very true, and a tough interviewer needs to recognize that in order to keep the conversation on point instead of turning into a rambling campaign speech... i'll give oreilly credit for steering the course of the conversation on this, as the interviewer it is necessary to guide the conversation... oreilly didn't throw out any gotcha questions to raise controversy or anything, overall it was decent and I think they both came off pretty well
Nah, your right on Brett. Parents are to blame. The parents of today are different In this day and age.
I don't think it was a combative interview either, the President played him like a fiddle. Soon as he was interrupted he let Bill change the question and would smile. One person looked like an ass after the interview, and it was not the President. The President was like .
There is no way in hell you seen the same interview I did, unless Bill O'reilly is your uncle or something.
you do realize he posed virtually the same questions to bush and interrupted him as well right?? its his interview style... obama knew this when he accepted the request for the interview... talking about the substance of the interview I thought oreilly (aside from his interview style which i don't like - I have to emphasize this cuz I've stated it several times and you don't seem to get that I don't care for it much) asked fair questions and obama gave solid answers... oreilly had 15 mins to get a ton of questions answered without interrupting obama he would have given 5-10 minute answers just like he has done in press conference... he had to be interrupted to get thru all the material otherwise the interview is no longer an interview but a campaign speech for obama... I know you are a liberal kinda guy, of course you're gonna see it as a 15 minute boxing match with each fighter tryin to 'get' each other... but its a pretty safe bet that when an interview pisses off both left and right that it struck a pretty middle ground tone... the hardcore righties were po'd that oreilly didn't pound on obama, just like the hardcore lefties thought oreilly was a bully and treated the pres poorly... fair bet that when both sides didn't like it you probably landed in the middle pretty close... they did some stylistic sparring, obama stood up to oreilly when he had to and oreilly stood up to the pres when he had to... the questions were fair and oreilly never tried to push the pres into a corner... seriously, what more could you ask for in a serious interview?? questions about what his dog liked to eat or what his favorite color was?? yes oreilly can be an ass but having seen oreilly a few times before, he toned it down a LOT for obama... I thought he was being respectful, you can't just give the interviewee (even if he is the president of the USA) the floor to say whatever they want without being challenged or kept on track, and when you have time constraints to deal with you are forced to keep the interviewee on point and on track... honestly, this is where your bias toward obama shines bright brotha... you have to remember that this wasn't a hannity/limbaugh/levin interview, those guys would have tried to play gotcha with the pres the entire time and actively tried to make the pres look bad, oreilly did not do that at all... they would have made obama into a defense witness and would have tried to be a prosecutor...
Gotta agree with this 100%. Anyone taking any more than this away from that interview already had a biased opinion before it ever started.
Bull Chit! You know whats so funny about this, all of it! I'll ask you again, what is the point of an interview if you don't let them answer a question. Ya think! he's the President, It's in our best interests if he does well. I was cheering for the last one till he bent us over and dry humped us for 8 years. This aint no home town football game.
I already said I knew Bill was an ass, anyone that has a book on raising childern then has to pay someone a couple Million in an out of court settlement for sexual harassment in the work place is a ass in my book, so yes I'm biased. Has little to do with the interview though, I'm a common sense type person. I watched it again (Twice) last night. 43 interruptions in the first half, 72 total for the interview. Anyone that thought Bill O'reilly did a good job, already had a biased opinion of their own befor it ever started. I'm not one of the ones that come running like I punched their mom every time someone says something about the Fox new boys. Get real guys! Tell you all what, try talking like Bill did to the President to someone on the street, the least you will get is a cursing and you will be damn lucky if you can still eat corn on the cob. Just being honest here.
The people I talk to on the street actually answer my questions. Try interviewing a politician and getting a straight answer without interrupting their diatribe, it cant be done. Period. I actually cant stand Bill O'Reilly, but I dont think he did a poor job here.
So the best way to conduct an interview is to not let the person being questioned answer the question. LMAO, not in my world!
its to force the answers to be concise, not long and drawn out diatribes, something which obama is very well known for. I guess you'd rather him to have been asked 1-2 questions and let him ramble on for 15 mins (the time allotted) unchecked, right?
Hey Sliv... We don't agree on politics. That's fine....honestly. Your views are as valid as anyone else's. And, I'm not much of a Bill O. fan, myself. BUT....the POTUS knew what he was gonna get. In "Bill" terms, he was soft on the Pres. (IMO). That's ALL I'm saying. If the Pres. would've wanted someone to ask him softball questions.......and someone who would allow him to pontificate/filibuster......he would've granted the interview to C. Matthews; Matt Lauer; Katie Couric or James Carville. If he'd gone that route, though......FAR less would've taken the interview seriously. I'm not saying Bill "won"...or the POTUS "lost". I honestly feel like the Pres. came off exceptionally well. As an orator, he's extremely gifted.
There is really only two question any good report should ask Mr. President we have X amount money coming in, your budget is more then X, what are you going to cut? What taxes are you going to raise?
1. He'd give you an inaccurate numbers on credits.....and inaccurate numbers on debits. 2. When you say "raise".....are you talking over and above the standard rate of increase? Or, are you talking rate increases to the current rates? If the std. rate of increase is 3%, and his policy is an increase of 5% over the current rate, he'll cite a tax increase of 2%. And, if your plan is to place the lion's share of the tax burden on one group.....and excuse the tax burden on another.......it would depend on who you're talking about getting said increase, huh? He could say he's not increasing taxes on a large portion of US taxpayers......and, in one sense (twisted as it may be), he'd be factually correct. The duty of the credible interviewer, interviewing someone in his position, is to know when he's blowing that smoke up your ass.
