The Liberals over here think that the 60 Minute interview was poorly conducted and partisan. I think it was a typical hard hitting 60 Minutes interview with a interviewee who was trying to be somewhat evasive. What do you think?
MP Obama on 60 Minutes
MP Obama on 60 Minutes
22 comments:
If you look at the transcript, it's pretty clear the interview was poorly conducted. Steve Kroft seemed unable to bring himself to ask a question.
People are always demanding that interviews be hard hitting. But it has been my experience that it's the soft ball questions that have been the ones that have famously tripped up candidates. Sarah Palin couldn't tell us what newspapers she read, or cite a Supreme Court case she didn't like. Rep. McCarthy messed up with answers to questions he literally posed to himself. The tough questions people want answered are often the argumentative questions, questions that assume matters in dispute, such as the questions Kroft sort of circled around. And experienced politicians know how to respond to those questions, as President Obama did in the interview.
--Hiram
I am not sure if I would be happier if:
1. Obama was skillfully avoiding giving candid answers. (ie lack of character)
2. Obama is oblivious to what is happening in the Middle East. (ie excessive denial of reality)
At least if it is #1, then he may be doing it for a good reason. (ie keep up morale, showing strength for future negotiations, etc)
On talk radio, where the host is talking to inexperienced individuals, he can get away with the tactic of demanding responses to argumentative questions, or alternatively accusing the respondor of not giving candid answers. Where the person questioned is more experienced these tactics don't work so well. In the Planned Parenthood hearings, the congress people were the inexperienced people and it was Richards who answered the questions effectively.
I have no doubt that Obama is a great deal better informed about what's happening in the middle east, certainly better informed than Steve Kroft whose questions on the subject were framed in a domestic political context. Something the president is very aware of, and something Republicans seem utterly oblivious to, is the cost of intervention. One thing he is very aware of, I suspect, is that there will be no negotiations because there is no one to negotiate with.
--Hiram
As I said over there...
"But "challenging that leadership" is "challenging that leadership"... Steve did not say that Putin had "taken over that leadership"... Whereas Obama went straight to denial that a contest was even underway. It was odd." G2A
Al Jazeera Coordinating
MSN Iran Sends Fighters
Now these are not Republican sources. I am not sure what Obama thinks he knows... But to me it looks like the Russians and Shiites are mounting quite the challenge to control the region.
Kroft was under the impression that we are the leaders of Russia, or maybe the middle east. He was sort of confused on that. But in any event, that's a way domestic politicians talk when the other side is in charge. It has no international reality.
--Hiram
In any event, is there something wrong or untoward with challenging leadership. Isn't that what we did with President Bush? Isn't that what Republicans today are doing with respect to President Obama?
==Hiram
I'm puzzled both by the whining about the questions asked and the whining about the answers given.
Kroft's interview relied on too many tired journalistic tropes (in particular, the "some say" question), but that's old hat by now. Meanwhile, Obama did what all skilled politicians do, which is to reframe questions to suit their own purposes. I found nothing remarkable about the interview at all.
Sean, On this we agree. I watch about 10 minutes of it and decided I wasn't going to learn anything new.
Hiram,
I just thought Obama's answer to this:
"Steve Kroft: A year ago when we did this interview, there was some saber-rattling between the United States and Russia on the Ukrainian border. Now it's also going on in Syria. You said a year ago that the United States-- America leads. We're the indispensible nation. Mr. Putin seems to be challenging that leadership.
President Barack Obama: In what way? Let-- let's think about this-- let-- let--"
should have been... "Yes, they are trying to do so in Iraq and Syria, however we are doing ... to maintain leadership..." His questioning that a challenge is under way seemed either evasive or naive
Nations act in what they perceive as their best interests, but journalists act like foreign affairs is a contest to see who has the largest penis among world leaders.
I'm so glad that people like you are willing to do what I will not: listen to 60 minutes OR Obama, and both together? Arrgh!
I only saw a few minutes of the interview and I thought obama aswered the questions well. As usual I will substitute a link I found interesting rather than attempt in depth analysis myself:
discussion of leadership
and here is another link that better fits "the GOP is the radical party of chaos" post but I will throw it in here:
Republicans Gone Wild: Q&A with Mann and Ornstein
Obama's partnerships seem to be failing the people of Syria.
Triumvirate
Newsmax Cuba in Syria
Syria, Iraq, Iran, Russia
A year ago when we did this interview, there was some saber-rattling between the United States and Russia on the Ukrainian border. Now it's also going on in Syria. You said a year ago that the United States-- America leads. We're the indispensible nation. Mr. Putin seems to be challenging that leadership.
It's hard to imagine what Kroft's point was. Does he think leadership goes unchallenged. Were we not challenging Putin's leadership when we led western nations to impose sanctions on his regime? If so, was that a bad thing?
Kroft isn't known as one of the sharper knives in the box. If he really wanted to talk about challenges to Obama's leadership, a clearer thinker would have asked about cases where Obama is challenged by people he has actually led. In foreign affairs, one case would have been when the British Parliament refused to go along with his bombing campaign in Syria. I am sure there have been others.
--Hiram
What has proved to be an effective political strategy against President Obama is to set unrealistic, and in some case, absurd goals and then challenge him or even criticize him for not reaching them. Steve Kroft, unwittingly I think, fell into this trap with the 60 Minutes interview. He suggested that Putin was challenging Obama's leadership. Well the leadership of presidents is challenged all the time. Kroft was doing it by asking the question. On the face of it, the question was about as banal as any question can get. Even President Obama, a pretty smart guy who has gone through a lot of challenging in the last seven years, couldn't quite locate the point in Kroft's question.
The issue on the table, and quite possibly what, shrouded in euphemism, Kroft was asking was whether the president was once again lead America into war in the Middle East. Why didn't he just ask that?
--Hiram
I think the question wells down to the definition or expectations of what a leader IS. For example, a leader generally does not publicly draw "red lines" and then totally deny drawing them when opposition crosses them. They do not telegraph to the enemy what our timetable is for withdrawal of forces when the battle is ongoing. They do not complain when opponents challenge them on the world stage, but set forth specific responses from a set of possibilities, and then follows through on them. As I expected, Mister Obama seems to have failed every test of international leadership put before him. I'm not sure I would have even asked the question Mister Kroft did, since the answer seems so obvious.
"Mister Obama"
His title is President. Your hatred and dismissal of the man shines through with every word.
President Bush's past actions continue to hobble us on the international stage. Thank goodness for President Obama.
Joel
Joel,
Please explain the hobble us comment.
I understand that the choices of Bush and the Legislators of the 2000's cost us money and lives... I am not sure they hobbled us in any way. At least Putin, the terrorists and crew weren't on the offensive during that period of time. Whereas now they are.
Joel, I chose the title deliberately to be derisive of the clown you helped elect and his disastrous handling of international affairs. You can blame some things on Bush but really, after 7 years, are you ever going to hold this guy responsible for ANYTHING? Or are you insisting that world affairs are just peachy-keen, like he sometimes does?
" At least Putin, the terrorists and crew weren't on the offensive during that period of time. Whereas now they are."
You must have a strange definition of "on the offensive".
jerry-
Your contempt for our duly-elected President is noted. Luckily for you, you have the freedom to proclaim it loudly and proudly...as if it makes you a patriot.
Bush's legacy is sufficiently set; Obama's is not yet finished being written.
Joel
"Obama's is not yet finished being written."
That's what worries me. And HE thinks he gets to do the writing. "Made peace with Iran" he is writing. I think most of us can already see what BS that is.
Post a Comment