Charlie Gibson's interview with Obama and Sarah Palin

@Barb42 (4225)
United States
September 15, 2008 12:12am CST
" The following is a breakdown of the questions asked of the nominees: 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]" Taken from Chesler Chronicles at Pajamas Media http://pajamasmedia.com/phyllischesler/2008/09/12/charlie-gibson-this-is-no-way-to-interview-a-vice-presidential-candidate-even-if-she-is-sarah-palin/#comment-6618 In your opinion, do you think Gibson was fair or bias in his treatment of Palin after seeing the questions he asked of both candidates. Keep in mind that Palin is a VP choice and Obama is running for the President of the US. Don't you think that Gibson should have been asking him tough questions?
2 people like this
5 responses
@Taskr36 (13928)
• United States
15 Sep 08
Well Obama spent the majority of his campaign only doing scripted fluff interviews, and fluff stories for magazines. Gibson's interview with Obama was centered around trying to portray him as history in the making. His interview with Palin was centered around trying to make her seem unqualified and uninformed. That's why he tried to trick her with that "Bush Doctrine" crap. She answered properly based on the definition he himself has used in the past. He just chose a new definition that day to make it seem that she didn't know what she was talking about.
2 people like this
@Barb42 (4225)
• United States
15 Sep 08
You are right about Obama. And now they are trying to 'reinvent' him, make him over to what they think the public wants. But if we have astute voters, they aren't going to buy into this. I was very proud of the way Palin handled herself during that interview. And, every time she called him Charlie, I chuckled! She was just being herself. Even in Alaska, they all call her Sarah, not governor, and that's not that they don't respect her, but that she is of the people, FOR the people and she connects with them, just as she is connecting to those here in the lower 48 states!
1 person likes this
• Philippines
15 Sep 08
Obviously Gibson is bias in his interview. He is pro Obama and his questions to Palin is something like he wanted to put her down. Media suppose to be in the middle not siding any party though they have their own party to vote, they should be fair in treating candidates.
@ladyluna (7004)
• United States
15 Sep 08
Hello Barb42, Excellent discussion! It would be unfair for me to question the veracity of Nancy Kallitechnis' presentation of the content of the Gibson/Obama interview -- since I did not see it myself. In the spirit of fairness and honesty, I will ask you (and the reader) if anyone is aware of a YouTube version of the Gibson/Obama interview? I see great benefit in watching the two interviews back to back. Having not seen the Gibson/Obama interview, I'd like to thank you for taking the time to present the differences between the content of the two interviews. Perhaps it's just me, but having observed handling differences in other parts of the media between Sen. Obama and Gov. Palin, I'm still bemused to see that any seasoned, serious journalist would have 'fluffed' and 'kid gloved' any candidate to this degree. Call me silly for over-estimating Charlie Gibson, but I expected a greater sense of gravitas from Mr. Gibson. Quite frankly I'm stunned that Charlie Gibson would have asked Sen. Obama so many questions about how he and his family 'felt' about Sen. Obama's White House run. One would think that Charlie Gibson may have perceived Sen. Obama's presidential run as a personal achievement for the Senator, rather than as an electoral choice of national leadership for 'We The People'. I cannot help but wonder if Mr. Gibson prepared for the interview from the perspective of the candidate as the first African-American person to be nominated by a major political party, rather than as a man who wishes to be elected as the leader of the free world. This of course is a huge pet-peeve of mine. Specifically, when a political candidate is running for the Office of the Presidency of the U.S.A., there should be no hyphenation in his or her designation as an American. Our President is never male-American, or female-American. Our President is never Irish-American, or African-American. He or she is, and should always be simply AMERICAN! I did see the Gibson/Gov. Palin interview. While I concluded that the tone was rather condescending, I did not take issue with the content of the questions that Mr. Gibson asked Gov. Palin. I want my next president to be ready, willing, and able to tackle the tough questions and issues. I want to know that Charlie Gibson is a 'walk in the park' as compared to the challenges that our leaders will be ready to handle, as presented by the maniacal tyrants of the world. Charlie Gibson should be no more flustering than a fly circling one's freshly grilled hamburger at a Fourth of July picnic. I walked away from the Gibson/Palin interview with that sense that Gibson failed to 'trip her up'. Instead, she cemented my perspective that she will not let anyone walk all over her. If she believes that being forthcoming will be beneficial, then she'll be forthcoming. If it is more beneficial to keep one's hand close to the chest, then she will act accordingly. The Israel/Iran question IS such an issue. Rather than give Mr. Gibson (and the viewer) any room to speculate or fabricate what she may have intended from her answer, she quite deliberately refused to engage the topic. That is exactly how the Israeli/Iranian situation must be played out. We can NEVER tip our hand to America's enemies. While the comparison is not yet feasible, I did see a glimmer of the makings of another 'Iron Lady' in the mix. For which I was pleased and assuaged. Part of what has been so troubling for me personally has been that so many Americans seem willing to ignore how fundamental experience, judgement and readiness really are as it relates to stepping into the job of the nation's top Executive position. For me personally, the popularity of a leader isn't nearly as important as is whether he or she knows how to conduct the business of the nation. If, as some have suggested, the race to the White House is part of the training process, then it would seem that Gov. Palin is following an Olympic training model. If this Gibson interview is indicative, then I cannot say the same for Sen. Obama. Shame on you Charlie Gibson for providing little more than fluff & fodder for 'We The People' to use in our electoral vetting process!
1 person likes this
@Barb42 (4225)
• United States
15 Sep 08
This interview is the talk of the journalists and the internet. Fox News has been talking about it this morning. Charlie Gibson, in my opinion, went after Palin in order to make her appear unsuited for the position, but it was really questions that should have been asked Obama since he's the one running for President. It was 'gotcha' questions, but she didn't get trapped. The problem was more the editing, though, done by ABC. It appears she's not giving good answers, when in fact, she gave great answers, showing she definitely is ready to assume the job of VP. I honestly believe he was a little sexist in asking her if she really thought she could do the job when he never asked Obama the same question. Obama has been given a free path to say whatever, build on himself rather than being asked those questions that really matter when it comes to being President. I believe they are afraid he may not give the answers they are looking for in 'their' liberal candidate since he isn't good without a teleprompter to give him the answers. He does a great talk, but he can't keep his answers straight from one interview to the other. So they hesitate to ask him serious questions. You are right. We are electing an American to the office of the President. They should be asked about the issues. But this wasn't the case with Charlie Gibson and the Obama interview. I feel he stepped over the line in going after Palin. It looked like he was attacking her simply because she was a woman. Perhaps this wasn't his intention (must give him the benefit of the doubt), but the way he treated her in contrast with the way he treated Obama makes one think this.
1 person likes this
@ladyluna (7004)
• United States
15 Sep 08
Hello Barb42, Perhaps I'm seriously out of the loop here. Are you saying that Fox News has drummed up the video of the Gibson/Obama interview, and is re-airing clips to demonstrate how substantively different the Gibson/Obama and the Gibson/Palin interviews were? As I mentioned earlier, I sincerely believe that it would be beneficial for voters to see the two interviews side-by-side. So, if Fox is doing this, then terrific. Although, how many voters won't see it because it's Fox? Grrr! I watched the Gibson/Palin interview. The editing was patently obvious, and I agree with those who have suggested that Conservatives ought to contractually insist on being allowed to have their own video camera on site, during any interview with the mainstream media. I believe that such conditions would scare the bejeebers out of the MSM, and would force them to conduct themselves more professionally. Which, after all, is all I'm asking from them in their capacity as 'professional journalists'. Is that too much to ask?
@ch88ss (2270)
• United States
15 Sep 08
This it the reason why many regular citizens cannot run for President or VP. Becuase we are not as sneaky about avoiding the question as they are, they are good at pretending to answer the question, without giving the answer even when pressed for an answer of "yes" and "no" they know how to politely and intelligently give an answer without the answer. I know I be caught off guard and not know what to say.
1 person likes this
• United States
15 Sep 08
Yeah Obama is pretty sneeky about talking around his questions this isnt the first one he has done this with. I actually can honestly say I've not seen an interview where he has actually answered a question right out.
1 person likes this
@newtondak (3950)
• United States
15 Sep 08
I personally don't put much emphasis on the media interviews as something that influences my choice. I feel that they automatically put the person being interviewed on the defensive and do not reflect a true picture of the candidate or their positions on the issues.
@Barb42 (4225)
• United States
15 Sep 08
I agree with you on this. But the problem is, nobody puts Obama on the defensive. Even O'Reilly asked more pertinent questions of Obama than Gibson did. If you are going to interview them, please treat them both the same, which Gibson did not.
@newtondak (3950)
• United States
15 Sep 08
This is true, but many of the interviewers are biased one way or another and let that get in the way. One network took action to rectify that problem - there are a number of others that need to do the same.