Why FOX NEWS, Mr. Obama?

There is only one reason President Obama is (finally) going on Fox News tonight: He believes he can make the channel look like a peddler of misinformation and lies. He is hoping to stump his interviewer, Bret Baier; he's hoping to inundate the newscaster with such verbosity that Baier will capitulate, or stumble and stammer; that he will look guilty and weak. This is an effort by Mr. Obama to show to the world that Fox News is against his goodheartedness, and that Fox has been in a campaign against not only the facts, but his benevolence. He's been bullied, thwarted, misrepresented.  

OK. Maybe there are two reasons for his appearing on Fox News.

Barack Obama's appearance is not about procuring more votes in the House. It's about this: 

"Look, I've reached out to Republicans, and I've EVEN REACHED OUT TO FOX NEWS, and they STILL refuse to accept the beauty, the clarity and the moral excellence of my vision for America. They continue to mislead and beguile, obstruct and obfuscate. Republicans, with Fox News as mouthpiece, continue to be an obstacle to progress, justice and equality. Hence, we are left with nothing but parliamentary gimmicks to pass health care reform legislation. This is about history, about who stands on the right side of it, and who stands on the wrong. We haven't any more time to waste on the naysayers. The need is too urgent; dialogue has become nothing more than a stall tactic. The TIME TO ACT HAS COME!" 

In other words, Barack Obama is interested in posing, in theater. In pretend. 

Look! Don't you see how earnest he is? He believes. Surely that counts for something. 

©2010/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved. 

Cover Your Ears! Brit Hume, Ann Coulter, And The Cross

Fox News contributor Brit Hume recently said something controversial -- on TV! -- about the nature of Christianity. Perhaps you heard his blasphemous remarks; perhaps you heard his great insult.

And perhaps you didn't.

Well, at least one person did -- Ann Coulter. I know, I know, she's a firebrand. She's a bombshell bomb thrower; a crass ideologue; a political pit bull. But set the caricatures of her aside for a moment and read what she has to say about Christianity, about it being the best deal on the planet. Is she right? Has Ann Coulter presented the gospel in a way that does justice to the "good news"?

You tell me. I'd love to hear what you think of "If You Can Find A Better Deal, Take It!" And I'd like to hear what you think of Mr. Hume's remarks, too. (Coulter quotes him at length.)

Peace.

I Was Wrong: Bill O'Reilly And Barack Obama Negotiate

I was simply wrong.

This past Friday I posted comments about the much-awaited (I guess) interview between Fox News' Bill O'Reilly and MSNBC's, I mean, the DNC's Barack Obama. In my comments I said that I thought Mr. O'Reilly did a reasonably decent job, that he asked tough questions and managed the interview well.

I also said that I felt Barack Obama did rather well, too.

After watching the interview a second time, I have to say that I was wrong in several places. First, while Mr. O'Reilly did ask some tough questions, he made something of a buffoon of himself -- and gave Sen. Obama some much-needed relief -- when he buddied up to the senator in a faux display of unity, with the two of them talking of saddling up and riding off to retrieve $78 billion in foreign aid that has been allegedly senselessly squandered. It was a very low moment in journalism, vapid, silly; sticky with narcissism.

I also believe, and I only touched on this on Friday, that Mr. O'Reilly sabotages his own interview by failing to self-edit. The guy, clearly, cannot shut up, and his leading questions, all padded out, just make him sound like, I don't know, Keith Olbermann, but without the glasses. Like Olbermann, he's quite taken with himself, and it shows in his posture, his self-referential remarks, and his over-wrought need to express where he agrees with Sen. Obama.

I note, too, that the very first question he asked his post-interview guests, Democrat Jane Hall and Republican Monica Crowley, was about him, about whether he made a fool of himself. Of course, he quickly emended the question with more SELF-reference: it was not all about him, he conceded.

But maybe it was all about him. Perhaps Bill O'Reilly represents the fulfillment of every journalist's dream: to finally interview great figures as equals, or even inferiors, injecting oneself in every sentence. Surely young journalists hope that their next story will be the one that breaks something huge, that brings them attention. Surely such a hope tempts reporters to inject themselves into their stories, eager for the big "gotcha moment," bringing great acclaim their way. Isn't Bill O'Reilly just the logical conclusion of a journalist's ambitions, holding court on all matters of state and culture?

When I heard yesterday Mr. O'Reilly's Friday radio program rebroadcast on some AM station (there is no decent talk radio on Sundays), I heard him tell his listeners that the reason he ran his interview with Barack Obama moments before John McCain gave his acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention was because of conditions set by the Obama campaign. Apparently, as one caller noted, John McCain is too much of a gentleman to have tried to upstage Barack Obama the Thursday night Mr. Obama gave his acceptance speech at his party's convention. John McCain waited till the next day to try to upstage the Democrats' candidate. But Mr. Obama, or so Mr. O'Reilly suggested, would only agree to an interview with O'Reilly if Fox ran the interview before McCain's speech. If this is true, it is stunning. Apparently it is true, as Mr. O'Reilly said that his hands were essentially tied: if he was going to have a shot at Mr. Obama then he would have to comply with the campaign's wishes. But the journalistic integrity of Mr. O'Reilly is now rather suspect, for he's admitted to being used by a political campaign. One wonders in light of such news how else Mr. O'Reilly has been used by the campaign in this interview.

As to Mr. Obama himself, he clearly remains an affable and likable chap. But that he squirmed and dodged and split already split hairs regarding his lack of support of the clearly and demonstrably successful surge in Iraq; that he could not simply say, "I was wrong," speaks volumes to me, and those volumes are resoundingly negative. He was wrong, and we all know it. And we all know he knows we know it. Yet from Mr. Obama we get nothing, really, but evasion, shrouded in the admission that the surge was successful beyond anyone's wildest dreams, meaning that everyone was wrong about the surge. (That Sen. Joe Biden yesterday actually took credit† for the successes in Anbar province, or so he offered on the Meet The Press, is a stunning example of the sort of doublespeak he and Mr. Obama enjoy.)

To think, George W. Bush is a bad president because of his alleged intransigence. Amazing. Apparently if Barack Obama is elected president, he promises to give us a third term of George Bush's inability to change course.

So, I was wrong in my assessment of the O'Reilly/Obama summit, at least in part. There is much that commends it, but there is more that condemns it. It strikes me as two men using each other for personal gain. If that is what it is, I am left feeling like I've watched something really rather unseemly. It will be interesting to see how it plays out over the next three installments, the next of which airs tonight.

†Senator Joe Biden, Sept. 6, 2008, on NBC's "Meet The Press": 'The surge helped make that--what made it possible in Anbar province is they did what I'd suggested two and a half years ago: gave local control.'

©2008 Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.

Barack Obama Faces Fox News' Tough Guy, Part 1

Two nights ago I mentioned that Barack Obama was going to meet face-to-face with Fox News bad guy, Bill O'Reilly; I watched the interview, at least part 1 of it, and this is what I think: I think Barack Obama is eminently likable; as I have said before, I find him delightful in many ways. I don't agree with him on many issues, and I think he has hurt his campaign by his soaring grandiosity and by aiming too high. But I like him, at least the "him" he presents in public. I also think that Bill O'Reilly is truly far more bark than bite; I imagine that he, too, is a very decent fellow. But these thoughts do not matter, really. What matters is what I thought of the interview.

Bill O'Reilly was tough, not pulling punches. In fact, he may have been too tough; I often squirm when I watch him do his thing. And by "too tough" I am not necessarily referring to the actual questions; it's his interruptions, sighs, sneers (though slight) and turnings of the head, and his little incredulous, impatient, skeptical snickers and gestures that come across as too belligerent. But O'Reilly put forward legitimately challenging questions on this segment's theme of national security, and while I loathe his manner (at times) and his presumptuous interruptions in his "I-got-it!" anticipation of his guest's explications, he did his job better than I expected.

And Barack Obama did far better than I expected, too. Perhaps this is success for both men via my low expectations, but I don't think so. I was struck by Sen. Obama's confidence, decency and command. He seemed more amused than flustered. He sounded convinced and convincing.

Yet, he also had his share of unnecessary hand gestures, reaching toward Mr. O'Reilly like a supplicant reaching for alms. But Sen. Obama need not reach out in "listen-to-me-Bill" supplication. And Sen. Obama is a powerfully interesting figure without playing a challenged Bill Clinton to another skeptical Fox journalist, Chris Wallace; those of us familiar with that infamous "Wipe that smirk off your face" interview remember Mr. Clinton's finger wagging and leg-poking as he denied culpability for playing politics with Osama bin Laden, politics that proved fatal. Mr. Obama might not want even to get into Bill O'Reilly's habit† of leaning too far forward, invading people's space in a show of conviction and machismo.

But really it was a great show, and Sen. Obama was very much the star, in a good way. Yes, he did seem to squirm a bit about the effects of the so-called Iraq "surge;" I don't think he'd hurt himself if he would sincerely admit his fallibility about that issue. In fact, I think a direct admission that he was wrong would actually help him. Nevertheless, he was a compelling and composed figure.

I wish, maybe, that Mr. O'Reilly had not done two things. First, I wish he had not backed off so easily on one or two points; he abbreviated a conversation that I thought could have been more fully developed had he edited his own opinions a bit. Second, I believe he was foolish to preface a question about Iraq with the insanity that he thinks -- who cares, Bill? -- that "history" will show the military action of the last 5 years was taken against the "wrong country." This effort to find "common ground" with his guest came across as sycophancy. The preface was also a bit leading, giving Sen. Obama some room to wiggle more comfortably into his "Factor" hot seat. There is no need here to explore Mr. O'Reilly's confidence in history's benevolent verdict on both men's prescience. Suffice it to say the preface seemed gratuitous, precious and very self-adoring.

All in all, both men did very well. I think this episode (the rest of the interview will air over three nights starting Monday) showed that Barack Obama remains a formidable threat to Republican aspirations this fall. I am eager to see how both men fare in subsequent installments.

†Readers familiar with Mr. O'Reilly's show know that he often brings in a "body-language" specialist to help analyze various celebrities' and politicans' postures and gestures. If you click on the image above, you'll see Sen. Obama raising his right hand, which is not necessarily interesting; what IS interesting is Mr. O'Reilly's posture and countenance. Does he look like someone who believes the senator is interesting, or does he look like he believes the senator is full of crap? I think the latter; it was this that made me uncomfortable. And if it makes me, a viewer, uncomfortable, what does it do to a guest? I admit I am no body-language expert, but O'Reilly's posture clearly evokes in me the sense he thinks Sen. Obama is a lightweight. Moreover, we all know that Sen. Obama was prepped by his handlers before appearing with O'Reilly. Surely they knew Mr. O'Reilly loves to analyze body language. Is it reasonable to assume then that Sen. Obama's body movements are not at all native to him; is he leaning forward in a coached manner solely to do well under the body language microscope? "What say you?"

Peace.

©Contratimes/2008. All Rights Reserved.

Barack Obama To Negotiate With 'Tyrants' Without Pre-conditions: The Bill O'Reilly Interview

Finally, or so Bill O'Reilly declares, Barack Obama is going to sit with the Fox News celebrity journalist for an interview (the interview will air Sept 4). That this should have been done long ago is solely my opinion; had Mr. Obama appeared less fearful (the Democratic presidential wannabes refused a Fox-sponsored debate, fearing they'd not shine in the face of such harsh diplomacy), he would not have looked, in my opinion, quite so unattractive. You have heard it before: if you can't face the 'tyrannical' Bill O'Reilly, then you really can't face much.

My observation is that when it comes to the so-called "tough" interviews, Bill O'Reilly suddenly goes rather soft. I don't mean that he goes detumescent; I am not doubting his stature as a man. I just find that he is more bark than bite: I have not been that impressed with his putative tenacity. His Hillary Clinton interview, fine on the merits, was still not the sort of hard-hitting interview we had all come to expect. Mr. O'Reilly surely is a victim of his own braggadocio; the only hard-hitting interview I can recall where he played hardball involved a shouting match with Phil Donahue. (Oh, but how could I forget his vein-popping argument with Geraldo Rivera, his colleague?)

Mr. Obama has done himself a favor by at least appearing on "The Factor." I doubt he will make a fool of himself; I doubt Mr. O'Reilly will attempt to make a fool of him. I expect a rather calm and civil interview; Mr. O'Reilly will come across as something of a journalist statesman. But the whole thing will have a calamitous effect on the left-wing idiocy about Fox News; the left will settle in to watch the interview by the thousands, nay, the tens of thousands, proving, once again, that Fox News is not some vapid chatter channel.

Anyhow, just some thoughts.

Peace.

©Contratimes/2008. All Rights Reserved.

O'bummer

To say that I am shocked by the result of tonight's Democratic Party primary in New Hampshire is undeniable. I have been walking around for the past few days predicting that Barack Obama would EASILY win in New Hampshire, and that John Edwards would come in second. Hillary Clinton, I predicted, would come in third. Tonight, while watching the precinct reports come in, my incredulity was so pointed I suspected voter fraud! Hillary Clinton wins? Are you kidding me?

Tonight I will go to bed with one fact to consider: I am terrible at prognostication. I shall leave off making predictions from now on. I've no right playing the prophet. No right at all.

(This night also raises further questions about the predictive value of exit polls. Of course, I noticed on Fox News that there was something of a prediction about the predictions: Fox News was citing in advance what the polls suggested without waiting till all the exit polls were tallied. Around 9:oo pm EST, Fox posted the final exit poll data; Clinton won by two points [or thereabouts]. Moreover, about midday I heard a radio report that some exit polls were showing Obama was winning by 10 percentage points or greater. Such reports could surely affect those voters heading to cast a ballot who have a bit of the love of the underdog in them, you know, they are sympathy voters. Yesterday Hillary "cried"; yesterday her husband declared that the media were being unfair; today it seemed she was getting beaten up. Could not a few voters have cast their votes Hillary's way simply so she would not be too badly beaten, too badly embarrassed?)

O'bummer, indeed.

By the way, Barack Obama's concession speech was the best of the night. My conviction is rather bland but not blandly held: Obama's concession speech was more inspiring -- and more interesting -- than ANY victory speech Hillary Clinton could ever deliver.

Just a few post-primary thoughts.

Peace to you,

Gnade

©Bill Gnade 2007/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.

On Politics: Even More New Puritanism, Of A Sort

It's all about the First Amendment.

Unless you are listening to a conservative give a speech. Then it's time to turn into a New Puritan. Truly, umbrage has never been so hair-triggered.

You've heard the story: After having agreed to participate in a presidential candidates' debate sponsored by Fox News, the Nevada Democratic Party has withdrawn from the event, leading to the cancellation of the debate. Something was said; the Nevada Democrats instantly turned exceedingly righteous, so righteous in fact that they stopped their ears at the sound of a particular joke. They have taken umbrage. They are full of woe and dismay.

And they are proving that America is being overrun by New Puritans.

Amazingly, the New Puritans in Nevada have come -- or so one would think -- to the defense of George W. Bush.

Take a tour with me through the horrifying joke that led to this new spate of righteousness. Roger Ailes, chairman of Fox News Channel, was fêted Thursday at the Radio & TV News Directors Foundations' First Amendment Awards banquet. During his acceptance speech, Chairman Ailes said the following (Warning: Not For The Squeamish!!!):

First of all, I was told I should do some headlines, so I'm only anchoring this, re-reporting.

I think we all need to go very slow on this global warming thing. I realize saving energy is good, but I think it may be a trick to get our anchors to stop using blow dryers.

[Laughter]

A man in France was arrested today for using his car to run down a pedestrian. He said he thought it was Osama bin Laden. OK, it was a mistake, but it still ranks as France's biggest military victory ever.

[Laughter]

John Seigenthaler and I are the same age. Look at how he let himself go.

[Laughter]

It is true that I said Britney Spears looked great at the Academy Awards. And I later found out it was Jack Nicholson.

[Laughter/ooohs]

It is true that just in the last two weeks Hillary Clinton has had over 200 phone calls telling her in order to win the presidency she must stay on the road for the next two years. It is not true they were all from Bill.

[Laughter]

And it is true that Barack Obama is on the move. I don't know if it's true that President Bush called Musharraf and said, 'Why can't we catch this guy?'

[Laughter]

Yes, yes. Pretty shameful stuff. In fact, it is the very worst one can imagine. But I am wondering: Could you pick out the joke that has been declared a mortal sin?

Well, in case you didn't catch it, it is the joke wherein Barack Obama's name is mentioned. That's right: The great offense is the joke ridiculing George W. Bush.

I know, I know. It IS hard to understand how the Democrats of Nevada could be so sensitive about jokes mocking the president. I am, indeed, surprised that they should so quickly come to his defense. But I am no doubt prone to committing the fallacy of facetiousness; the Democrats of Nevada are actually SHOCKED that it was jokingly insinuated that a tongue-stumbling president might confuse the name of Barack Obama with Osama bin Laden. That Bush would be prone to this sort of mistake should have given Democrats some pause, as Bush's shibboleth would prove that he was a threat to decency, and a friend of Sen. Edward Kennedy's. After all, who can forget the great outrage when Sen. Kennedy said in 2005 (see YouTube clip here):

"Why don't we just ask Osama bin Laden, Osama Obama, uh, Obama, what his ... since he won by such a big amount."

(Now that's funny! Of course, there was no outrage.)

But the New Puritans in Nevada, led by the chief puritan, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, have pulled the plug on any Fox News Channel cooperative because, in light of Mr. Ailes' joke given at a banquet honoring free speech:

"We cannot, as good Democrats, put our party in a position to defend such comments."

And what comments might they be, other than ones ridiculing the intellectual and verbal capacities of the President voiced under the constitutional right to free speech? Democrats cannot defend these comments? Since when?

But the real reason the Democrats are backing out of the Fox News-sponsored debate is due to pressure from MoveOn.org; the real reason is hidden in this priggish quip by MoveOn. org, which called Fox News a "mouthpiece of the Republican Party." In other words, the left-leaning MoveOn.org crowd is intimidated and fearful; they are not confident enough in their own convictions to be asked questions by folks allegedly committed to Republican ideals. The Democratic Party -- or so we can hear them say -- is only so strong and convincing: it will gleefully submit to a New York Times-sponsored debate because that medium is a Democratic Party mouthpiece, where the questions will be safe, easy, unthreatening. But Democrats debating in a Republican-biased forum? Impossible!

And to top all this off, journalists rushed to Barack Hussein Obama to ask him whether he was "offended" by a joke that had nothing, really, to do with him. He replied that he was not offended.

'"I didn't take great offense at the joke," Obama said in an Associated Press interview while campaigning in Iowa. "I have been called worse."'

He's been called worse? One might be tempted to tell the Blessed One (Barack means 'blessed') that he was not called any thing in Mr. Ailes' joke, that this had nothing to with him. But who would do such a thing? After all, when it comes to campaigns, presidential candidates probably do think that everything is all about them.

Umbrage!

©Bill Gnade 2007/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.