Bill O'Reilly's Impact Segment with Barrack Obama
The O'Reilly Factor, Fox New Network
Last Thursday, Bill O'Reilly finally got his chance at Democratic Presidential Nominee Barrack Obama. On Saturday, Jan. 5th, O'Reilly "famously" scuffled with an Obama staffer and got a few words in with the Senator from Illinois. Both O'Reilly and Obama were congenial, and a handshake agreement was formed between the two. Obama would appear on "The Factor,:" or be mercilessly skewered by the media. In all fairness, had Obama dodged this interview he would have deserved every attack (they had actually already started). So, still to my amazement, Obama appeared on a hostile network and confronted their most pronounced champion.
First, why the surprise? Some people claim most dubiously that Fox is not slanted one way or the other. Some even claim it's "fair and balanced," so I will go ahead and preemptively write about why in this particular case Obama went out on a limb. To begin, I have to explain my current view of the mainstream media. There is a sort of "spectrum of truth," that exists in the media. I believe this is a sociological issue, and not a money issue, but nonetheless it's an issue. There are three distinct categories as I see them: Left, Educated, Right. Being on the left or the right forces one to really polarize to that side. Over time a network has to defend the networks stances albeit as "independently" as possible. In the case of the educated, I believe there is a large segment of the population that has received higher education which leads to exposure and liberalism. That's a discussion for another day, but the point is that I think this "educated" class really flows towards whatever ideologically makes sense for the country. One possible supporting fact is the rise of Ron Paul who seems almost libertarian in his views in a modern political context. Ideologically, Paul's stance is decent, but in reality it's comparable to a literal interpretation of the Bible... It's just not practical. In the end, the idea is that the "educated" class can swing either direction. Right now, "educated" equates to "liberal," and the polarizing affect of the lean itself coupled with the ultra polarized "Bush Zone" has caused the middle segment to be clearly left. Here's a quick summary of what I just wrote:
- In the current climate, there will always be media outlets with interests leaning left or right: there are outlets on the left and on the right.
- These networks compete on an open market, so they reasonably normalize on the left and right.
- The lean is therefore determined in a large part by the networks that try to remain truly independent. I call this group the "educated" group.
- Currently (and for decades now) the "educated" group has been on the left, therefore, the media is somewhat overall liberally biased.
The liberal media: MSNBC(Left), CNN(Left), CSPAN(educated), Fox(Right), ABC(Right)
(watch Rupert Murdoch, Head of Fox discuss this topic here)
So, Obama ventured away from the safe havens of CNN and NBC and boldly walked into the lion's den. He promised an interview "after the primaries," and he has delivered. Now on to the meat!
Interview on Foreign Policy : Summary / Analysis
O'Reilly does the right thing in congratulating Obama on being a man of his word at the onset of the interview. It seemed genuine, and I believe O'Reilly knows he pulled a big one for his one career and integrity. The niceties were short lived though, as O'Reilly went straight to the point: his concern over Obama's national security qualifications and views.
"Do you believe we are in the middle of a war on terror?"
"Who is the enemy?"
These were the warm up questions which Obama easily handled with a contrite, "Absolutely" and a short but distinctive description of radical terrorists. Obama conspicuously left Iran and North Korea off of his list of enemies in the war on terror. I personally believe this was the right move. America has enough problems now dealing with the Iranians, we don't need to sabotage future relations in the case that Obama does get elected. Obama certainly alludes to this sort of affect when O'Reilly later challenged him on whether he would "prepare to attack Iran." Obama smoothly noted that it would be somewhat ill advised to discuss specifics of an attack on Iran/Pakistan/whomever at this point for anyone especially a presidential candidate. Still, the right continues to look at North Korea much differently then they do Iran, and it is worth noting. The discussion stayed on the middle east, and reached a boiling point where liberals and conservatives typically cross swords on this topic: terrorism links.
What Obama said was basically that Iran is clearly a threat, but obviously not the same threat that produced 9/11. He partially based his argument on the differences between Sunni and Shia Muslims. (note: Sunni countries/militants responsible for 9/11) Simply stated, most Muslims are Sunni, and believe that their leaders should be elected, while the minority Shia believe in a monarchistic system. with 85% of the Muslim population claiming Sunni. This was (at least the initial) impetus for the divide within the Muslim faith, but is now totally moot. What matters is that Al Qaeda is Sunni, while the Iranians are mostly Shia. Their hatred for each other, whether politically or religiously founded, means that they are certainly not cooperating to beat up on America. Iran is taking advantage of the situation in Iraq to try and ensure Shia control in one the of last viable battlegrounds for the Shia. According to the CIA Factbook, Iraq is 65% Shia. Only Iran, Azerbaijan, Iraq, and Lebanon (in that order) have a Shia majority. What does this mean for us? It means Iran's stake in Iraq revolves around their need to establish another Shia nation in the middle east.
(source: CIA Factbook estimates circa 2005 via wikipedia)
Obama's insights into the middle east and the religious forces in play there were a direct contrast to the past administration's obvious bungling of Iraq, and was a definite win for him during his interview. In the end it came down to the nuke question, and Obama said what he's always said, that nukes change the game and must be respected accordingly. This is the idea that highlighted the importance of the "prepare to attack Iran" scenario, and the silent promise is that preparations will be (if they haven't already been) made. The real question is whom do we trust to decide whether we're too close to "WMD" in Iran or not?
Later, O'Reilly questioned Obama on his stance on the surge after calling him perspicacious regarding the vote to stay out of Iraq. O'Reilly tried to corner Obama into admitting a mistake in not supporting the surge. I think this was a big loss for Obama, not because he was wrong on the issue, but because he failed to communicate how his stance might have been constructive. In other words, Obama, for once, lost points because he wasn't quick enough to formulate a strong response. One such response might have been that opposition is extremely important in politics. One must stand up for their beliefs regardless of the situation. The surge may have been a good idea in practice, but in theory it would have been a flip-flop in relation to Obama's initial position in opposing the war. Obama opposed the war, but we still went. Obama opposed the surge, but it still happened. In both cases he had an obligation to vote based on his ideals, and not on the political consequence. One might argue that in this case, the political and ideological choices overlap and I would agree, but that does not mean the choice was made for political reasons. I would respond that Obama's initial opposition to the war supports the idea that Obama acts based on ideals and nor politics. So why not admit he was wrong on the surge? Because he doesn't think he was ideologically. He very well might have thought the surge was a practical solution, but as part of a legislative body his job is to represent the ideals upon which he was elected. As president, his job would be to do what is best for America, and that might have meant supporting a surge. In any case, dissent plays an important role in democracy, and regardless of the result of the action in practical terms, Obama maintains the right to disagree with the action on an ideological basis.
Finally, O'Reilly tested Obama on Pakistan. The Pakistani situation has, I've thought, always been a strong point for Obama. He stood his ground, but promised more of the same sort of dealings we've had for years. Recently, a US official was attacked in Pakistan, so more of the same there doesn't seem like the greatest idea.
Report Card:
- Iraq: B-
- right in the beginning, stuck sticking to his guns on the surge
- Iran: A-
- smart, and seemed educated on the pre-reqs for dealing with the middle east
- Pakistan: C+
- par performance
- National Security:
- Incomplete
- Debate:A
- missed A+ for stuttering and missing on Iraq, handled O'Reilly rudeness well
- Overall: B+
- good performance with room to improve later
Posts
