O’Reilly wasn’t as “loud” as he was in part two, but there were still some interruptions.
His posture was a little different this time. (Or maybe I just noticed it…)
Obama sits up straight, leaning slightly forward.
O’Reilly has a facination with a “body language” expert, whom he occasionally invites on the show to examine various interview/video clips, and make general statements about that persons state of mind. For example, someone who licks their lips a lot could be nervous or uncomfortable. Anywho, Obama’s posture is a good one. Upright and leaning forward supposed to indicate interest and sincerity. (I don’t know how much “posture coaching” various public figures may or may not have gotten.)
O’Reilly’s posture, on the other hand, was slightly negative, in my uneducated opinion. O’Reilly’s face, torso, and knees were facing slightly away from Obama (to O’Reilly’s right). O’Reilly’s eyes were looking straight at Obama, with his right eyebrow cocked up a little. It looks like an “Oh really?” pose…
Another interesting Obama mannerism I noticed: When Obama was trying to “rein in” O’Reilly, when O’Reilly got animated, he would lean forward and gently touch, or nearly touch O’Reilly on the knee with his left hand. This personal contact appears like a reassuring gesture. “Come on… this is me here”; “let’s get serious”; “I’m sincere here…”; etc.
O’Reilly’s style is definately not stiff and formal. It’s much more informal, like the guys on Cheers when they discuss politics while drinking in a pub. He sees himself as a regular working class stiff who made good.
I can see how his style sticks out like a sore thumb if you are used to watching the more refined professionals in that profession.
A part of me wishes that Obama would be less gentlemanly and just say “Look Bill, you talk of associations. You had a producer on your show who sued you for tens of millions of dollars for sexual harassment and you paid her, your supposed pal Rush Limbaugh in addition to his other scandals has called you Ted Baxter, you’ve cut the microphone to your guests, you’ve told so many lies about your past there are books about them, you described a trip to a soul food restaurant in Harlem like you’d describe a safari and seem almost shocked there wasn’t a drive-by shooting, and you accused an 11 year old boy of staying with the child molester who kidnapped, raped, and threatened to kill him if he ever tried to run away of not going back to his parents because he just didn’t like school. You jokingly referred to forming a lynching party for my wife for God’s sake- gee, no racist imagery there! You have absolutely no credibility and you owe your fortune to people who are either too crazy or too stupid or too hate filled or some combo of the three to think for themselves, and… I’m sorry, what was the question? Ah yes… I’m fine. How are you?”
This is interesting. I come at this from the other side. I’m voting for McCain and don’t care much for Obama. But, I have to say, I think he came off quite well. And I think that is due, in part, to the casual, conversational tone of the whole interview. O’Reilly would interrupt. Obama would interrupt his interruption. It felt like normal conversation and helped Obama show that he’s less the elitist orator that he usually comes off as being. To me anyway. Just thought I’d share that.
I’m glad Obama went on. He came off smart and real and less political pro. I think he was a little too nice in not challenging Bill more on the tax issue, and just one frigging time I’d like him to say, "Even though I don’t agree with the statements Wright made, or what Ayers did years ago, it’s just malicious dishonesty to take one or two events out of a persons life and treat it as if it defines that whole person. The whole guilt by association game is a cheap political diversion from real issues. Is that what we need more of in this election?
What really pissed me off was after the analysis they were talking to Greta Van Susteren who was in Alaska and raving about how everybody loved Satah and nobody had a bad word to say. Bill said CNN was doing a thing about Palin’s church and hoped they weren’t attacking her religion. GVS said, ON FOX no less , “Yeah, they tend to pick out clips and take them out of context, to make her look bad”
Gee Greta, How exactly does that work? Holy freakin hypocrisy.
ORielly was also slamming MSNBC for being too biased. Granted they sure can be , but dam, someone has to tell the other side of the story. I just wish Oberman would present the facts without the snarky superiority.
My only criticism of Obama is that he is too careful with his answers. McCain is a lot more clear and direct than Obama is. This doesn’t mean McCain is smarter, but it could hurt Obama in the debates.
It’s not like these questions are new. Obama should have developed a clear and succinct way of answering them by now.
I agree. I have a feeling O’Reilly was a little intimidated the whole time, thus being interuptive with bad posture. He would have done a better job with a behind the desk scene. Why they choose that open interview format, I’ll have no idea.
Perhaps he realized that Obama will never step foot in a Fox studio again and this was his only chance?
On the associations issue … equating Daily Kooks to all of Fox News seemed to be the tactic… you really think that works among average hard working Americans?
Hilarious. So instead of giving Obama credit for verturing into the lion’s den as it were, you turn it into a negative thing because he’ll “never step foot in a Fox studio again?”
And I assume “Daily Kooks” is your LOL!NICKNAME! for Daily Kos? I thought Obama’s argument was eminently reasonable there. However, if it’s not, I suppose there’s fun to be had there too. For example, did you know that according to Fox News (or should I say FAUX NEWS LOLLERS!1) McCain’s cheating on his first wife was just as big a deal as John Edwards cheating on his? True story!
I’ve noticed this as well. I’m voting Obama but in watching him I think his answers are too wordy and nuanced for the general masses. I don’t want him to dumb down and then misrepresent things but as much as possible learn to get to the nut of the matter and make the point as simply as possible.
McCain may have shorter more concise answers but a lot of that is bullshit. Political slogans and catch phrases have their uses but when it comes to a real discussion of real issues oversimplified answers show someone is being disingenuous. Take McCain’s earmark stance as one example. It sounds great but it’s bullshit. I actually thought he did much better with ORielly in cutting to the chase.
BillDo could probably do an interview somewhere other than a Fox studio. Of course, if he did he probably wouldn’t be able to turn off the other person’s mic…
I only saw the first and fourth installment, but was really impressed with Obama. I think he did a great job in:
Not letting O’Reilly talk over him too much
Showing how well he understands the issues
Showing how his thought process works, and how well he can think on his feet.
Hopefully this will show some independents that Obama isn’t the “scary Black man” that some on the right are trying to make him out to be, and that he’s not the “most liberal Democrat to run for president in X number of years”.
For some reason, I liked it when O’Reilly asked him how many points he’d spot him in a game of one-on-one, and Obama said, “In a game to eleven? Ten.”
Obviously they were joking, but I think he was kidding on the square, and it struck me as surprisingly cocky from a guy who isn’t usually given to that. I think might have showed an insight into his will and determination. Kind of a “bring it, bitch,” attitude I haven’t really seen before.
I also this is the kind of thing that helps him connect with the “common folk”. It’s the kind of thing many guys would say in a bar. I didn’t realize that O’Reilly was 75 years old-- I wonder if he’s had some work done.
I come at this from the other other side in that I was already impressed with Obama and ready to vote for him but had never watched O’Reilly in action before, and I have to say Papa Bear came off as much more respectful, fair, and downright likable than I expected. Yeah, he interrupts a lot and shows an obvious bias, but Obama was still able to say his piece and get his point across.
I still loathe Rush Limbaugh, for what it’s worth.
BillO isn’t bad, as far as commentators go. His main problem (IMO) is his fervent harted of anything he construes to be “far left,” like the ACLU, Media Matters, etc. If he could shut up about those guys I could probably stomach listening to him occasionally, as I actually find myself agreeing with him once in a while.
Rush and to a lesser extent, Sean Hannity, are loathesome hate mongers. I can’t listen to five minutes of either because it’s all just hate hate hate.