Over the last few days I've seen many commenters refer to the interview Barack Obama gave to Chris Wallace of Fox News last weekend. Sometimes a commenter would misquote or mischaracterize something in the interview, which would set off a whole line of opinion, speculation and conjecture, all based on inaccurate information.
Since I missed the interview due to travel, I tracked down the transcript at Fox News and present it here:
http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/04/27/transcript-obama-on-fns/
As usual I found Chris Wallace to be a professional journalist, who like his father (Mike Wallace from 60 Minutes fame) asks pointed questions. I commented on another thread that I felt Obama has handled the campaign with grace and aplomb, and I would say that the description is apt for this interview (especially given that Fox News in general has been overtly Obama-bashing for weeks). I found his answers to be thoughtful and insightful, and not the usual pre-rehearsed talking points so often provided by other campaigns during interviews.* In other words, he actually answered the questions.
But you be the judge. I found that reading the transcripts of televised interviews provides better insight because it eliminates the distraction of the "performance" aspect.
* I'm not saying he didn't slip in his talking points, he did. But he also took responsibility for his own thoughts and his campaign and didn't blame others for any shortcomings.
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 47
I also feel that the mark of a true leader is in taking responsibility for ones own thoughts and for any personal shortcomings.
I believe other qualities of leadership are honesty and compassion, something which has been sorely lacking lately.
It is quite telling that the other two candidates are thought of as dishonest and change their positions based upon the audience in front of them.
I would remind us all that everyone has a right to choose their candidate. Assuming they base their decisions on factual information they shouldn't be called or made to feel stupid simply because they opt to support someone else.
A world-class BS artist, though. He would have been of better service to the Dems on the Supreme Court.
Overall, Obama's answers weren't as sharp as normal. He knew Wallace would grill him on the economic issues, and Wallace didn't disappoint. Obama's econ experience will always cause him problems in an economy like this one. Socialism just doesn't play well in this country.
"Socialism? What do you call McClinton's "gas holiday"
Populist gimmickry, nothing more.
"I believe that America's free market has been the engine of America's great progress. It's created a prosperity that is the envy of the world. It's led to a standard of living unmatched in history. And it has provided great rewards to the innovators and risk-takers who have made America a beacon for science, and technology, and discovery…We are all in this together. From CEOs to shareholders, from financiers to factory workers, we all have a stake in each other's success because the more Americans prosper, the more America prospers."
— Barack Obama, New York, NY, September 17, 2007
Far from socialism. Read the facts behind Obama's economic plan here.
The folks over at Obama propaganda headquarters (CNN) will be none to happy with such dalliances by Barack...it sort of like being unfaithful to a good wife. Anderson Cooper must be beside himself...feeling betrayed and mortified.
Spousal abuse!
McCarthy-era tactics, PD?
Obama says all the nice words, but wants a much larger government. Hey, this guy was rated by a friendly magazine, The National Journal, as the most Liberal Senator in Washington DC.................as though that were a badge of honor. Now its being used against Obama, and rightly so. When you're that Far Left, there's really nowhere to go.
If he didn't say the nice words, he wouldn't get elected.
Just like he knew he had to throw Jeremiah Wright under the bus to get elected.
This administration may pay lip service to free enterprise but look at their actions: $3.2 billion bail out for investment banks and a $9.3 trillion dollar national debt, and by McCain's own admission, a war for oil.
These guys are "borrow and spend Republicans" (BS Republicans). We can thank them for a weak dollar and an oppressive burden on our economy that is hurting American business and destroying the American Middle Class for the benefit of the wealthy.
No doubt about it, Obama can do better.
If the Fed hadn't acted quickly and pumped money into the economy, we'd be talking about a Depression, not a weak downturn. This isn't even a recession now that Bernanke and his bankers jumped into action. That $3.2B was money well spent.
A war for oil, Baby J.?
So where is this oil that you speak of?
None of it is in my tank. How about yours?
Change has to make sense...............so far, Obama hasn't told us anything different than Jimmy Carter did. You're probably too young to remember that guy, but I remember him well. Obama is his 2008 political clone.
Thanks for the back and forth to date everyone. I appreciate the civility of most of the discussion. With a few notable exceptions people have tried to support their positions, which is the only way to get your point across. For the exceptions, making blanket statements unsupportable by any facts simply doesn't lend an credence to your contentions.
I'm glad the Fed took action. My criticism isn't that Bernanke responded to the crisis, it is that the Fed HAD to act at all to bail out irresponsible speculators.
The "war for oil" comment refers to McCain's latest gaffe about Iraq -- http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=54178§ionid=3510203.
When you factor in the $1 trillion dollars spent on the war and 4000 lives lost, that is some pretty costly gas. Heck, a peanut farmer from Georgia could do better.
"I'm glad the Fed took action. My criticism isn't that Bernanke responded to the crisis, it is that the Fed HAD to act at all to bail out irresponsible speculators. "
That is why the Fed exists, and it is why they had the $3+ billion in emergency funds on hand. They expect this kind of stuff to happen in a dynamic economy like ours.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
McCain's comment about a war for oil was stated in the future tense...............not the present tense as most Lefties would like to interpret it. I saw him say it. The press tried to jump him immediately, but he snuffed out the misconception instantly. Nevertheless, someone put it on YouTube anyway...............and another Conspiracy Theory was born....LOL.
"When you factor in the $1 trillion dollars spent on the war and 4000 lives lost, that is some pretty costly gas. Heck, a peanut farmer from Georgia could do better."
Smilin' Jimmy already had his day..............and it turned out far worse for him than it has for Mr. Bush. Unemployment, interest rates, and the economy are in great shape now compared to 1980. Don't you remember the 21% interest rates, and long lines at the gas pumps? The stock market was in the tank. It was bad back then. No comparison to the relatively moderate economy we have today.
And it's infuriating that sometimes they're right because so many people just hear what they want to hear and disregard anything that doesn't support what they've decided.
Many people have decided Obama should be President because he's a uniter. I wonder what they will say if he becomes President and this country is no more united in four years than it is now. I expect they'll forget what he said and reelect him.
It's good that he appeared on Fox News. I noticed that many people showed disgust when Hillary was on Fox News but didn't when they learned Obama was on Fox News. They justified it because the interviewer was Mike Wallace rather than O'Reilly.
Maybe Wallace is a better interviewer, but that's not saying anything for the candidates. Rather, it's a good thing that all them reach as many voters as they can. (McCain's next.) I've heard many democrats say, in so many words, that people who watch Fox News (or listen to Rush Limbaugh, for that matter) are stupid, and the candidates should disregard them. But most of them aren't, and most of them vote.
However, not all politicians are alike. One has to listen closely to not only what they say but between the lines of what they say. When one listens to McCain for example, they can hear someone who often speaks from the hip and has a simple view of the world. Listening closely to Clinton reveals that she knows how to quickly and assertively determine and say what her audience wants to hear. When needed, she makes stuff up, but always will choose her words based on the effect she wants to impart. Listening closely to Obama reveals that the man thinks. He speaks haltingly, admittedly in part to choose his words wisely so they can't be twisted by Clinton and the Republicans. But also because he is thinking about the question from multiple viewpoints. He answers the question, not from the viewpoint of manipulating the answer, but from the viewpoint of answering the question so that people can understand how he arrived at the answer and what it might mean for them.
The distinction between Wallace and O'Reilly is valid and very telling. Wallace is an intelligent journalist who asks tough but fair questions. O'Reilly is an intelligent entertainer who manipulates the news for his own benefit (book sales, ratings, etc.). The fact that Obama chose to go on Wallace's show and Clinton on O'Reilly's show demonstrates what each candidate was trying to accomplish - Obama to inform, Clinton to entertain. Frankly, I prefer a President who will listen to me and keep me informed, not one who will bring back the constant sideshow that characterized the Bill Clinton (and George W. Bush) administrations.
Both comments, and probably others, have been twisted by the press and his opponents (yes, even Obama) into what they were not. I don't think that is fair to McCain. But as is my habit, I tend to read between the lines of what the candidates say. In doing so I see something worse from these comments. To me they suggest that he does not think very deeply. He on many occasions has said things that appeared to misunderstand the complexity of the situations (and some suggested that he downright didn't have an accurate understanding of even the basic facts). Some might suggest that it is a symptom of his age. I can't say that because, frankly, he seems to have the stamina and energy during this long campaign that rival even that of the younger candidates (though physically he seems always to be in pain, a remnant of his POW treatment of so long ago). However, it concerns me because the world is incredibly complex. To not understand the complexity, or worse, to think that the world is black and white, is potentially very dangerous for our future. The Bush Administration is a perfect example of the dangers of seeing the world so simplistically. While McCain is less ideological than Bush/Cheney, he doesn't appear to have the depth of viewpoint to see the many other viewpoints that must be considered when choosing a direction foward. I find this quite alarming.
paragraph 1--well put and, I'm sure, correct.
paragraph 2--I agree that Obama appears to be thinking about what to say before he says it. I think, though, that you are assuming what he's thinking. You could be right.
paragraph 3--Clinton did not chose one show to appear on over another. Wallace has been asking all three candidates to appear on his show for a few months. Clinton was the first of the three to be interviewed by Wallace, then McCain. Wallace said he was happy when Obama finally consented. Only now has O'Reilly asked them. McCain has consented and will be on soon. What will you say if and when Obama consents? Will it suddenly be OK?
paragraph 2 - true, by necessity I am drawing my own conclusions about what he is thinking since I can't actually read people's minds (though I do listen quite carefully). Your comment reminds me that I should be careful in my writing to make clear what is my opinion and what is provable fact.
paragraph 3 - I'm embarrassed to say that I drew conclusions based on a false understanding of all of the facts, i.e., Clinton's earlier interview with Chris Wallace. Thank you for pointing out my error and I promise to be more careful in the future.
Smiles
The "too many ties to people who are just plain evil" is a value judgment not based on actual fact. First off, none of the people you might be referring to could be called evil by any stretch of the imagination. Furthermore, they have been so caricatured in the public eye that these cartoon cutouts of them don't reflect them any more than a carnival mirror - totally distorted with only vestiges of who they really are still evident. For example, Rev. Wright is not the lunatic anti-American he has been painted to be; rather, he is a preacher in a largely black congregation (in a church that is largely white overall). As a preacher in a black congregation he uses language and symbolism reflective of his upbringing as a black man in a time of our recent history that didn't treat black men (or women) with much equity or dignity. To me, this is why he would sometimes go way over the top with his own hyperbole. Do I condone his "greatest hits" inflammatory statements? Absolutely not. Do I think they are reflective of his entire ministry? No. In fact, after even listening to/watching the full sermons in which the offensive parts were contained I can see that they were minor in time and less offensive in context.
I point this out because I think it explains why Obama did not immediately "throw Wright under the bus" as the media so colorfully puts it. From what he has said, Obama was not in church during these most inflammatory statements, so can't be expected to have rejected Rev. Wright based solely on them. Obama understood that Rev. Wright was not as the sound bite loop was caricaturing him to be. Obama knew that for 35 years Rev. Wright had inspired thousands in his congregation and provided valuable faith and community services to the community. As such, it would have been irresponsible for Obama to come out at first with condemnation of a man that he knew as a good man that contributed to the community. [Lesser and typical politicians would have pandered to politics immediately not out of belief but out of political self-interest. Obama is not your typical politician.] Thus, Obama sought initially to denounce the inflammatory remarks because they were, in fact, inflammatory, but also to provide additional context to the black experience that most of us have no basis for which to understand. The goal was not to say that Wright's inflammatory remarks were okay, but to say that there was a historical and cultural contextual basis for why Wright may feel the anger he showed.
The recent, more adamant condemnation of Obama for Wright reflected the change in Rev. Wright's tenor. Whereas before the remarks were cherry picked and not reflective of the career of the man, his recent "tour" has focused solely on those remarks. In essence, Rev. Wright has himself thrown away the 35 years of productive ministery by reiterating and emphasizing solely the inflammatory portions. In other words, Wright has for some reason now chosen to define himself as the media and others have been, I believed, incompletely defining him before. By signing on and embracing the stereotypes and caricatures with which he has been painted, Wright has become the thing that he wasn't (at least in terms of media coverage). Perhaps Wright has been stewing during his retirement over how he has been treated, or perhaps he sees a book deal in the works. There is no way to tell at this point. But by acting as he has recently he invalidates any compassion and support that Obama may have given him in the past. Thus, Obama had no choice but to come out as he did this past week.
I still believe that Obama is hurt by Rev. Wright's statements, not just from the political perspective, but more importantly from a personal perspective. It must be difficult to see your pastor, which by definition you look to for faith, act without faith. It must have been tremendously difficult to feel betrayed.
I can't speak for Hillary's faith because it doesn't appear she has a focal ministry, nor John McCain's because he wishes to keep it private (to which I agree), but in a country that values faith in our leadership I find it heartwarming that one of our candidates actually does have real faith.
To reiterate, these are my own thoughts on the matter. They don't reflect anything I've heard from the Obama campaign or anyone else. This is my best attempt to evaluate and to understand, and as such is my responsibility if it doesn't reflect Obama's views. But to me, this enhances my respect for the candidate. It shows that he believes...and he has feelings...and he cares. It shows that he is not your typical, self-serving candidate that would have read the polls and tried to push everything under the rug. Instead, he faced the larger issue head on, and dealt with personal pain openly. I respect him even more because of it.
Thanks for listening.
Quilt by Association is in many cases a faulty argument, but Mrs. Clinton has much more experience than he does and in my book she is the better candidate. I hope the Dems go with her.
In the guilt by association argument, Clinton has gotten a free pass because we already know her and husband's unsavory friends and dealings. And the recent poll that shows most Americans think she is untrustworthy and lies is quite disheartening. We need someone we can trust, and in doing so we must be able to trust ourselves first.
Again, however, I respect the fact that we can have a difference of opinion. In the end, we all want what is best for the country.