Video Catch Up

I've mentioned a number of video clips over the past few days, so I wanted to get caught up on those.

First, here's the lipstick-on-a-pig comment from Obama:

As I said before, he may have been taking a dig at Palin, but I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt since it's completely unverifiable (unless he admits it), and his context is pretty clear (though both his supporters and detractors alike seem pretty confident that that's exactly what he meant). Regardless, my point is that if you listen to him, Obama is hopelessly unfit for the most powerful job in the world - he stumbles around, struggling mightily to set up a simple joke and deliver the punchline effectively. How do you think he's going to do when real discussions with real world leaders are in full swing?

Here's the segment of The View in which Whoopi Goldberg asks if she should be worried about becoming a slave again:

*sigh* It's a good thing she's known for being completely rational.

A few days ago, I had mentioned that Barack Obama did an interview with Bill O'Reilly of Fox News Channel. There was a rumor that the interview was conducted on the premise that O'Reilly would go easy on Obama, and that really rubbed me the wrong way. Here are the clips, if you're interested:

After watching clips of the interview, though, I have to say that O'Reilly didn't appear to pull his punches. I think he was forced to let a lot of things go, given the time constraints involved in the interview, though, and I would have liked to see him press for more specific details. But, there's the interview...you can make up your own mind as to how it went.

Now, I wanted to spend some more time on the Palin/Gibson interview. Courtesy of Marie's Two Cents, here are two clips:

The uproar from Gibon's interview has been almost universally negative, and I wanted to pass along some of the more legitimate criticisms. Hot Air points out what appears to be a rather obvious double standard from Gibson's interview with Palin compared to Gibson's interviews with Democrat candidates. Below is a comparison of the list of questions Gibson asked:

Obama interview:

How does it feel to break a glass ceiling?
How does it feel to “win”?
How does your family feel about your “winning” breaking a glass ceiling?
Who will be your VP?
Should you choose Hillary Clinton as VP?
Will you accept public finance?
What issues is your campaign about?
Will you visit Iraq?
Will you debate McCain at a town hall?
What did you think of your competitor’s [Clinton] speech?

Palin interview:
Do you have enough qualifications for the job you’re seeking? Specifically have you visited foreign countries and met foreign leaders?
Aren’t you conceited to be seeking this high level job?
Questions about foreign policy
-territorial integrity of Georgia
-allowing Georgia and Ukraine to be members of NATO
-NATO treaty
-Iranian nuclear threat
-what to do if Israel attacks Iran
-Al Qaeda motivations
-the Bush Doctrine
-attacking terrorists harbored by Pakistan
Is America fighting a holy war? [misquoted Palin]

Newsbusters, meanwhile, has Gibson’s interview with John Edwards in 2004 after being selected as John Kerry’s running mate. Edwards had less than a full term in the Senate as his entire political background, and no foreign-policy, military, or executive experience at all. Yet Gibson didn’t press Edwards on these points at all. In fact, the entire interview consisted of a hard-hitting interrogation … on how mean Republicans are:

GIBSON: You speak with such equanimity this morning. Didn’t they make you mad last night?

EDWARDS: Oh, I thought they were over the top, completely over the top. And, and actually what bothered me more than anything was in the midst of -I mean, there was, if you, if you got up and went to your refrigerator to get a Diet Coke, you would -you would miss everything Dick Cheney had to say about health care and everything he had to say about jobs. I mean, this is the first, we’ve had 11 straight presidents in this country, Charlie, who have created jobs. This is, until George Bush. You know, we’ve got all these folks who are having trouble with their health care premiums going up, 26, 27 hundred dollars, and what do they have to say about it? Nothing. I mean, don’t people deserve to know from their president and vice president what it is they’ve done and what it is they’re going to do? And instead, all we hear is a lot of rhetoric about, about their opponent. I mean, I just think leaders in this country, the American people deserve leaders who are better than that and do better than that.

GIBSON: Did you get mad, though?

EDWARDS: Oh, yeah. I was, I was, especially about the personal attacks against John Kerry, because they’re false. I know this guy and I know what he’s made of inside and he’s ready to lead this country.

Compare, contrast, and draw your own conclusions.

Boy, that sure is hard-hitting, isn't it?

Jay Nordlinger offers the suggestion that Gibson's very demeanor was a sign of bias, and that alone is cause for concern:

I have now examined long stretches of tape. And he is amazingly condescending, prosecutorial, and snippy — even interrupts a lot. Insufferable. This is not the Gibson American television viewers have long known.

In his loud sighings and overall body language, he reminded me quite a lot of Al Gore, in the first 2000 debate.

Remember that debate? Governor Bush did poorly, but Gore’s behavior was so boorish, people tended to focus on that (and a Saturday Night Live parody absolutely slew Gore).

Cliff May examines whether or not Palin's request to clarify what Gibson meant by the Bush Doctrine question -- which is being hailed as dangerous ignorance by the Left -- truly shows a lack of understanding on her part. He references an interview done by Alan Johnson (for a book) with Anne-Marie Slaughter, dean of the Woodrow Wilson School at Princeton, who most would consider a true expert in foreign policy. The full details -- which are interesting on their own -- can be read at the link, but here's how the exchange begins:

Johnson: What are the central differences, and what are the elements of continuity, if any exist, between 'the Bush doctrine' and the 'grand strategy of forging a world of liberty under law'?

Slaughter: Tell me what you mean by 'The Bush Doctrine'.

Sound familiar? A brief refresher:

GIBSON: Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?

PALIN: In what respect, Charlie?

Gibson has just inadvertently proved that Palin is apparently a foreign policy expert...!

Michelle Malkin concludes that, even though Gibson did a considerable amount of twisting and misrepresentation in his adversarial interivew, Palin remained calm and collected, and that's why the Left is throwing fits over her - their attacks are ineffective.

UPI said it was clear Gibson screwed up big time, and that a backlash could be coming:

Charles Gibson of ABC News was out for blood and inherently applied a double-standard compared with the kid gloves George Stephanopoulos used on Democratic presidential nominee Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois on Sunday night.

Gibson was out to embarrass Palin and expose her presumed ignorance from the word go. By contrast, when Obama referred to his "Muslim faith" on Sunday and did not correct himself, Stephanopoulos rushed in at once to help him and emphasize that the senator had really meant to say his Christian faith.

The pattern of previous presidential election interviews and debates has always been that individuals who come across as intellectually superior, arrogant and condescending forfeit support that goes to their perceived victims. This dynamic played a crucial role in propelling George W. Bush into the White House eight years ago. It remains to be seen if Gibson's perceived arrogance and condescension will give Palin another boost. It certainly didn't help the Democrats that ABC's chief political correspondent, Stephanopoulos, who had rushed to Obama's aid only four days before, was wheeled on to discuss her interview with Gibson as soon as it was concluded.

Finally, we have the biggest bombshell of them all. Mark Levin posted the entire transcript of the interview with Palin on his website here. This is critical, and it's what people (myself included) have been asking for since the interview aired. Why is it important? Because you can see just how much hacking was going on in ABC's editing room to try to frame Palin's answers the way they wanted. On Levin's site, he makes the statements that have been removed from the aired version of the interview bold and underlined. Take a look at how Palin's answers change if you fill in the 'edited' information (see the link for all of the examples...below are just a couple). On meeting with foreign leaders:

GIBSON: Have you ever met a foreign head of state?

PALIN: There in the state of Alaska, our international trade activities bring in many leaders of other countries.

GIBSON: And all governors deal with trade delegations.

PALIN: Right.

GIBSON: Who act at the behest of their governments.

PALIN: Right, right.

GIBSON: I’m talking about somebody who’s a head of state, who can negotiate for that country. Ever met one?

PALIN: I have not and I think if you go back in history and if you ask that question of many vice presidents, they may have the same answer that I just gave you. But, Charlie, again, we’ve got to remember what the desire is in this nation at this time. It is for no more politics as usual and somebody’s big, fat resume maybe that shows decades and decades in that Washington establishment, where, yes, they’ve had opportunities to meet heads of state … these last couple of weeks … it has been overwhelming to me that confirmation of the message that Americans are getting sick and tired of that self-dealing and kind of that closed door, good old boy network that has been the Washington elite.

Remember, the bolded and underlined words were cut from the aired version of the interview. Now, on the Bush Doctrine:

GIBSON: Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?

PALIN: In what respect, Charlie?

GIBSON: The Bush — well, what do you — what do you interpret it to be?

PALIN: His world view.

GIBSON: No, the Bush doctrine, enunciated September 2002, before the Iraq war.

PALIN: I believe that what President Bush has attempted to do is rid this world of Islamic extremism, terrorists who are hell bent on destroying our nation. There have been blunders along the way, though. There have been mistakes made. And with new leadership, and that’s the beauty of American elections, of course, and democracy, is with new leadership comes opportunity to do things better.

GIBSON: The Bush doctrine, as I understand it, is that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense, that we have the right to a preemptive strike against any other country that we think is going to attack us. Do you agree with that?

PALIN: I agree that a president’s job, when they swear in their oath to uphold our Constitution, their top priority is to defend the United States of America.

I know that John McCain will do that and I, as his vice president, families we are blessed with that vote of the American people and are elected to serve and are sworn in on January 20, that will be our top priority is to defend the American people.

GIBSON: Do we have a right to anticipatory self-defense? Do we have a right to make a preemptive strike again another country if we feel that country might strike us?

PALIN: Charlie, if there is legitimate and enough intelligence that tells us that a strike is imminent against American people, we have every right to defend our country. In fact, the president has the obligation, the duty to defend.

On that prayer about God's mission:

GIBSON: You said recently, in your old church, “Our national leaders are sending U.S. soldiers on a task that is from God.” Are we fighting a holy war?

PALIN: You know, I don’t know if that was my exact quote.

GIBSON: Exact words.

PALIN: But the reference there is a repeat of Abraham Lincoln’s words when he said — first, he suggested never presume to know what God’s will is, and I would never presume to know God’s will or to speak God’s words.

But what Abraham Lincoln had said, and that’s a repeat in my comments, was let us not pray that God is on our side in a war or any other time, but let us pray that we are on God’s side.

That’s what that comment was all about, Charlie. And I do believe, though, that this war against extreme Islamic terrorists is the right thing. It’s an unfortunate thing, because war is hell and I hate war, and, Charlie, today is the day that I send my first born, my son, my teenage son overseas with his Stryker brigade, 4,000 other wonderful American men and women, to fight for our country, for democracy, for our freedoms.

Charlie, those are freedoms that too many of us just take for granted. I hate war and I want to see war ended. We end war when we see victory, and we do see victory in sight in Iraq.

GIBSON: I take your point about Lincoln’s words, but you went on and said, “There is a plan and it is God’s plan.”

PALIN: I believe that there is a plan for this world and that plan for this world is for good. I believe that there is great hope and great potential for every country to be able to live and be protected with inalienable rights that I believe are God-given, Charlie, and I believe that those are the rights to life and liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

That, in my world view, is a grand — the grand plan.

Do you see how much difference it makes to have the entire interview? Context is crucial, and they hacked a lot of it out in this interview. The journalistic integrity of Charles Gibson has just taken a nose dive, as has ABC's editing hack job, only proving even more definitively that the media is doing its best to actively take Palin out of the equation.

Once again, I say keep it up. It'll only enrage and disillusion more and more Americans, thus helping to ensure the Obamessiah's defeat in November.

There's my two cents.