I have to admit that while I'm not surprised that the interview was pretty "scripted" (meaning safe, pre-arranged, non-controversial, etc.), I thought FOR SURE that there would have been more fireworks. O'Reilly and Hillary both agreed that she needs to be (and is somewhat expressing through the campaign and in being on O'Reilly's show) tough, and she did pretty well defending her positions on taxes and health care, especially. I did love how after the interview, 2 "key" things happened: 1) two "Obama fans" (who were also female) had the opportunity to react right after the interview on the first day, while the "tough discussion" (or important work) was left for later with one-on-one interviews with Dick Morris and Dennis Miller. It's almost as if O'Reilly (or the producers) were hinting, "that's nice that you ladies have a few minutes worth of smiley comments to make, but move over so that the men can get down to the real issues! Grrrrr!" This was followed up later with BIll O'Reilly trying to rebuild his machismo with Miller, as he's trying to assert that he did, indeed, ask HRC the "tough questions." OY!
Did anyone watch the Dick Morris interview later in the show on the first day of the interview? He was saying something to the effect that Hillary has moved from attracting her core of "feminist and abortion voters" to attracting voters who "don't like Obama because of Wright." Comments? I find Dick Morris to be a near-sighted moron who probably sided with Falwell who thought that lesbians, working mothers, and feminists were the cause of 9/11, but who can tell these days...
Sorry for the pithy-ness--I had to watch O'Reilly for two hours over the past two days...wah!
Posts
3 comments:
I have only been able to find the first two parts (aired on day one of interview) online, I assume the others will be posted before too long. My reaction will therefor be limited to a discussion of day one. I'll post additional thoughts later.
First: how about my guess? O'Reilly hits hard on Rev. Wright for a while and Clinton smiles and says she doesn't agree that America is the moral equivalent of Al Quaeda. I have to agree that she did a good job defending her policy positions against O'Reilly's scripted and somewhat soft attacks. It certainly reinforced my perception that she is great on the issues. I thought the format was interesting. O'Reilly basically said "here is a reason conservatives like me don't like you, response?" It was a bunch of free air time for Clinton to explain her positions. I wonder why O'Reilly would be so interested in helping her out? Is it part of a right wing conspiracy to undermine Obama? Is it just a ratings stunt?
Either way, I thought Hillary came out looking good and I was surprised by how congenial they were with each other.
Yes, Ben, I did think as I watched the first night that you had predicted well. I also did not see the second night's clips -- and if someone finds them please post them to the blog so we can watch.
Jim, I, too, found the two women who spoke immediately after (framed as Obama supporters) as suprisingly light [read: no substance] with their comments -- and they used rather sexist language to describe the interview, such as suggesting she "played" with O'Reilly (dig a deeper hole, ladies, for all of us to climb out of...).
The Dick Morris segment was "bleh" as well. He had said for so long that Hillary was going to be the next President that I can't help but wonder if his subsequent segments have been all about saving face (of course, that hasn't seemed to be a real issue he has worried about much in the past...). I did not find his segment to be of any use whatsoever in analyzing the interview.
Further, I just turned the sound off when O'Reilly was interviewing Miller... really??... we call that interaction something worthwhile to put on the air? O'Reilly was, in fact, rather soft with her -- although she was prepared to talk over him as much as he talked over her -- and I did think he hinted a few times at a slightly more challenging (not intellectually challenging but challenging in the frame of conflict) series of questions (i.e., raising taxes, the dig about New York), but not particularly overall.
Okay, now to a few things we can’t overlook – PINK??? – she wore PINK!!! Haven’t you heard the old saying (perhaps only we have heard it, Kelly) no one [read: woman] ever got to the boardroom wearing pink? What a fascinating choice – of course we have talked about the issue of female candidates predominantly wearing formal attire (except when walking through a wheat field, of course) to reinforce the image of viability. But think about this one – if you are trying to appear tough and verbally “stand up” to a rather raucous pundit, to escape the image of appearing to be a “b” do you wear a softer style of clothing (and pink) in order to keep the audience at ease with the double bind??? Perhaps I am reading too much into this, but I was surprised…. pink… really? There was a reason.
And now for the last, shocking part of my post… alright, here I go even as I bite my tongue… I thought she did well, came across solid and strong (not as a “b” kind of strong but knowledgeable, and the interview suggested she was willing to stand her ground). She can clearly adapt to a variety of contexts and situations effortlessly, which is a little scary, but she is polished and an excellent performer. I did think she started off strong with her comment of going after the oil cartels, but finished up weak on that point when O’Reilly pushed her on how she would make her threats stick (we all have to drive less and use less oil/gas…. ummmmm, is that the best threat we can offer??? – that “Hey you big oil thugs.. I’ll get you, I’ll ride my bike today – so there!”…. Hey, Hil – how about having a chat with your union buddies about allowing car makers to fully transfer over to alternative fuel options in our vehicle manufacturing instead of opposing that move because you are afraid that it will be detrimental to your union members – yep, compliments of a fascinating testimony by the unions in front of a senate committee about a year ago). So in the long run I gagged fewer times than expected and did not feel an intense need to find soap and water. Regardless, if one were to choose which show to enhance your candidacy with … O’Reilly or the ever soft and cuddly Sunday morning shows, I think you make the strategic move toward O’Reilly… Obama, you likely lost on this one.
I found the other two videos here:
http://www.foxnews.com/oreilly/
I thought that Clinton was good on immigration, strong on Afghanistan and fairly strong on Pakistan, stellar on water boarding, and so so on Iran. I don't think it is wise to agree that Iran is the most dangerous threat to the US while still advocating a war with Afghanistan. I imagine people thinking, "hey, put the troops were the danger is." Why not argue that Ahmadinejad is a political figurehead without much power, that the real leader (Khamenei) has issued a Fatwa against the production, stockpiling or use of nuclear weapons, and that there are serious forces for moderation in Iran now (in the form of a youth Democracy movement and powerful moderate politicians like Khatami and Haji)? Why not argue that we should be worried about a terrorist network that has proven the desire and capacity to strike us rather than a posturing state that can be deterred by threat of force?
Well, there is my Iran rant. One of the reasons I turned away from Clinton when I originally decided to support Edwards was because of her hard line stance on Iran.
In all though, I thought she did a great job pushing back on the issues. I though O'Reilly went after her more this time, especially on torture. I did notice the pink this time around too, and I agree with Dr. B, it seems to help her manage a double-bind. Especially considering the anti-grandma image she had when she was first lady in the first Clinton term, I think it helped. In this interview in particular, when she was taking on such tough and typically masculine issues, it brought a balance. I'm sure it was planned.
One last thought on Iran. Is it really so bad if they get a nuclear weapon? Pakistan has them and is much more closely connected to Al Qaeda and the forces that attacked during 9/11 than Iran. Why haven't they let a nuke slip? Because it is vital to their survival as a state that a nuclear attack on the US does not get traced back to them. Because a nuclear weapon is supremely important to their national and security interests and they can't take the risk that one will be used on another nuclear power (India/Israel/US). Iran may talk crazy, but I think if they got a nuke they would start sounding alot more moderate. No-one in Iran wants their lovely country turned into a glass parking-lot and no-one will risk it. So why would we start another war over it? Before you call me crazy, take a look at this:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/27/opinion/27posen.html
Post a Comment