Barack Obama went on the O’Reilly factor for an extensive interview with Bill O’Reilly.
I saved this column for Saturday, because I do not consider anything involving Barack Obama at this time to be hard news. If he ever offers an actual policy proposal that is achievable, I will reassess the situation.
Make no mistake about it. Obama did not do this interview because he gave his word and said he would. He did it because his icy cool veneer is gone. Sarah Palin is the new hot (boy is she ever) ticket in town, and Barack is running scared. He should be.
Nevertheless, I credit him for going on. Motives are irrelevant, and are opinion at best. My column is an admitted opinion column, so I am allowed offer it. The accusation against Obama is that he is an empty suit, bereft of substance. Going on O’Reilly and answering tough questions only makes him look better if he does well.
In addition to Bill O’Reilly, Obama went on David Letterman on September 10th. While I disagree with his politics, Letterman was brilliant after 9/11. His first show back on September 17th, 2001, was instrumental in helping America see laughter through the tears.
(I also like when he interviews Martha Stewart)
<!– /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:””; margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:”Times New Roman”; mso-fareast-font-family:”Times New Roman”;} a:link, span.MsoHyperlink {color:blue; text-decoration:underline; text-underline:single;} a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed {color:purple; text-decoration:underline; text-underline:single;} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} –>
http://www.themarthablog.com/2008/09/how-to-create-your-own-blog-let-us-show-you.html
After talking about the campaign, the discussion turned to 9/11.
Letterman referred to Rudy Giuliani as “our savior.” He pointed out that now issues such as terrorism were things Obama had to think about. He asked Obama what he would have done after 9/11? Obama is an expert armchair quarterback, and this was a nice softball lobbed over the plate.
Obama praised Giuliani for keeping calm and clear. He also stated that George W. Bush did the right thing going after the Taliban, and that he would have done exactly the same thing President Bush did. Where they diverged is on Iraq, which Obama continues to see as a distraction rather than a focal point.
Obama then criticized President Bush after 9/11 for telling people “to shop.” That advice was right then, and it was right now. He said a lot more, but Obama is running for President, and it is easier to criticize another than tout actual accomplishments of oneself, especially when those accomplishments are mythical. Obama then went into his stump speech.
Letterman then asked another softball about whether Obama, who was not in Washington at the time, thought that Washington was in chaos after 9/11.
Obama deftly handled this one, calling 9/11 a “shock to the system.” He specifically said that his interest “was not playing Monday Morning Quarterback.” It was a smart answer. He then went back to the stump speech about how “we have not taken steps since then to make us safer.” He is wrong, but he has his opinion and I have mine.
Letterman asked exactly what focusing on Afghanistan actually means.
Obama spoke of stopping narcotics trafficking, regarding the poppy fields. Then he went into criticizing former Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf. This is an area where Obama is completely wrong. He speaks calmly and rationally, but that does not make his analysis intelligent or reasonable.
Letterman did not challenge Obama, but then again, his show is comedy, not hard news. The discussion turned to Obama taking his children to Disneyland, effectively ending what little substance the interview had. After going on O’Reilly, speaking with Letterman must have been sheer joy.
Obama did show graciousness by praising President Bush for working hard on trying to cure AIDS in Africa. Obama readily acknowledged that President Bush promised to spend the money, and followed through.
The interview ended on a genuinely funny note. Obama spoke of how understated his 87 year old grandmother is. When he told her that he won the nomination, she replied, “That’s nice.” Letterman then asked if Obama was “nervous that she might vote for somebody closer to her own age.” Obama laughed and remarked that just to be safe, he “was sending her out to all the local bridge clubs.”
Letterman was fun. O’Reilly was business.
As for O’Reilly, some will say that O’Reilly is a partisan, but that argument does not wash. If O’Reilly beats him up, the backlash would generate sympathy for Obama anyway. Therefore it benefits both men for O’Reilly to ask tough and fair questions.
When asked if we were in a War on Terror, Obama replied in the affirmative. When asked who the enemy was, he immediately cited Al Queda and the Taliban. The answer was perfect, and I wondered why Obama didn’t simply say that months and months ago.
He stated that Iran was a “major threat,” but then simply mentioned that Saddam and Al Queda were unrelated, which had nothing to do with the question.
He said that it is “unacceptable” for Iran to have a nuclear weapon, which would be a “game changer.” He simply could not muster stronger words.
He stated that even mentioning the possible use of force would be “tipping our hand.”
It is moment like these that make me say that Barack Obama is well intentioned, but wrong. He is timid, and adverse to hard power.
He mentioned that during the Bush years, we were not “working as closely as possible with the Europeans.”
O’Reilly then made an excellent point. “We could ratchet up whatever we are going to ratchet, and then Obama will say, ‘Blank you, we will do whatever we want.'”
O’Reilly tried to get Obama to admit that the surge worked. Obama is very clever, and delivered a new line.
“The surge has succeeded in ways that nobody anticipated, including President Buish and the other supporters.”
This is incredulous. It went better than even those who believed in it from the
beginning, and yet he is right? Now that is brazen.
O’Reilly refused to let Obama off the hook on this one.
“If it had been up to you and Joe Biden there would have been no surge.”
Obama then blamed President Bush for pre-surge problems.
He then said, “We reduced the violence, but Iraqis still haven’t taken responsibility.”
This is absolutely false. Yes, they have. Political reconciliation absolutely is taking place.
At this point O’Reilly shifted to Afghanistan, and forcefully told Obama, “You’re not going to send ground troops into Pakistan Senator. You know it.”
Obama spoke about cutting off aid to Pakistan. O’Reilly pointed out that this would let Islamic fundamentalists taking over. Obama blamed Pervez Musharraf.
Obama then pointed out that if he had Osama Bin Laden in his sights, he would be taken out, at which point O’Reilly mentioned that anybody would do that.
O’Reilly was pushing hard, but Obama pushed back. He is totally unprepared to lead America, but he was prepared for this interview.
Barack Obama simply cannot bring himself to admit he was wrong about the surge. If Obama was in power instead of George W. Bush, Saddam Hussein would still be in power. A vote against the Iraq War was a vote not to remove Saddam. Barack Obama was wrong.
The conversation then turned to the economy and taxes.
When confronted with the fact that the Bush economy was better than the Clinton economy, Obama simply claimed the statistics were lies. O’Reilly blamed illegal immigration for depressing wages, and Obama disagreed. O’Reilly claimed that Obama was playing class warfare. On payroll taxes, Obama refused to say that there was a cap. Obama used the words “progressive income tax.” O’Reilly called it wealth redistribution and socialism. O’Reilly called him “Robin Hood Obama.”
Obama disputed that the debt increase had anything to do with the War on Terror. He blamed the Bush tax cuts. Obama called the wealth redistribution “neighborliness.” He also claimed that it was not a “prohibitive rate.”
The discussion then turned to the various associations that have tarred the Obama campaign.
As O’Reilly ticked off the names, Obama seemed angry, but the man does not lose his cool.
Obama stated that he went to church to “worship God, not a pastor.” He then insisted that he never heard Pastor Wright’s comments, despite attending church twice a month.
Obama did accuse O’Reilly of hyping Ayers, and mentioned that Ayers was 40 years ago. O’Reilly pointed out that Ayers made offensive statements a week ago.
They sparred over an education bill that AYers and Obama worked on.
Obama cleverly pointed out that Bill O’Reilly should not be blamed for the other bad things said on Fox News, with Sean Hannity being specifically mentioned. This was the way of deflecting Obama’s showing up at the Daily Kos convention.
O’Reilly asked Obama to name one friend on the far right he had, and Obama could not name one. For some reason, O’Reilly apologized for asking what was a fair question. O’Reilly apologized twice in this segment, for reasons that made no sense.
The conversation then turned to oil and alternative energy. It was at this point in the debate, and it was a debate, that Obama made his best point. When O’Reilly asked the legitimate question of whether or not wind, solar, and other alternative ideas for energy were a potential waste of money, Obama brought up JFK and the space program. The point was fair. JFK did not know that this would work. He believed it was worth the expenditure. I personally believe that some proposed alternative energy expenditures are a waste, but Obama handled the issue well.
“Discovery and research and innovation involves putting money in a pot and seeing…it’s like venture capital.”
That was a clever line. It takes a greeniac agenda and tries to make it sound palatable to Wall Street.
O’Reilly tried to pin Obama down on his opposition to nuclear power, and Obama stunned me by saying he would agree to build nuclear power plants. This is a major policy shift, and a flip flip if he backtracks.
Yet Obama would not shift his position on drilling in ANWR. Yet he again said the following:
“This notion that I am against nuclear power is just not true.”
It has been for the entire campaign. This should be the defining comments of the interview because it is a major philosophical pronouncement.
Also, the tone between the two me was very friendly during this exchange. Obama was jovial, and O’Reilly was more subdued. O’Reilly asked for specifics, in terms of how many plants Obama would build, and Obama promised to send him his plan, and discuss it in a subsequent interview on the show.
When O’Reilly turned to foreign policy, he asked Obama an interesting question.
“Why won’t the Germnans fight in Afghanistan?”
Obama naturally blamed George W. Bush for “souring our relationship with the Europeans.”
O’Reilly asked if Obama would wave a magic wand and make everybody like us. Obama reinforced his commitment to diplomacy.
When asked about the U.S. missile shield in Poland that is antagonizing Russia, Obama would not give a clear answer.
“I believe the missile shield is appropriate, but I want to make sure it works.”
That is a typical weaselly, mealy mouthed answer. He would not say if he would keep it or not, and the notion that we would support a defective shield is garbage. If the shield works, what would Obama do? Only he knows, perhaps.
Obama pointed out “two areas where we can have leverage over Russia. Commercially, Russia is tied to Europe. , and the Russian stock market has plummeted since the Georgia invasion.”
When O’Reilly shot back, “Putin doesn’t care,” Obama had a flawless answer.
He pointed out that, “There are some billionaires in Russia that do care.”
Obama came across as very cerebral, and I wish he could understand U.S. economics with such depth.
O’Reilly ended the interview with a softball about basketball. Yes, I mixed sports on that one.
The interview was fair, and Obama did reasonably well enough. He finished very strong in the last segment.
He was dreadful at the Saddleback Forum with Rick Warren. He was fantastic when he spoke to America in 2004. This was not his best or worst, but it was good enough. He should do more of these forums. It shows that he can enter an area where he will not be fawned over, which again lends credibility to his comments.
eric
[…] THE TYGRRRR EXPRESS placed an observative post today on The Bill O’Reilly-Barack Obama Smackdown + David LettermanHere’s a quick excerptBarack Obama went on the O’Reilly factor for an extensive interview with Bill O’Reilly. […]
Anyone seen this ?
Obama mopped himself into a corner on this one.
http://www.foxnews.com/video2/video08.html?maven_referralObject=3085672&maven_referralPlaylistId=&sRevUrl=http://www.foxnews.com/yourworld/
Saying that “everyone” in America will pay lower taxes than they did in the 90s is just an insult to anyones intelligence.
Micky I think he was referring to the 40% of the people who don’t pay any taxes. Otherwise how do you give 95% of the people a tax break. Oh wait, that then would be welfare.
Maybe he will take away all of the profits that big oil makes and redistribute to the collectives. So the shareholders of big oil will no longer get a regular dividend, but I will even though I didn’t buy any stock. Uhmmm, whats that called again? So, Soci, Solic, nope oh yeah, Socialism
Sorry I haven’t been around guys. Good ol’ stupidJersey McJones got a little too tipsy, tripped over my coffee table and put myself in the hospital with a concussion. God, I’m am idiot. I think I’ll be staying on the wagon for a loooooong time this time…
Oh, and on top of that, my pc contracted a serious bug. I had to do a complete restoration – with a concussion no less! Talk about annoying!
All’s well now though (aside from the headache).
At least I missed the Obama interview! There’s always a bright side, I suppose.
But then I always have here to catch up on the “right” side of things.
“He then went back to the stump speech about how “we have not taken steps since then to make us safer.” He is wrong, but he has his opinion and I have mine.”
I can’t speak for every factor here but I’ll say this: I worked for the container lines for years after and before 9/11 – the ports and imports and freight transportation infrastucture are barely any safer than they were prior to 9/11 and in some ways are even less secure. The “24 Hour Rule” has been an unmitigated disaster and was poorly thought out to start with. The inspections at the ports and terminals, and the scrutiny of the manifests, remain skimpy at best. And it goes on from there.
Also, there have been some 10 million “illegal immigrants” who’ve crossed through our borders since Bush took office. This is a federal -and specifically executive – responsibility. Too many among those immigrants are criminals and some may well be terroorists. Here again, the Bush/GOP rule has been a failure.
I won’t get into the war in Iraq with regards to this, though I do believe it has made us and the world a lot less safe in the long run.
JMJ
Infidel,
“Micky I think he was referring to the 40% of the people who don’t pay any taxes.”
If I may interject…
Everyone pays taxes, Infidel. Some people just don’t make enough money to net pay federal income tax. But everyone pays some taxes, directly or indirectly. Everyone pays the FICA, even most “illegal immigrants.” Everyone pays property taxes, either directly or indirectly. Everyone pays corporate taxes if they buy things. Everyone pays sales taxes, fees, tariffs, one way or another. There’s no sych a thing as a person who doesn’t pay taxes. And everyone who works pays income taxes, it’s just that many of them get the money back the next year. So the government is basically borrowing money from the poor without paying interest. It’s a bit of a scam if you ask me.
JMJ
Good God Jersey!
I am glad you are alright. I see the readers of my blog as an extended family.
Feel better soon, and as you said, stay off the bottle for your own sake.
God bless, and welcome back.
eric
Thanks man. You guys keep me sane.
JMJ
Jersey, point taken. I guess I was specifically refering to my current wife, who typically makes about 17k a year. She never paid any Federal or State income tax but always got a big chunk back. Qualified for food stamps but never took them out of pride.
Hope you concussion doesn’t affect your thinking and you start agreeing with Republicans. I need the thought provoking sparring, and you provide some of that. But if I ever see you agree with Micky, I’m gonna come slap the other side of your head to balance you out. :)
LOL! Well, we’ll see about that.
My concussion doesn’t seem to be affecting my thinking, but it does make me woozy and uncomfortable. Fortunately (or not so fortunately) I have a high tolerance for wooziness and discomfort…
I know there’s one thing I tend to agree with Republicans about and that’s the corporate tax. It’s too high, and personally, I don’t even think it should exist. My logic here may differ a bit from the standard GOP line on this subject in some ways, though. Firstly, it’s a matter of philosophy: corporations are not people and I believe that only transactions between people should be taxed. Corporate profits are a consequence of transactions between of people but are not in and of themselves person-to-person transactions. Corporations are not people, just legally recognized contractual arrangements. Another two reasons I am against corporate taxation are A: they depress our international competitiveness and B: they are an indirect consumption tax that regressively affects the poor more than the wealthy. I believe that corporate taxes are tolerated by the powers that be because the alternative would be a more progressive tax on the wealthy – as is the trade-off in most of the rest of the developed world. We have among the world’s lowest income tax rates but among the highest corporate tax rates, and that may well explain our horrific disparities of wealth and trade. It is the worst sort of national cannibalization by the investor class.
JMJ
Geez.
Coffee table huh ?
Good thing it wasnt a Mack truck.
I’m telling you man, once I went conservative it was a whole lot easier to stay sober.
Just sayin.
But then sobriety is what brought me to conservatism.
Now that I think about it.
You’re really screwed jersey.
:-)
I dont know, I just want to know how hes gonna keep his word on everyone paying less than they did in the 90s.
I mean really, I think anyone on this thread will agree with me that every candidate has never lived up to his taxation offers/plans/incentives.
I think he blew it on this one.
“Good thing it wasnt a Mack truck.”
Oh man, you said it! And good thing a neighbor stopped by to visit me and saw me laying there and called 911, or who knows? I might be mulch right now.
Man, my head hurts. I don’t know if conservatism helps with sobriety, but I’ll tell ya, it’s waaaaay past time for me to sober up. My drinking days have got to end. I’m just too old for this $%#@!
Obama would have a huge advantage if he were elected (and that’s a big “if”) in that he’d have a friendly congress – much friendlier than his democratic predecessors of recent generations had. So, he would be better able to keep his promises. On the other hand, if things don’t go well, he’ll have no one to blame.
McCain is at a huge disadvantage when it comes his specific promises, but at a huge advantage in that split governments often produce better, more tangible, more consentual, more pragmatic results – especially early on in presidential terms.
JMJ
The numbers dont work.
Hes already commited himself to a lot of spending. Foreign affairs are uncertain, two wars, a debt to pay off, research to be done on energy. And then he’s gonna cut revenues by brining the tax code to less than it was when we had a surplus ?
I must of missed something.
Thats a good point there Micky. And on top of it, if he fails at all these promises he will be a huge flop and it will be another 100 years before a Democrat black guy wins. Bill Clinton stayed away from the “you did this and that” with his “I feel your pain” and successfully connected with the people. James Carville didn’t say “it’s about Clinton, stupid”. It was the economy, healthcare and bailouts. He needs to stop attacking McCain/Vpilf and tell people ‘they’ are his concern and focus on what he will do for ME. The election is after all, all about ME. It’s is not about voting with Bush or sex-ed in schools. ME ME ME ME ME
Well Micky, from what I’ve read his numbers are a little low for what he’s proposing. Hopefully he’s just understating the kind sof numbers he really plans on raising should he be elected. We need to bring the top margin up, raise cap gains, and take the cap of FICA. If we did all that, we could fund pretty much anything we wanted.
Infidel, I think Obama has been talking about what he’s going to do for the common man, but what he really needs to do is focus on the common voter.
JMJ
Well, he better straighten it out quick. because between what he told OReilly and what Cavuto brought up (video above) hes got some splainin to do.
Jersey, Glad to hear you are recovering. You really need to be a bit more careful.
On point, I believe Carter had a VERY friendly congress and Clinton had one his first two years.
I do find it interesting that he promises lower taxes than the ’90s (the Clinton Years). Does that mean he feels that taxes were too high in those years? I am sure Bill and Hillary are not happy about that comment.
Nah, Bill and Hill will probably just say “yea, they should of been lower and Obama will just continue what we started”
Or some crap like that