# Obama to appear on O'Reilly tonight **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 4, 2008, 9:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-to-appear-on-oreilly-tonight/462056 "2008-09-04T21:24:56Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![JohnnieEnigma](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/dfb087/32.png) [@JohnnieEnigma](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JohnnieEnigma)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2008, 10:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-to-appear-on-oreilly-tonight/462056/21 "2008-09-04T22:27:58Z")
> [@NurseCarmen](#): > > Thanks. I needed a laugh. Sure, O’Reilly is a big blowhard and he has his value system that he lives by, but he goes after both sides evenly, depending on the issue. It’s just that liberals tend to think anyone who criticizes them is a right winger. They’re not use to media going after them. Republicans are used to being attacked, so they think nothing of it. But if you really watched O’reilly, he goes after issues, not a particular party. ---
**Author:** ![SmartAleq](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/smartaleq/32/163_2.png) [@SmartAleq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SmartAleq)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2008, 10:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-to-appear-on-oreilly-tonight/462056/22 "2008-09-04T22:32:56Z")
If I have the timing of all this correct, McCain’s acceptance speech will be running directly against BOTH the NFL season opener AND Obama on O’Rly? Gee, wonder what that’s gonna do to the RNC ratings? ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2008, 10:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-to-appear-on-oreilly-tonight/462056/23 "2008-09-04T22:33:53Z")
I’m willing to let Stewart/Colbert pick out the highlights on my behalf. ---
**Author:** ![ArizonaTeach](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/45deac/32.png) [@ArizonaTeach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ArizonaTeach)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2008, 10:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-to-appear-on-oreilly-tonight/462056/24 "2008-09-04T22:37:57Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Kind of like announcing a VP choice the night after your opponent’s convention speech. This is payback. I seriously doubt it’ll get the play Palin did, but you never know. Maybe the talk will be about how Obama [admits the surge succeeded beyond his wildest dreams](http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/09/04/obama-surge-succeeded-beyond-wildest-dreams/), and how he “absolutely” believes we’re fighting a War on Terror, both ideas in direct opposition with many here. ---
**Author:** ![JohnnieEnigma](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/dfb087/32.png) [@JohnnieEnigma](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JohnnieEnigma)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2008, 10:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-to-appear-on-oreilly-tonight/462056/25 "2008-09-04T22:43:12Z")
> [@ArizonaTeach](#): > > I seriously doubt it’ll get the play Palin did, but you never know. > > Maybe the talk will be about how Obama [admits the surge succeeded beyond his wildest dreams](http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/09/04/obama-surge-succeeded-beyond-wildest-dreams/), and how he “absolutely” believes we’re fighting a War on Terror, both ideas in direct opposition with many here. I think the Palin story was groundbreaking mostly because she is a woman. It’s like there is an innate and automatic dismissal of female candidates - at least high ranking candidates. Look what happened to Hillary. There was no way in her wildest dreams that she ever thought she would have been bumped by anyone. For some reason, a person’s children are an issue if the candidate is female. Not to me, but to many. Also, her hair style, voice, eye glasses, and every other irrelevant issue. I’m kind of disgusted with the whole thing. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2008, 10:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-to-appear-on-oreilly-tonight/462056/26 "2008-09-04T22:44:56Z")
> [@JohnnieEnigma](#): > > Sure, O’Reilly is a big blowhard and he has his value system that he lives by, but he goes after both sides evenly, depending on the issue. It’s just that liberals tend to think anyone who criticizes them is a right winger. They’re not use to media going after them. Republicans are used to being attacked, so they think nothing of it. But if you really watched O’reilly, he goes after issues, not a particular party. Eh? O’Reilly is definitely conservative – **movement** conservative – and attacks anybody or anything he perceives as liberal. “Liberal” does not of course equate to “Democrat,” but it works out that way more oftent than not. ---
**Author:** ![Pashnish\_Ewing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/8797f3/32.png) [@Pashnish\_Ewing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pashnish_Ewing)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2008, 10:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-to-appear-on-oreilly-tonight/462056/27 "2008-09-04T22:45:35Z")
That link says the interview is in four parts, and the rest will air Monday - Wednesday next week. What a rip-off. So that means they’ll air, what, 15 min. of it tonight? ---
**Author:** ![Knorf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/58956e/32.png) [@Knorf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Knorf)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2008, 10:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-to-appear-on-oreilly-tonight/462056/28 "2008-09-04T22:48:02Z")
> [@JohnnieEnigma](#): > > But if you really watched O’reilly, he goes after issues, not a particular party. I suppose the fact that the “issues” O’Reilly “goes after” are overwhelmingly GOP platform planks is pure coincidence. ---
**Author:** ![Punoqllads](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/d2c977/32.png) [@Punoqllads](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Punoqllads)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2008, 10:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-to-appear-on-oreilly-tonight/462056/29 "2008-09-04T22:50:27Z")
> [@Least\_Original\_User\_Name\_Ever](#): > > When both sides say that the media is biased against them, they’re both wrong. Unless one side is so used to getting its belly scratched that an objective viewpoint feels like a punch in the gut. ---
**Author:** ![Slacker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/6bbea6/32.png) [@Slacker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slacker)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2008, 10:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-to-appear-on-oreilly-tonight/462056/30 "2008-09-04T22:53:45Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > They could have announced it before the Dem convention or at least waited a day. It was intentionally timed to try to fuck the morning after discussion of Obama’s speech, and it worked. Except McCain hadn’t yet heard of Palin before the DNC. 😉 > [@BobLibDem](#): > > Now I gotta figure out the channel number for Fox Noise, all my TVs and remotes are set to bypass the silly thing. I don’t know if I even get Faux Noise. Like I’d flip away from football to watch it anyway. Thank the Good Dude for Youtube. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Carrot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f0a364/32.png) [@Captain\_Carrot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Carrot)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2008, 11:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-to-appear-on-oreilly-tonight/462056/31 "2008-09-04T23:04:32Z")
> [@JohnnieEnigma](#): > > I think the Palin story was groundbreaking mostly because she is a woman. No, it’s groundbreaking because she was unknown nationally and is inarguably inexperienced. If McCain had picked Snowe or Hutchinson, it would have been far less surprising. > [@JohnnieEnigma](#): > > It’s like there is an innate and automatic dismissal of female candidates - at least high ranking candidates. Look what happened to Hillary. There was no way in her wildest dreams that she ever thought she would have been bumped by anyone. That’s because she was and is very egotistical and ambitious, and she’d been working on it for years, not because she has ovaries. > [@](#): > > For some reason, a person’s children are an issue if the candidate is female. Not to me, but to many. Also, her hair style, voice, eye glasses, and every other irrelevant issue. I’m kind of disgusted with the whole thing. Family is always a concern, but more so for female candidates, it does seem. And mostly, yeah, with a few exceptions (Edwards’ haircuts), appearance is much more scrutinized for someone who might wear a pantsuit. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2008, 11:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-to-appear-on-oreilly-tonight/462056/32 "2008-09-04T23:16:56Z")
> [@ArizonaTeach](#): > > I seriously doubt it’ll get the play Palin did, but you never know. > > Maybe the talk will be about how Obama [admits the surge succeeded beyond his wildest dreams](http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/09/04/obama-surge-succeeded-beyond-wildest-dreams/), and how he “absolutely” believes we’re fighting a War on Terror, both ideas in direct opposition with many here. The escalation (the correct military terminology is “escalation.” “Surge” is a political tard word which has no military meaning or significance) has failed in its political goals, which are the only goals that matter. Obama’s just being polite about how the escalation coincided with a downturn of violence brought about by Sunnis before the extra troops got there. Things are less violent there for the moment, but that’s irrelevant, and still a waste of money and resources since we never had a reason to go there in the first place. Don’t get too excited. No Obama supporter is going to give a fuck that he politely praised the troops or used the phrase “war on terror.” ---
**Author:** ![Valgard](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/7feea3/32.png) [@Valgard](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Valgard)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2008, 11:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-to-appear-on-oreilly-tonight/462056/33 "2008-09-04T23:17:12Z")
> [@JohnnieEnigma](#): > > For some reason, a person’s children are an issue if the candidate is female. Not to me, but to many. Also, her hair style, voice, eye glasses, and every other irrelevant issue. I’m kind of disgusted with the whole thing. I understand that you don’t think Palin’s daughter is an issue because Palin is a woman, but I just don’t see why anyone would think that’s the case. Reagan’s kids were an issue. Carter’s daughter was an issue. Bush (H)'s kids weren’t an issue because they were adults. The Clintons made a point of telling everyone to stay away from Chelsea. Bush (W)'s daughters certainly came under plenty of scrutiny (as did Jeb’s daughter). Palin’s daughter isn’t coming under scrutiny because Palin is a woman but because she was underage, unmarried, having unprotected sex and wound up pregnant. Because of Palin’s positions (and those of the Republican party) on abstinence-only sex education, abortion and the whole “family values” theme, it’s a legitimate topic. ---
**Author:** ![Punoqllads](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/d2c977/32.png) [@Punoqllads](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Punoqllads)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2008, 11:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-to-appear-on-oreilly-tonight/462056/34 "2008-09-04T23:47:15Z")
> [@Valgard](#): > > I understand that you don’t think Palin’s daughter is an issue because Palin is a woman, but I just don’t see why anyone would think that’s the case. Reagan’s kids were an issue. Carter’s daughter was an issue. Bush (H)'s kids weren’t an issue because they were adults. The Clintons made a point of telling everyone to stay away from Chelsea. Bush (W)'s daughters certainly came under plenty of scrutiny (as did Jeb’s daughter). And in every case you mention, the media scrutiny was extremely inappropriate. > [@](#): > > Palin’s daughter isn’t coming under scrutiny because Palin is a woman but because she was underage, unmarried, having unprotected sex and wound up pregnant. Because of Palin’s positions (and those of the Republican party) on abstinence-only sex education, abortion and the whole “family values” theme, it’s a legitimate topic. No. If Sarah Palin’s response towards her daughter’s pregnancy was hypocritical, e.g., if she drove her daughter to a Planned Parenthood right there on the spot, then that might be a legitimate issue. But her treatment of her daughter’s pregnancy has been completely in line with the viewpoints that she promotes. I take great issue with folks trying to use Brooke’s pregnancy as a wedge against the right-wing’s “family values” mantra. Kids make mistakes. If you want to point out that abstinence-only sex ed. is empirically inferior to properly informative sex ed. at preventing teen pregnancy, there’s a mountain of statistics out there to show you’re right. No sense in adding a single, biased, hurtful data point. ---
**Author:** ![Pashnish\_Ewing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/8797f3/32.png) [@Pashnish\_Ewing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pashnish_Ewing)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2008, 11:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-to-appear-on-oreilly-tonight/462056/35 "2008-09-04T23:48:09Z")
> [@JohnnieEnigma](#): > > I think the Palin story was groundbreaking mostly because she is a woman. It’s like there is an innate and automatic dismissal of female candidates - at least high ranking candidates. Look what happened to Hillary. There was no way in her wildest dreams that she ever thought she would have been bumped by anyone. So you think there was an innate and automatic dismissal of Hillary as a presidential candidate? She started with a huge lead in the polls and over the course of several months couldn’t earn more votes or delegates than her opponent. How is that automatic? ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2008, 11:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-to-appear-on-oreilly-tonight/462056/36 "2008-09-04T23:49:12Z")
Irrespective of the pregnant daughter, it’s hypocritical to oppose abortion even in the case of rape or incest, yet also oppose sex education or birth control. ---
**Author:** ![Pashnish\_Ewing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/8797f3/32.png) [@Pashnish\_Ewing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pashnish_Ewing)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2008, 11:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-to-appear-on-oreilly-tonight/462056/37 "2008-09-04T23:51:40Z")
> [@Punoqllads](#): > > If Sarah Palin’s response towards her daughter’s pregnancy was hypocritical, e.g., if she drove her daughter to a Planned Parenthood right there on the spot, then that might be a legitimate issue. But her treatment of her daughter’s pregnancy has been completely in line with the viewpoints that she promotes. I take great issue with folks trying to use Brooke’s pregnancy as a wedge against the right-wing’s “family values” mantra. Kids make mistakes. Which has fuck-all to do with Sarah Palin being a woman. Actually, I’m not sure if that’s part of your point or not. ---
**Author:** ![Chingon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chingon/32/17645_2.png) [@Chingon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chingon)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2008, 11:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-to-appear-on-oreilly-tonight/462056/38 "2008-09-04T23:55:23Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Irrespective of the pregnant daughter, it’s hypocritical to oppose abortion even in the case of rape or incest, yet also oppose sex education or birth control. Not hypocritical in the least bit if pregnancy is the punishment for sex. ---
**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2008, 11:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-to-appear-on-oreilly-tonight/462056/39 "2008-09-04T23:57:58Z")
> [@JohnnieEnigma](#): > > I know O’Reilly is basically non-partisan, He’s about as non-partisan as the Pope is Lutheran. :dubious: ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2008, 11:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-to-appear-on-oreilly-tonight/462056/40 "2008-09-04T23:58:15Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Irrespective of the pregnant daughter, it’s hypocritical to oppose abortion even in the case of rape or incest, yet also oppose sex education or birth control. How do you figure? “Any fetus that gets started for any reason needs to be born regardless of circumstances” and “The only correct way to avoid making babies is abstenance absorbed through undiscussed osmosis” don’t seem like contradictory positions to me. (Incorrect, and perhaps stupid, but not contradictory with each other.) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-to-appear-on-oreilly-tonight/462056.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-to-appear-on-oreilly-tonight/462056.md?page=3)