48 times (in Links)

In before Ranger. That's a mess, this is what Fox News calls political TV?

I'm sure I'd have gotten irritated long before someone got to 48 times.

Irritating people is what he aims for -- getting a rise out of people makes for popular television. But I'm surprised that the president accepted the offer to appear on Bill's show. I guess he felt his speaking abilities were strong enough to parry the slanted comments and win over GOP voters.

The handlers pushed for this, much was scripted for both, or else they wouldn't do so on superbowl sunday. People aren't hanging on his every hopeful word anymore so why not make a spectacle on the most watched day of the year. With the lesser evil of the slanted comedy to really get that strength/sympathy vote for putting up with bitter questioning. This small ordeal has done more for Obama's future approval of which these small polls won't show. As for "The Factor" well I hope we catch Bill jumping on an orange grenade someday.

This is well documented shtick for doing an interview when you want to retain control of the message without letting facts or reason get in the way. Just interrupt.

Look at Stephen Colbert when he does an interview on his show. He interrupts the guest easily as many times as this, he does it to mimic Bill O'Reilly. I'm pretty sure a lot of those other pundits on Fox News and other networks do it. But it's just a shtick to make sure the interviewee doesn't get to define the message coming across to the viewers.

Obama isn't going to get angry at Bill O for being disrespectful, that will just play into Bill's hands. You'd think he'd at least let the POTUS get a word in edge-wise though, jeez.

There is only a certain limited time for an interview, even less than normal given the Super Bowl edition.

If you look at past Obama interviews, he monopolized the time by giving answers that in some cases had nothing to do with the question at hand. But all politicians do this. Obama is one of the best.

Bill was just trying to get an answer to the question he asked, without any superfluous verbiage that would try to distract from the question.

I thought it was a good interview and Obama actually gave a few good answers to tough questions.

Both sides did well given the circumstances.

Here is the classic example of what Obama does very well, that is not answer the question at hand but give a long rambling answer to monopolize the time.

If Bill let Obama do just this, we would have had 1 question, with 1 answer that would have had no relation to the question.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2010/04/obamas-17-minute-2500-word-res.html

Link to the uncut version?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t6HyXCHndmk

O'Reilly interview with Obama

Because you're conservative, are you required to defend Fox News pundits against all criticism? You can interrupt someone without being disrespectful about it. The entire interview both Obama and Bill managed to hold onto their ground without giving any ground.

As with a lot of interviews I've seen with Bill, he always talks from a point of self-righteous condescension, his questions try to belittle the interviewee rather then interrogate the interviewee. Example:

Bill:"What is about the job that has surprised you the most, that you weren't prepared for coming in here?"

He asks one question about the "job", notice he doesn't say "presidency"; and then he asks a stinker question. If you answer the first one, you are also answering the second more jaded and mean-spirited question.

Remember back during the election? Remember when people were stating that Obama was the inexperienced one? This question is playing into that pre-existing message.

He'll cut off any intern that dares to tell him why the tide goes in & out too.

Nope, just unwanted criticism. I have yet to see any "liberal" on CB critique anyone on a left leaning station. Just those on Fox.


Well for me and a lot of people, that is still a huge factor of this presidency.

And if you watched O'Reilly's interview with W, you will see he asked a lot of similar questions. Interruptions and all. And no liberal got upset or even made any remark about it.

It seems that any critique of this guy bring out charges of unfairness, racism among others.

O'Reilly was asking questions and did not allow Obama to filibuster that time. I call it good reporting, not letting the interviewee take control of the interview.

I assume you aren't referring to anything on CB, as there is no such commentary in this or any other recent debate regarding Obama; the only time I ever see Obama's race mentioned is by conservatives claiming he was elected due to his race. (Although I agree that that likely played a very large role in his win of the presidency.)

No, Thankfully nothing on CB. But in numerous articles, critique of Obama leads one to be called racist.

If you doubt this, put 'critiques of obama and racism' in google and read away.

And I agree Obama's race did have an effect on the 08 election. And likely will in 12.

But I know of very few people, except those on the fringe, that dislike Obama due to his race. It is his liberal policies that do it.

CB doesn't hate on the "mainstream" liberal news because they aren't as offensive, religious, or as egocentric.
As for his race, which was a dominant factor for his victory no matter the voter color, the intense hate of his policies seems to be nothing but camouflage for racists.

I don't watch TV. That about sums it up for me.

ditto. i don't even have tv any longer after buying a sony blu-ray player with a netflix app i cancelled my satellite subscription! ; )

That makes three. I ditched TV a bit over a year ago. Thanks, Hulu and the 10,000 other sites.

I don't watch any news on TV. I don't feel like news on TV is trying to inform me, I feel like most news is trying to inject their own message or slant into the news. I read news online or listen to NPR or read the newspaper. I realize that no news source is "unbiased" but if you read enough different news sources you are bound to get good news. Also I'd much rather read news from the Fox News website then from their godawful TV network.

I don't think any self-described well-informed-person should only watch one network or one news source. I think, and hope that Ranger gets his news from more then just Beck/Limbaugh and other purely 'conservative bias' news outlets.

I don't like TV News because there aren't any good journalists doing hard-hitting analysis of the news, just silly pundits looking to increase their viewership through taking controversial stances on everything.

^ I agree with fex, if you're going to get your news from anywhere, it should come from many different sources so you can piece things together for yourself rather then get spoon fed what people want you to hear based on their own bias and agendas.

You learn more from gaining understanding of multiple views then you do from ones that are exactly the same as your own.

I am rather insulted you or anyone would believe that I only listen/read Foxnews. Just as I would doubt that you or Bob just view extreme left wing sites such as MSNBC. I listen or read all side of a situation before making an opinion. It just happens that my views on fiscal policies fall to the right. If we have a discussion on social issues you will see I am a bit to the left of center. But if an issue is both fiscal and social, I lean strongly to the right.

In fact, the best website I have found that has all points of view:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/
They have articles from extreme right and left sites as well as more moderate sites.

I also read MSNBC.com and watch CNN at work.

Among that other more rightward leaning sites I regularly view.

Go for allowing transgendered people in the army. Post transition and current, instead of calling it a medical amputation along with a psychological dementia...

I didn't mean to disrespect Ranger, you seem pretty well-informed. I just don't understand why you jump up to defend these silly pundits. :)

I defend them because in the situations you have put up, including this thread, they are right.

I still believe O'Reilly was correct in interrupting Obama during this interview.

For the many reasons I stated earlier in this thread.

I have stated in the past that I personally watch Beck only for a few minutes at a time. While I agree with his theories (most of the time), he does have a way of grating on you if you listen for extended periods of time.

But just as much as I defend Hannity, Back and O'Reilly, people on the left defend Maddow, Schultz and Olbermann just the same.

I doubt anyone you know defends Maddow & friends unless it's for the sake of shared hate for Fox news.

mind = blown

not the first time

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sv7q_E84LB0

This thread could easily be titled "48 times Obama dodges the question"

OReiley had a good idea of what would happen after Bret's interview.

He had to appear strong at the start of his term or nothing would have got through senate. Much of which I hate, but that was for show and explaining. He lacked the same pep for Bill. Must add Bret is a real reporter and Bill is an opinionated bully. We smell our own. :P
Was going to make this my user pic, but some nutbar would ask to have this one taken down. ;)

Black come in, white go out. Never a miscommunication. You can't explain that!