O'Reilly and Olbermann Interview Obama Tonight

Another segment of Bill O'Reilly's interview with Sen. Barack Obama will air tonight on Fox. Over at MSNBC, Keith Olbermann will interview Obama.

If you watch either one, let us know what you think, not just of Obama, but of the questions and interviewing techniques of O'Reilly and Olbermann.

Did either interview give you any new insights?

I have a transcript of the Obama-Olbermann interview but it's embargoed until 8:30 pm ET and I always honor embargoes.

< Bush to Increase Troops to Afghanistan | Prison Guards Seek Schwarzenegger Recall >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Bill doesn't interview Democrats (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by GOPmurderedconscience on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 07:02:49 PM EST
    He debates them.

    Moreover, I think he tries too much to make these high level interviews about himself, by pretty much saying "I know more than you do and I can dominate whichever league you're playing".

    With Olbermann, it'll be a lovefest because he thinks he's making up for the terrible abuse Obama may have suffered at the hands of O'Reilly.

    I'm not gonna watch either on TV and I'll just check other comments to see if I guessed right.

    I'm not watching either (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by stillife on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 07:36:33 PM EST
    but will probably check out clips later.

    Bill O'Reilly's interview with Hillary was quite good.  He seemed very proud of himself for being 'fair and balanced', and she of course stood up to his questioning.

    Olbermann is a coward.  He beat up on Hillary all year, but his interview of her was softball.  I'm expecting that his Obama interview will be a puff piece.


    The two interviews O'Reilly did with (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by hairspray on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 09:34:40 PM EST
    HRC (and that I saw) were quite good, actually.  He was polite, deferential and asked good questions.  He allowed HRC to answer and never talked down or over her.

    O'Reilly talked over Obama (none / 0) (#85)
    by MKS on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 01:29:27 AM EST
    constantly interrupting him.....

    Style (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by lentinel on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 07:04:15 PM EST
    O'Reilly's style is to be contemptuous of Obama.
    Obama tries to get in a few words, but somehow comes out looking beaten down - as most interviewees of this cretan do.

    To check my memory, I revisited the interview that Hillary Clinton did with O'Reilly. I'm sorry to report that she comes off much much better. To put it the way I feel it, she comes off like a mature adult who has given years of thought to what she is saying. Obama comes off as someone who is doing his best, but flailing around.

    Obama got schooled by O'Reilly (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by haner on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 09:08:26 PM EST
    Obama didn't come off as presidential in today's segment on economy. He sounded like someone you argued with in the dorm lounge during your college days. "No, no, no, no..." I am kind of frightened that this man may have to face Putin one day.

    I miss Hillary.  She was brilliant on O'Reilly, completely holding her own.


    I'd much rather have Obama (5.00 / 2) (#56)
    by IndiDemGirl on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 09:54:38 PM EST
    face Putin then the hothead McCain.

    Why? (3.50 / 2) (#76)
    by gaf on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 10:55:13 PM EST
    Bill Clinton was also a hothead. Had a legendary temper. Much more than McCain. He did ok.

    I am not saying McCain is better than Obama or that I am supporting McCain. Just saying that this is a flimsy argument.


    No, it is not (5.00 / 0) (#86)
    by MKS on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 01:35:28 AM EST
    McCain is a hothead who loves to roll the dice....That is how he picked Palin....McCain's temper is different than Bill's--Bill tries to win an argument....McCain tell's people to eff off--He grabbed a representative of a foreign country and lifted him out of a chair years ago.

    Thad Cochran, former Republican Senator from Mississippi has said that there is something so wrong with McCain that he fears his being Commander in Chief....That is from a Republican.

    So, you're not saying you are supporting McCain?  You are not denying it either.....


    But if Putin perceives Obama (none / 0) (#90)
    by BernieO on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 05:10:17 AM EST
    as weak, that could be a big problem. He might push the satellite states around more, withhold energy from European countries, and generally flex his muscle and up the tensions.
    Kennedy admitted that his first summit with Krushchev had been a disaster. Because of that and his bungling the Bay of Pigs, Krushchev told people he thought he could roll over Kennedy and that was what emboldened him to put nuclear missiles into Cuba. We truly were on the brink of a nuclear war because of this. So Obama would need to quickly establish his toughness in a credible way,  which will not be easy.

    On the other hand if McCain is too aggressive, that might also make Putin want to flex his muscle, but he might also be more afraid to push him around. I know that McCain believes diplomacy only works if the other side thinks you are willing to use force if necessary, but that is undoubtedly true. But it is hard to know just how belligerent McCain would be. The Pentagon respects McCain - and Hillary - and I know they do not favor reckless use of the military. They were not crazy about invading Iraq, for example. So if McCain is really that crazy I wouldn't think the Pentagon brass would respect him. BUT he was an early supporter of Chalabi. It really is confusing, IMO.

    By the way, the same dynamic would hold for other players too, like Korea and Iran.


    I disagree (none / 0) (#39)
    by AF on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 09:14:08 PM EST
    Obama held his own.  He even successfully called BS on O'Reilly's attempt to argue that tax revenues went up under Bush.  Pointed out there are lies, damn lies, and statistics.  O'Reilly actually agreed and moved on.

    You know, I think (none / 0) (#46)
    by befuddledvoter on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 09:28:52 PM EST
    we have to keep Obama's performance in perspective.  He is running against McCain, not Hillary.  John McCain has never been quick or articlulate or glib or anything that would make you think he has a lot of grey matter.  He has other qualities, I admit, but in comparison, Obama wins hands down.  Just my opinion.

    Flailing around ... (none / 0) (#73)
    by bridget on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 10:38:17 PM EST
    that was Obama in debate after debate - a lot of hemming and hawing

    while Hillary Clinton sounded like the mature adult she is ... who has given years of thought to what she is saying. Indeed.


    I haven't seen the O'Reilly interview (5.00 / 3) (#4)
    by litigatormom on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 07:16:21 PM EST
    I'm watchng Olbermann's right now.  KO is feeding him softballs about how McCain/Palin are not change candidates.

    And even with the softballs, Obama is coming across a bit awkwardly. He's had a couple of good lines --"Republicans are pretty good at working the refs" -- and he just paid tribute to the economy under Bill Clinton, but I think he needs to work up a little more outrage about the economy, and the Republicans' failure to address it.

    "Republicans aren't change" or "we're going to move in a fundamentally different direction" isn't good enough. He is not tying Bush's economic failures to McCain. For all some people know, when Obama says McCain is no change, he might be talking just about Iraq.

    Obama needs to pin the tail on the elephant. "McCain is going to continue the same economic policies that got us into this mess" or "Are you going to rehire the folks who got us in this mess, or are you going to fire them?"

    And Obama should need to fed these lines by KO, anyway.


    Obama OReilly Part 2 (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by SomewhatChunky on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 07:33:34 PM EST
    I don't think Obama looked as good tonite as he did Friday.  The discussions was about economics.  OReilly hit him hard that his tax plan is income redistribution.  OReilly was in rare form.

    I thought Obama looked weak when he at first refused to acknowledge OReilly's points.  My impression was that Obama was in command of the facts but was trying to not acknowledge that some would lose under his plan.  He recovered at the end of the interview when he finally admitted that some would pay more and couched it in human terms of a minimum wage waitress struggling to get by vs OReilly and himself paying a bit more.

    The fact is Obama is in favor of income distribution.   That's a legitimate position. Many agree with him.  He should figure out how to say so in a politically palatable way.  Waffle waffle waffle makes him look weak.  There are clear differences between the candidates on the issues.  Not everyone is going to always agree with you. I think it is a mistake to try and not offend anyone.  It makes you look weak.

    OReilly made the point at the start of the interview that he had to cut Obama off / keep him on track because he was only given 30 minutes for the entire interview.  He knows it makes him look aggressive (rude?) and acknowledged he had complaints about that style. To be fair, Obama's speaking style has been described many ways but rarely described as concise and to the point.  It's probably OReilly's only shot at Obama.    Obama wanted to be during the RNC.  Both sides made tradeoffs.

    I actually like O'Reilly's style of not letting Obama get away with rambling or get into his talking points.  I'd like it better if a similar style was applied to both (or all 4 candidates).  It is rare to see a candidate get thrown off their pre-scripted answers and not be able to hide.  When it happens, it shows the depth (or lack thereof) of the candidate's knowledge.   No matter what you think of Obama, it would be hard for anyone to make the case that he doesn't understand a great deal.  He looks on top of his facts.

    Later on in the show, OReilly called Obama a very tough guy, a very determined driven man.  He said he could only learn that face to face.  He aid he was very impressed.

    Finally, O'Reilly actually said that he expects Palin to be on the show at some point.  If not, it shows she's not ready......

    Income Redistribution...legitimate position?? (none / 0) (#43)
    by coast on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 09:19:36 PM EST
    In exactly what context is income redistribution a legitimate position, other than in a socialist or communist economic system?

    I don't have the exact figures, but I believe the latest IRS figures (for the year ended 2006)show that approximately 80% of our gov'ts tax revenues are paid by 40% of the people who file taxes.

    As I have previously said before on this site, I don't mind people paying their fair share, but Obama goes too far when he make the credits refundable.


    You forgot to mention (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 10:02:22 PM EST
    that the top 20% of Americans own over 80% of the wealth of the nation.

    All tax systems are income redistribution methods.


    Bill Clinton (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by BernieO on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 05:30:35 AM EST
    raised taxes on the wealthiest, then increased the earned income tax credit a subsidy for the poorest, as well as putting in place other programs that benefitted the lower classes. This was clearly income redistribution and it had the effect of moving 6-7 million people out of poverty, a record, while balancing the budget. Contrary to all the dire predictions of the Republicans it not only did not slow growth, we had very strong growth and productivity. Those whose taxes increased still did better under Clinton because the economy was so good. My brother, a moderate Republican, got hit pretty hard by Clinton's tax increase and he gave me grief about it. Then he laughed and said it had been the right thing to do for the country, and that he had actually come out ahead because of the strong economy. Turns out he had voted for Clinton - twice!

    A strong, growing middle class is extremely important for a stable, thriving democracy. A large number of poor is destabilizing, as we can see in third world countries. So if it takes taxes on those who can afford it to fight poverty and grow the middle class, that is a benefit to everyone, wealthy included.

    Without these kinds of government policies you wind up with a small number of uber wealthy who control things, a large underclass who provide cheap labor and a small middle class with very little protection to keep them from falling into poverty. There has never been a country with a stable democracy that did not have a thriving middle class and this does not happen without deliberate government policies to support it. These kinds of policies are even more important now that we are no longer a primarily agricultural or heavy industry economy because we do not have the kinds of jobs that will support a large number of uneducated workers.

    I have not seen the interview yet, but I did hear Obama make a reference to Clinton's policies (I think on Olberman.) As I keep repeating, this is his/our best argument to show that the tax increase on the rich that Obama is proposing will benefit the country as a whole.


    What are you getting at? (none / 0) (#51)
    by Socraticsilence on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 09:39:02 PM EST
    Some degree of income redistribution is at the heart of every modern state.

    True (none / 0) (#63)
    by coast on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 10:08:15 PM EST
    Yes..."some".  My point was that we have plenty of programs in place currently.  Obama's plan is to expand a number of programs and give more back to individuals who pay no tax.  Neither candidate addresses the issue of our county's deficit.  Until that is done, the dollar will remain weak against other currencies making everything else more expensive.  

    Trade deficit (none / 0) (#69)
    by Manuel on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 10:27:52 PM EST
    The trade deficit is a big part of the weak dollar.  It isn't directly related to tax policy.  A new energy policy will help a lot more than tax schemes.  After all we have 3% of oil reserves and consume 25% of the oil in the world.  As more of the world develops and demands its fair share, energy costs, the trade deficit and the dollar will be affected.  A new energy policy is what we need to revitalize the dollar and the economy.  The tax rates won't matter as much if we can get the economy growing again.

    That is a republican talking point (none / 0) (#80)
    by ChuckieTomato on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 12:23:20 AM EST
    They do not pay their fair share. The wealthiest Americans should be glad there is a limit on employment taxes. Most Americans do not get that advantage.

    The top federal marginal (none / 0) (#89)
    by MKS on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 01:47:00 AM EST
    rate is not 40%.....They must live in a state that has income taxes....maybe California....

    If they make more than 250k and have a beach cottage, I think they can pay a little more so we can have health care for others and new energy sources that will get us off oil.

    Opposition to taxes is the backbone of Republicans....I am sure the Republicans will protect them well why much gets left undone.....

    Do you parents have any issue with $2 trillion being spent on Iraq?    


    The middle class exploded (none / 0) (#87)
    by MKS on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 01:39:59 AM EST
    in America after World War II--we had high union membership, the GI bill and higher marginal tax rates....

    Since the 1980s, median income is really quite flat or declining with the exception of the late 90s.

    Going back to the Clinton rates is not a bad thing for small businesses or those who like to make money.


    O'Reilly Interview style (5.00 / 3) (#17)
    by samtaylor2 on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 07:44:07 PM EST
    Is ADD journalism.  He asked a question about the war, etc., gets a response, interrupts, gets another response, and then says let's move on.  His method is not unqiue (see all 24 hour "journalists"), he is just the best and loudest at it.  The fact that people get much of their information based on rapid fire, no discussion questions, is moving this country to the brink of disaster.  People convuse this combating tone with hard hitting journalism, when in truth no information is given.

    It turns out, Obama is a better fighter than lover (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by Realleft on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 07:49:24 PM EST
    Watched both interviews.  KO was an annoying interviewer who asked few or no questions about Obama and just did his schtick of being anti-Republican.  Obama tried to turn it back to talking about the Dems and the campaign (and the 90s under Pres. Clinton) several times, but KO just kept going back again to his talking points.  Obama could do better to talk about what he's doing, and just ignore questions about McCain/Palin/Republicans, particularly when the interviewer has already made any negative point about Republicans there are to be made.  He was trying, but he could do better.  He did fall into quite a few ums and ahs, and John Kerry-like run-on sentences.  Not his best hour.

    I thought the interview with O'Reilly was much better.  I thought Obama wiped the floor with O'Reilly, speaking clearly, directly and aggressively and making O'Reilly let him answer the questions asked rather than move on to the next point when Obama wasn't falling into a trap.  It looked like the debate style brought out his adrenaline, and it served him well.  I think he could go even further in making his tax points a wedge between the Republican economic elites and the working class.  Screw rich Republicans, he's not getting their votes anyway.  He's getting there, but I can't see much downside in going even further (except I suppose losing Democratic rich votes?).  O'Reilly called him "Robin Hood Obama" - Obama dodged when I would have suggested he claim that title.  O'Reilly seems to have missed that Robin Hood is the good guy in the story.

    LOL, not only is Robin Hood the good guy... (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by Maria Garcia on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 07:56:54 PM EST
    ...but I have yet to meet  person that doesn't think that they qualify to be a beneficiary of Robin Hood's largesse.

    I believe its called swag.... (none / 0) (#59)
    by Maria Garcia on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 09:59:15 PM EST
    ..and the corporate sponsors will pay for it. I'm hoping for an iphone.

    Yeah, stuff like (none / 0) (#68)
    by Realleft on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 10:25:07 PM EST
    student loans and other crazy socialist ideas, y'know, tools to improve our lives and conditions.  Scary stuff according to O'Reilly.  

    And Obama says he and O'Reilly will pay for it all.  Or at least them and those like them.  You know, the richy rich.  Apparently a 3% increase in tax payments from them is equal to something like the annual average gross income of the average person.  

    O'Reilly thinks that's like, totally unfair, while Obama says it's "neighborly" since it won't hurt them at all and that waitress is scraping by on minimum wage plus tips (he's apparently unaware that it's pretty much all tips if you're a waitress as minimum wage doesn't apply).  O'Reilly says, No! Obama  will be responsible for screwing up the entire economy, because he and his friends won't buy as much in stock and there will be nothing left to trickle down to the little people once they pull out of the markets.  


    I REPEAT (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by BernieO on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 05:43:53 AM EST
    Why the heck isn't anyone pointing out that Clinton raised taxes on the rich and that was a huge part of the reason that our economy did so well in the nineties, AT ALL INCOME LEVELS!!  Democrats everywhere ought to be repeating this fact over and over until it replaces the Republican's supply-side, tax cutting lies. (Tax cuts NEVER pay for themselves - they always balloon the deficit.)

    The Republicans have dominated this discussion with lies since Reaganbut the facts are clear:

    1. Reagan cut taxes and the deficit grew.
    2. Clinton raised taxes on the rich and the deficit. And all income levels did well. Millions moved out of poverty (6-7 million).
    3. Bush came in and reinstituted "Reagonomics" and the deficits ballooned again and millions fell back into poverty (5 million was the count several months ago so that is a low estimate).

    The facts are clear, and yet the public still buys the Republican tax cutting spin, while Democrats run from Clinton's record. WHAT IS WRONG WITH THIS PICTURE??? What better proof could Obama and all Democrats have to make our case?

    Why? (none / 0) (#97)
    by badguppy on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 10:56:40 AM EST
    Why the heck isn't anyone pointing out that Clinton raised taxes on the rich and that was a huge part of the reason that our economy did so well...

    Because this place is becoming more like Free Republic everyday. I can't believe the Republican talking points I am reading in these comments.


    Sorry Jeralyn... (none / 0) (#98)
    by badguppy on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 11:01:57 AM EST
    No insult to your blog at all. I am just frustrated with the pointless bickering over ideas that I thought liberals had figured out a long time ago. Self-hating liberals maybe?

    Who is going to pay for Iraq? (none / 0) (#88)
    by MKS on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 01:41:24 AM EST
    Spending some of that money on our own people is a bad thing?

    Embargo against Cuba (none / 0) (#1)
    by OisforOpportunist on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 06:59:33 PM EST
    How about the criminal embargo against Cuba, going on for almost 50 years?

    Please don't honor that one!!!

    I'm watching Olbermann.... (none / 0) (#5)
    by Maria Garcia on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 07:16:54 PM EST
    ...something about the questions he asks is not working for me. The conversation isn't keeping me engaged. But as I continue to watch, Obama seems to be getting the hang of finding the right message in spite of the question so maybe the next portion of the interview will be better.

    KO asks if Obama regrets (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by litigatormom on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 07:27:08 PM EST
    holding 527s back in light of comments last week from GOP rep that Obamas are "uppity." Obama hems and haws and then says "People will decide on the issues."

    Sheesh. They were so ready to call Bill a racist at the drop of a hat, and he won't call that Neanderthal a racist? Or at least say that he's playing the race card?

    He also won't call Palin unprepared to be president. I understand why he is not personally going to call Palin out on her thin resume, but I think that he could have make a snarky comment about her claim that she is more prepared than he is.  Or at least make more about how unsuited she is by philosophy to be president - her belief that government should be actively promoting a fundamentalist religious agenda. Or criticize McCain for capitulating to the extreme right wing of the GOP. Instead, there was just a wan "I don't agree with where she wants to talk the country."  

    Is this going to be Kerry Redux?


    Do you have a link/backup for this? (5.00 / 3) (#9)
    by nycstray on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 07:31:56 PM EST
    her belief that government should be actively promoting a fundamentalist religious agenda

    Or is that an assumption?


    According to this AP article (5.00 / 3) (#15)
    by NJDem on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 07:41:42 PM EST
    "Neither have Palin's socially conservative personal views on issues like abortion and gay marriage been translated into policies during her 20 months as Alaska's chief executive. It reflects a hands-off attitude toward mixing government and religion by most Alaskans.

    "She has basically ignored social issues, period," said Gregg Erickson, an economist and columnist for the Alaska Budget Report."


    Just posting this for the sake of accuracy.


    Here's another link (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by nycstray on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 07:51:05 PM EST
    just for fun  ;)

    Thanks for the link. Some of the stuff on there (none / 0) (#32)
    by Angel on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 08:36:12 PM EST
    is really crazy.

    Well (none / 0) (#13)
    by litigatormom on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 07:37:47 PM EST
    She believes that public schools should teach creationism as science and abstinence only sex education.  Both creation science and abstinence only sex ed are oxymorons; they are simply attempts to promote religious beliefs in the guise of science.  That's quite enough for me.

    But she also believes that Iraq is a task from God and we have to do God's will there. That creeps me out no end.

    She also tried to ban books she didn't like from the Wasilla public library.  I don't know the books she wanted to ban, so I in that case I can only guess that her choices were based on her religious beliefs.


    heh, sounds like you just (5.00 / 9) (#18)
    by nycstray on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 07:47:23 PM EST
    picked up the talking points without looking further into them.

    FWIW: She did not try to ban books. She does not believe the schools should teach creationism, but if it comes up, it's ok along side evolution. Healthy debate and all. Abstinence and sex ed, she's pro-contraception. And the Iraq God comments when looked at properly do not translate as you have them. You may want to do some research of her debates, old articles from Alaskan papers and actually look at her record to see if she lets her bible lead her governing.


    Well, she approached (5.00 / 4) (#40)
    by litigatormom on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 09:15:46 PM EST
    the Wasilla librarian and asked how she could ban some books. The librarian resisted the concept, so she never got to the point of asking for specific books to be banned.

    She is a member of a pro-life group (the name escapes me) that purports to be pro-contraception, but that's not the principal purpose of the group.  Further, she is definitely an advocate of abstinence only sex education, which studies show is ineffective in preventing  teen pregnancy.

    I've seen the tape of her church address on the war.  She says that it is a task from God.  Then she asks that the congregation pray that God has a plan for the war, and that the US is able to follow God's plan. That's way too much religious imagery for me. It's one thing to pray that God will protect our soldiers. It's another thing to say that God has given us a task in Iraq, and that he has a plan for it that we must discover and execute.

    I'm also a bit perturbed by her asking the group to pray that God unifies the populace behind a new pipeline. Now pipelines are God's will too?

    I have never heard Obama say he was in favor of teaching creationism in the public schools, or "teaching the debate." (If you've got a link, I'd love to see it.) There is no debate in the scientific community, other than that which has been manufactured by opponents of evolution. If as a matter of religious faith you believe that the world is only 6000 years old, that should be taught by parents or Sunday school teachers, as should any "debate."

    I don't give a hoot about her religious beliefs as long as they are held privately, and she doesn't talk about them as a basis for shaping public policy. But whether she's tried, in her 18 months as Governor. to enact any of her social/religious agenda or not, she's spoken publicly about these matters, and it bothers me.

    I also don't give a hoot about the fact that her daughter is pregnant.  If my 18 year old were pregnant out of wedlock, I probably wouldn't have put her in a position where her situation was likely to become national news, but I don't have anything against her for running for office with five kids or a disabled baby. The First Dude will presumably be the primary caregiver when she's traveling. I respect her for being a smart, tough woman who is juggling her family and public duties. I don't respect her political views, and te extent to which her religious views inform them, I am scared.


    Look here for actual info on Palin (none / 0) (#34)
    by befuddledvoter on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 08:47:20 PM EST
    with all the cites you need, when Palin was running for governor.

    Link:  http://tinyurl.com/6jpkcc

    And, yes, Obama is far more experienced than Palin.  When Palin was mayor of the town of Wasilla (pop. about 5-8k), that was only a part-time job. Further, there was a "city" manager.  The mayor was a figure head similar to what we have in my city under Plan E.  


    Hate to break it (5.00 / 3) (#38)
    by LatinoVoter on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 09:13:57 PM EST
    to you but the Illinois legislature is a part time job too. That's how someone can be a IL state legislator, constitutional law lecturer and lawyer at the same time.

    My legislature is part-time also (Mass) (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by befuddledvoter on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 09:38:47 PM EST
    I don't know any that are full-time, now that I think of it.  However, you don't get a "city manager" to actually do your work.

    The city manager (none / 0) (#53)
    by Socraticsilence on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 09:40:46 PM EST
    That actually makes me wonder what she did, because where I went to HS we had a similar system, and with a manager the Mayor's duties are largely ceremonial (signing stuff, and cutting ribbons).

    Mayor is exactly ceremonial (none / 0) (#65)
    by befuddledvoter on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 10:17:55 PM EST
    when there is a "city" manager.  That is how my city is run.  Mayor is like a city councilor only she uses the gavel during the meetings.  

    A different view from a source with some knowledge (none / 0) (#60)
    by Molly Bloom on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 10:01:51 PM EST
    The National Conference of State Legislatures takes a different view. I could be wrongm but I think they may have some idea of the work load of the various state legislatures

    Red legislatures require the most time of legislators, usually 80 percent or more of a full-time job. They have large staffs. In most Red states, legislators are paid enough to make a living without requiring outside income. These legislatures are most like Congress. Most of the nation's largest population states fall in this category. Because there are marked differences within the category, we have subdivided the Red states. Those in Red generally spend more time on the job because their sessions are longer and their districts larger than those in Red Lite. As a result, they tend to have more staff and are compensated at a higher rate. Within subcategories, states are listed alphabetically.

    Illinois is classified as a "red light" legislature.


    That sounds right (none / 0) (#67)
    by befuddledvoter on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 10:21:01 PM EST
    While Mass. is considered "part-time" also, it is not really.  The legislators are available all the time for constituency problems and their offices are staffed.  It is just that the legislature is not in session for about 5 weeks from August until after Labor Day.  Yet, it is still considered part-time.

    If the Illinois senate (none / 0) (#70)
    by LatinoVoter on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 10:32:04 PM EST
    is a full time job then how can one person be in Springfield and in a class room and law firm at the same time?

    And I seem to recall a certain IL senator saying that there was no record of his time there because he only had a one person staff. That would contradict your website that says 8.9 staff per member.

    Also your links says Illinois is "Red lite" therefore it is not like a full time job because solid red is the closest to a full time job.

    Thanks for the link anyway.


    when you are handed a lemon, make lemonade (none / 0) (#93)
    by Molly Bloom on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 07:34:55 AM EST
    Ha. My legislature is in the same category (none / 0) (#72)
    by Cream City on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 10:36:51 PM EST
    and one of my legislators is a full-time OB-GYN and teaches in a medical school, too.  And wins awards for all that -- and has one of the best records of attendance and legislation proposed and passed in the state capital . . . and it's several counties and hours away.

    He's the first to tell me that it's a part-time job for anyone who actually knows what a full-time job is.


    Full time job with a salary of 68k (none / 0) (#62)
    by nycstray on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 10:03:29 PM EST
    Not exactly (5.00 / 4) (#19)
    by ccpup on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 07:48:50 PM EST
    The creationism claim has been discussed before.  In fact, she takes a view that's more in line with what Obama believes:  creationism should be talked about and compared side-by-side with evolution so that people can debate openly and make their own decision.

    I'm in no way a proponent of creationism, but I do believe that the more information one has in the classroom, the better.  And I don't see how Gov Palin or Senator Obama contradict that.


    S\ (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by Socraticsilence on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 08:07:12 PM EST
    Fair enough, also can we get rid of the biased, "gravity" agenda, shouldn't students hear from those who say god is holding us down. Also on the Holocaust, why don't our children get both sides, after all their have been many books on how it never happened, and shouldn't all views get a hearing?

    I think the (none / 0) (#31)
    by Jane2009 on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 08:34:57 PM EST
    issue is whether creationism would be taught in a science class, or in a philosophy and/or religion class. HUGE difference. Not that I agree with it being taught at all, since I loathe the injection of what I consider mythology into anything unless it's being taught as literature. However, to be fair, I don't think Palin ever said creationism should be taught AS science.

    Good reply! (none / 0) (#52)
    by alexei on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 09:39:50 PM EST
    Creationism is religion - teach in a comparative religion course.

    For those actually interested in facts, (none / 0) (#77)
    by andrys on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 11:28:40 PM EST
    Here's Factcheck Org's page on the creationist claim and other rumors.

    The link upthread should be helpful (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by hairspray on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 09:57:04 PM EST
    The diary that Jeralyn posted a week ago about the justice she appointed to the Supreme Court should help also.  Get rid of the myths.  I don't want her because she is too heavily invested in Alaska's oil wealth and because of that she doesn't consider global warming a threat. The global warming/oil are all part of what is bringing us to the brink. The other bad thing about her point of view is that she and McCain aren't economist leaning people and from what I read from Bonddad and my economics husband, this country may spend the next three to four years just getting out of the deflation of assets that is overtaking this country.  We are in deep doo doo and I think the Dems seem to see the problem better than the GOP.

    litigatormon, do yourself a favor (3.80 / 5) (#25)
    by ding7777 on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 08:01:18 PM EST
    find the link where Palin said "She believes that public schools should teach creationism as science", and then never never never never trust that site as a credible site again.

    I'd Give Her the Benefit of the Doubt (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by daring grace on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 08:15:13 PM EST
    since all the credible statements I've seen connected to Governor Palin are variations of this:

    "During a 2006 debate, she said she was a proponent of teaching both evolution and creationism in schools. She later clarified her stance in an interview with the Anchorage Daily News, saying that she doesn't think creationism needed to be part of the curriculum and that she would not push the state Board of Education to add such alternatives to the state's required curriculum."

    Though it's definitely a WSRM moment and I notice around here we don't always allow for these 'clarifications.'


    Generous of you but (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by ding7777 on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 08:32:48 PM EST
    In an Oct. 25, 2006, debate, when asked about teaching alternatives to evolution, Palin replied:

    Palin, Oct. 25, 2006: Teach both. You know, don't be afraid of information. Healthy debate is so important and it's so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both. And you know, I say this too as the daughter of a science teacher. Growing up with being so privileged and blessed to be given a lot of information on, on both sides of the subject - creationism and evolution. It's been a healthy foundation for me. But don't be afraid of information and let kids debate both sides. (link)


    That statement is still unclear because... (none / 0) (#57)
    by Maria Garcia on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 09:57:00 PM EST
    ...she doesn't say whether both should be taught as science. Frankly, I don't really understand what there is to teach about creationism. It's just a belief that some supreme deity created the world and if you believe that, I'm not sure why you would care how he or she did it.

    In the hands of a good teacher (none / 0) (#74)
    by Manuel on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 10:41:53 PM EST
    Intelligent design could be the seed for interesting scientific exploration if one takes it as a hypothesis and looks for evidence that might prove or disprove it.  One can do the same with evolution.  The idea would be to get kids to look at evidence on their own and to reach their own conclusions.  We don't do enough of that in our school systems.

    You cannot discuss religious concepts (none / 0) (#79)
    by MyLeftMind on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 12:02:57 AM EST
    You cannot discuss religious concepts
    as if they were scientific concepts.  At some point, Christianity & ID depend on a leap of faith.  Science does not.  Evolutionary concepts could be right or wrong, or even partially right.  Science allows us to theorize, further analyze and come to new conclusions.  Religion does not.  

    Intelligent design does not belong in public schools.  It's a concept perpetrated by people trying to control other people.  If there weren't so many Christians trying to force feed their beliefs onto non-Christians, this wouldn't be in our faces over and over.  Why not compare evolution and native American beliefs?  Or evolution vs. African tribal beliefs?  Because Christians a politically powerful and have an agenda that is destructive to non-Christians.  Christians and Catholics have tortured and murdered millions of people as they foist their beliefs onto others.  But in this country, in this day and age, we have freedom of and from religion.  Period.  

    If someone wants to compare ID and evolution, they can buy a book or look online or discuss it with their religious leaders or family.  Presenting a myth as a valid interpretation of our world should not be a publicly funded activity in our schools.  


    I am not religious and belong to no church (none / 0) (#81)
    by Manuel on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 12:50:38 AM EST
    but I find the concept of intelligent design interesting as a thought experiment.  You can't choose what ideas should and should not be discussed in a classroom.  That's what Republicans and fundamentalists do.  All ideas deserve scrutiny.  All students should be taught to think for themselves.  You don't do that by sheltering them from ideas one finds offensive.  This idea drove all the good teachers I ever had.

    Exactly (none / 0) (#95)
    by daring grace on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 09:10:45 AM EST
    I'm not crazy about creationism no matter what it's called being taught in public schools. Period.

    But in the interests of compromise--and to cut the legs out from under movements that would put it in science classes--I would agree to having an elective class where it--and I suppose other pseudo-religious ideas masquerading as science--could be examined for what they are: parts of belief systems that many people subscribe to.


    She's saying it can be discussed (none / 0) (#78)
    by andrys on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 11:31:41 PM EST
    where evolution's being taught, and that would tend to be in science class.  These days it'll come up and there's no better way of giving strength to the idea of creationism as an explanation than to forbid discussion of it.  But there should be clear guidelines it should not take over a classroom.

    Are you saying that (none / 0) (#96)
    by rdandrea on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 09:35:22 AM EST
    Astrology should be taught whenever astronomy is?

    Creationism has no place alongside science or being discussed in science class.  It's religious dogma.  Teach it in philosophy or comparative religion, but don't legitimize it as science.


    In reality, our classrooms had (none / 0) (#99)
    by andrys on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 09:58:02 PM EST
    "under God" added to the pledge of allegiance when I was in schools, which will give you an idea of my ancient-dom.

      I remember mainly not liking that the rhythm was broken up, and also I wondered why they did that.

      At any rate, in this country we teach the (very solid) theory of evolution.  It's science.  Kids will come in, with parents who feel strongly that they should be able to say that they believe in the bible's version.  Not letting them say that gives it the air of 'forbidden' "info" and gives it more strength to someone with religious feelings.

      If teachers control this, and show scientific evidence and how it is used to show how evolution worked, then you have more of a chance to get them to listen and be educated.


    Teaching both (none / 0) (#71)
    by Faust on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 10:34:00 PM EST
    is the same as teaching creationism in my view. This is what ID proponents call "teaching the debate." In articles I've read she then "clarified" her position by saying that "if it comes up" it should be allowed to be discussed.

    Her position on creationism based on the information available is quite unclear. I'm sure she favors "teaching the debate," but as near as I can tell there is no evidence of her having aggressively pushed this policy in legislation.

    Frankly I think "teaching the debate" is fine, as long as it's in a philosophy class. In a science class you teach science. ID is NOT science. It's a philsophical argument.

    And in the end I'm not sure what good it does to obsess about this aspect of Sarah Palin. The bottom line with Sarah Palin is that she is endorsed by the party of George Bush. That's pretty much all I need to know to vote against McCain/Palin.


    I don't agree (none / 0) (#75)
    by Manuel on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 10:47:53 PM EST
    Science isn't just about teaching what is known.  It is also about teaching how to approach what isn't known.  It is important for students to learn to question science.  

    What I Was Responding to (none / 0) (#94)
    by daring grace on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 09:06:13 AM EST
    was a challenge someone made to another writer's statement "She believes that public schools should teach creationism as science..."

    I went looking for an actual statement that she explicitly is on record saying that. I thought I'd read somewhere that she did support teaching creationism along side evolution in science classes (her father the science teacher, blah, blah,blah)--which I would oppose.

    If you have a link where she's quoted as saying this specifically--creationism in science class--please share it. The one you have shared is as ambiguous as the one I did. And I think that points to her political smarts. She says some things that can excite her RW base without necessarily walking them right to the edge where they'll scare/turn off more moderate voters. She can always re-frame it and it is...ambiguous so the case can be made.


    Aren't most of these views (none / 0) (#66)
    by kenosharick on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 10:18:44 PM EST
    mainstream republican values? Sounds like most repubs that I have heard lately.

    Obama brought that on himself (5.00 / 3) (#20)
    by Fabian on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 07:48:58 PM EST
    with his Change! slogan, running against the Clintons and running away from the Clinton presidency.  Plus the whole over arching Brand Obama theme.   While it is true that most of America probably missed the Democratic primaries, the pundits spent months and months covering them.  

    Obama would have been well served to take a reorganization in July and then launched the GE campaign instead of leaning heavily on the primary campaign which may have triumphed over another Democrat, but was unlikely to satisfy less partisan consumers.


    I would like to see Obama respond, just once (5.00 / 4) (#33)
    by ruffian on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 08:46:56 PM EST
    My party is right on the issues and I have little need to differentiate myself.

    Obama is (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by befuddledvoter on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 09:10:32 PM EST
    post-partisan, remember??  Jeez, I could hit him right now!!

    I do forget (5.00 / 4) (#41)
    by ruffian on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 09:16:11 PM EST
    Somehow I expect the nominee of the party to stick up for the party every once in a while.

    He's tried mightily to attract the evangelicals (none / 0) (#54)
    by andrys on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 09:47:36 PM EST
    It wouldn't be smart to speak against her possible effectiveness on the basis of beliefs, etc...

    Next portion sounds like KO is (none / 0) (#6)
    by nycstray on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 07:19:09 PM EST
    going towards the mud. O prob will deflect, but still not looking forward to it.

    OT John and Cindy on the View (none / 0) (#7)
    by nycstray on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 07:20:26 PM EST

    Elisabeth Hasselback must be (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by litigatormom on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 07:32:53 PM EST
    in heaven.  But Whoopi might be amusing.

    Michelle Obama was on Ellen today.  Ellen said she is a better dancer than her husband.

    Chris Matthews, unchastened by his demotion, actually asked a Republican surrogate a series of aggressive questions about Palin's ability to appeal to disappointed Hillary supporters.  "Isn't Sarah Palin the complete opposite of Hillary Clinton in every way except her gender?"  The guy flailed and flopped around -- saying at one point that people voted for Hillary because she is socially conservative (I kid you not) -- and Matthews disagreed with him, going through their respective positions on social issues and kept going after him.  In the end, the surrogate's only answer was that Hillary was culturally similar to working class people because she drank shots.  I kid you not.

    The surrogate looked like the cynical doofus that he is.


    actually (5.00 / 3) (#28)
    by TimNCGuy on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 08:23:15 PM EST
    the repug guest said they voted for her because they considered Hillary MORE consevative than Obama. He did not say they considered her a social conservative. And, if you consider how Clinton beat Obama in Apalachis, he was right. those voters are more conservative and voted for Clinton over Obama 2 to 1. The voters in western PA, southern OH, southern IN, WV, KY, AR weren't voting for Clinton because she is pro-choice. They were voting for her because they are dems and they considered her the more conservative dem. And, they will be switching to McCain because he was always their second choice after Clinton.

    I must have been listening to a (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by litigatormom on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 09:22:24 PM EST
    different interview.  Because I clearly remember the guy saying that working class voters perceived Clinton as a social conservative, and was non-plussed when Matthews went over the list of differences between Palin and Clinton on social policy.

    Many voters -- including lots of liberals -- thought that Clinton was more conservative than Obama due to her initial support for the war.  I always thought she was more liberal than he was, but YMMV.


    that's the problem with Matthews (5.00 / 2) (#49)
    by TimNCGuy on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 09:37:03 PM EST
    if the guest is answering in a way he wants, he interrupts, talks over them and won't let them make their point. We were watching the same program. And, I know the guest said more conservative THAN Obama. He may have also inserted 'socially' in front of the statement. But, Matthews started talking over him. So, he couldn't finish the point. I thought the whole discussion was stupid from Matthews anyway since the night of Palin's convention speech, Matthews made the point that she wasn't put on the ticket to get Clinton voters, she was put there to get conservatves and rally the base. So why he and all other pundits insist on wondering why liberal Clinton voters would vote for her is beside the point. They wouldn't. But, all Clinton voters are not liberal. They are going after conservative dems who voted for Clinton despite Clinton's pro-coice views, conservative indys and moderate repug women who may have been considering Obama. There is also a small set of Clinton voters who were voting for her JUST because she was a woman and Palin can attract them. Palin never had anything to do with trying to get liberal Clinton voters.

    In the meantime, polls are reporting (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by andrys on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 09:51:06 PM EST
    that many women moved to McCain - they gave a double-digit number.

     That surprised them.  I was watching MSNBC but I don't know what... Olbermann and Obama soothing each other just sort of put me into a trance.


    Cindy co-hosted before (none / 0) (#24)
    by nycstray on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 07:58:21 PM EST
    they're usually pretty respectful even if they disagree.

    I missed Ellen. Wasn't aware they switched her time slot here and put Deal or No Deal in the old slot . . . I think she may replay later tonight, I'll have to check.


    Larry King tonight (none / 0) (#29)
    by oldpro on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 08:28:27 PM EST
    has Bob Woodard re his latest book on Iraq and the Bush White House...another 'inside story.'

    Could be interesting...

    Woodward. Sigh... (5.00 / 3) (#35)
    by oldpro on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 09:03:30 PM EST
    Could be.... (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by ruffian on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 09:16:55 PM EST
    if it were another author on another show....

    Bob "Fitzgerald Is A Junk Dog (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by litigatormom on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 09:26:53 PM EST
    Prosecutor" Woodward?  He writes down disjointed snippets of interviews and usually doesn't ask follow-up. I am a bit surprised that Bush sat down with him again, but maybe Woodward's comments during the Scooter Libby affair redeemed him in Bush's eyes.

    Woodward's big "revelation" is that it was not the surge, but state of the art espionage techniquwa (electronic, not "enhanced interrogation") that was the primary cause of the reduction in violence in Iraq. Really?  Not the Sunni awakening or Sadr's ceasefire (both of which predated the surge)?  I wonder how he reports on that without revealing the specifics, which he said in the last day or so that he couldn't do.


    Dare I say it? (none / 0) (#64)
    by jpete on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 10:14:26 PM EST
    This time it was a seering indictment of Bush.  As though he had curried favor just to get the inside dope (word deliberate) right before this election.