilly/Obama: O’R to Obama: “ a pleasure… good luck in the campaign. A handshake. Gibson/Palin: don’t know how they parted, didn’t see end of interview.
If O’Reilly was trying to destroy Obama then what were Gibson/ABC trying to do to Palin?
In context: Obama has been campaigning for 19 months. In the course of that time, he has been subjected to viral email campaigns spreading ridiculous lies--that he is a terrorist, that he is a Muslim, that his wife is a black supremacist, that he is unpatriotic, on and on and on and on. There have been entire books published by major publishing houses which repeat these lies, distortions and smears. He's been attacked by his own party with some of these smears, during the primary campaign. When the Jeremiah Wright affair broke, many people assumed that his campaign was toast. Certainly many politicians have been destroyed over less.
O'Reilly has been a major part of the right-wing media which has gleefully participated in this garbage. He didn't trot it out during the interview, but his attitude was impatient, condescending and dismissive during much of it.
Palin has been sprung on the American public 60 days before the election. She was obviously hardly vetted at all. Then the McCain campaign refused to let her hold an unscripted interview for TWO WEEKS after the nomination. That is a quarter of the remaining time left before the election.
The Bush Doctrine question was hardly a 'gotcha,' given that the Bush Doctrine has defined American foreign policy for the last seven years, and is the ideology behind the debacle of the Iraq war. It is inexcusable that someone who could conceivably be President in five months had never heard of it, and couldn't even fudge a credible response when given a huge friggin' hint.
Some of Gibson's mannerisms were indeed a bit condescending. In my view they weren't any more condescending than O'Reilly's, but that's a subjective opinion.
What is certain is that Obama has endured thousands of times more aggregate smear, slime, scrutiny and deliberate defamation than Palin has, and has come out of it looking a hell of a lot better than Palin has.
This is not a game. It's serious business, potentially affecting the entire planet, to nominate a clueless, ignorant, hubristic person for VP at the last second, and attempt to cover up her inadequacies with misdirection and manipulation. Under those circumstances, accelerated hazing by the media and the citizenry is not merely acceptable, it is necessary.
Darlings, where to start? Sometimes I feel as though I have lived a thousand lives in this one, dewy and unlined though my complexion may be. To Tell All may be to intimidate; thus I maintain, at most times, a discreet reserve. But here I share my musings, perhaps revealing the secret to my exquisite poise and charm.
8 comments:
Pretty Lady
You had me going there, you really did, right up to the last sentence.
“Or do we want a belligerent liar and a paranoid drama queen?”
Now imagine if O'Reilly had started Obama’s interview with an equivalent dose of ungraciousness. I’m pretty sure Pretty Lady’s theory would be shot to hell and she’d have no videos to share with her readers.
Hey, Pretty Lady has made it very clear that she's not running for either President or Vice President. She has provided sufficient documentation for the McCain/Palin campaign's mendacity, penchant for belligerence, paranoia, and drama that she can conclude her essay in any way she likes. Certainly nobody from the McCain campaign is bothering to refute her charges.
"that she can conclude her essay in any way she likes.".....most certainly.
It is Pretty Ladys Blog, and the wonders of truly Free Speech allow her to write just about any thing she wants.
Including tripe. So long and thanks for all the fish.
This ol' fellah has left the porch.
Pretty Lady
You have misconstrued my comment. Of course you may post anything you like in any tone you like and come to any conclusion you like. I was not criticizing you.
I was only trying to suggest that a sometimes rude and buffoonish O’Reilly is hardly a test of Obama’s sangfroid. Befriending (and sometimes charming) the opposition is a long time modus operandi of politicians, at least the successful ones. The problem (and test) comes when one faces not the “opposition” but the “enemy”. Someone looking to smear you, damage you, or destroy you. Now that would be impressive.
By the way, I of course knew whom you were referring to as “ belligerent liar” but the first thing that popped to mind re “drama queen” - Mr. Biden.
Bill O'Reilly is not looking to smear, damage, or destroy Obama? Could have fooled me. This is one of the nastiest campaigns ever, and everyone's on board. Dictators (ever seen an interview with Saddam Hussein? Putin?) are usually much more reserved and polite than O'Reilly, who is an emotional pinball machine. Obama handled his part of the interview perfectly. Sorry, but you can't fault him for that. His detractors are always saying,"Yeah, he handled that well, but can he handle such-and-such, and then such-and-such comes along and they say yeah, he handled that well but what if...." yet so far he has run a seamless campaign, and has not faltered. Anyone who can do that can run a country, maybe two.
What Carol said.
Ms Diehl and Pretty Lady
O’Reilly tried to destroy Obama!!! Here’s what I saw and a comparison.
O’Reilly/Obama: engaged each other face to face.
Gibson/Palin: Gibson peered over his glasses and down his nose.
O’Reilly/Obama: a civil and engaging a conversation – but O’R interrupts too much.
Gibson/Palin: Gibson throws Palin’s “exact words” at her. They weren’t.
O’Reilly/Obama: not one embarrassing Obama moment by way of tape edits.
Gibson/Palin: countless tape edits to embarrass Palin.
O’Reilly/Obama: No gotcha hunt.
Gibson/Palin: Gotcha hunt. It works – Gibson doesn’t know Bush Doctrine. Gotcha!!!
O’Reilly/Obama: O’R brings up Daily Kos attack against Obama to Obama’s advantage.
Gibson/Palin: Gibson seems to enjoys strolling with Palin.
O”Reilly/Obama: O’R says Obama hangs with bad people – adds “if that’s not fair, I’m sorry”.
Gibson/Palin: offers no apologies for edits, misquotes, quotes out of context.
O’Reilly/Obama: O’R to Obama: “ a pleasure… good luck in the campaign. A handshake.
Gibson/Palin: don’t know how they parted, didn’t see end of interview.
If O’Reilly was trying to destroy Obama then what were Gibson/ABC trying to do to Palin?
George, context is all.
In context: Obama has been campaigning for 19 months. In the course of that time, he has been subjected to viral email campaigns spreading ridiculous lies--that he is a terrorist, that he is a Muslim, that his wife is a black supremacist, that he is unpatriotic, on and on and on and on. There have been entire books published by major publishing houses which repeat these lies, distortions and smears. He's been attacked by his own party with some of these smears, during the primary campaign. When the Jeremiah Wright affair broke, many people assumed that his campaign was toast. Certainly many politicians have been destroyed over less.
O'Reilly has been a major part of the right-wing media which has gleefully participated in this garbage. He didn't trot it out during the interview, but his attitude was impatient, condescending and dismissive during much of it.
Palin has been sprung on the American public 60 days before the election. She was obviously hardly vetted at all. Then the McCain campaign refused to let her hold an unscripted interview for TWO WEEKS after the nomination. That is a quarter of the remaining time left before the election.
The Bush Doctrine question was hardly a 'gotcha,' given that the Bush Doctrine has defined American foreign policy for the last seven years, and is the ideology behind the debacle of the Iraq war. It is inexcusable that someone who could conceivably be President in five months had never heard of it, and couldn't even fudge a credible response when given a huge friggin' hint.
Some of Gibson's mannerisms were indeed a bit condescending. In my view they weren't any more condescending than O'Reilly's, but that's a subjective opinion.
What is certain is that Obama has endured thousands of times more aggregate smear, slime, scrutiny and deliberate defamation than Palin has, and has come out of it looking a hell of a lot better than Palin has.
This is not a game. It's serious business, potentially affecting the entire planet, to nominate a clueless, ignorant, hubristic person for VP at the last second, and attempt to cover up her inadequacies with misdirection and manipulation. Under those circumstances, accelerated hazing by the media and the citizenry is not merely acceptable, it is necessary.
Post a Comment