DescentBB

So we all have seen the set up interviews against Sarah Palin by the likes of Charlie \"Owl\" Gibson or Katie \"Haute Coterie\" Couric. In both cases, Pailn didn't get ruffled nor did the McCain campaign get all bent out of shape over it.
Now we have a instance where Joe \"Flip Lip\" Biden gets asked some tough questions and how does it all go down?:



WFTV-Channel 9's Barbara West conducted a satellite interview with Sen. Joe Biden on Thursday. A friend says it's some of the best entertainment he's seen recently. What do you think?

West wondered about Sen. Barack Obama's comment, to Joe the Plumber, about spreading the wealth. She quoted Karl Marx and asked how Obama isn't being a Marxist with the \"spreading the wealth\" comment.

\"Are you joking?\" said Biden, who is Obama's running mate. \"No,\" West said.

West later asked Biden about his comments that Obama could be tested early on as president. She wondered if the Delaware senator was saying America's days as the world's leading power were over.

\"I don't know who's writing your questions,\" Biden shot back.

Biden so disliked West's line of questioning that the Obama campaign canceled a WFTV interview with Jill Biden, the candidate's wife.

\"This cancellation is non-negotiable, and further opportunities for your station to interview with this campaign are unlikely, at best for the duration of the remaining days until the election,\" wrote Laura K. McGinnis, Central Florida communications director for the Obama campaign.

McGinnis said the Biden cancellation was \"a result of her husband's experience yesterday during the satellite interview with Barbara West.\"

Here's a link to the interview: http://www.wftv.com/video/17790025/index.html.

WFTV news director Bob Jordan said, \"When you get a shot to ask these candidates, you want to make the most of it. They usually give you five minutes.\"

Jordan said political campaigns in general pick and choose the stations they like. And stations often pose softball questions during the satellite interviews.

\"Mr. Biden didn't like the questions,\" Jordan said. \"We choose not to ask softball questions.\"

Guess poor Joe missed his programming on those questions, huh Bee…

Link is down, but...

woodchip wrote:So we all have seen the set up interviews against Sarah Palin by the likes of Charlie "Owl" Gibson or Katie "Haute Coterie" Couric.

...what is with the latest barrage of really bad nicknames

New link!

so let me get this right!!!! Biden states a few weeks ago that an \"Obama/Biden administration will be tested in its first 6 months\" and yet Mr Biden cant even handle a few fastball question from a reporter????

seems like Joe (the fake one not the Plumber) took his ball and went home when things didn't go his way. then to top it off he throws a temper tantrum afterwards by canceling other interviews with that station

Nice Joe. how do you, the more experienced member of your ticket plan on handling the likes of a Putin, Chavez or and Achmadenijad <sp?> when they put the pressure on you.

the whole folding like a soft taco comes to mind.

CUDA wrote:Biden states a few weeks ago that an "Obama/Biden administration will be tested in its first 6 months" and yet Mr Biden cant even handle a few fastball question from a reporter????

If you get to watch that interview, he lies about that very topic! He said something like, 'yes Obama would be tested--McCain would be tested (if he became president...', trying to make it sound like he had been making a generally applicable point. These guys don't even know what the truth is.

Interesting that adding comments has been disabled for this video... is that something set by the contributor or is that a youtube action?

Another non-issue. Republicans bringing up crap like this for the last month+ is exactly why you guys lost the election.

Joe Biden answered the questions appropriately. I mean, I'm sure not to a Republican's satisfaction, but that is why you're a Republican, because you disagree with things that Democrats say. As far as Biden's responsibility is concerned, he did just fine. They then canceled an interview with Biden's wife. I wouldn't want my (hypothetical) wife interviewed by her either...

While you can draw analogies here between West vs. Biden and Couric vs. Palin, and analogies do exist, there is a difference in proportion. West was laying on the gotcha questions exceptionally thick and Biden answered exceptionally better, whereas Couric's were relatively tame (can you name a court case..., can you name a newspaper...) and Palin's responses were relatively poor (I'll get back to you with an answer..., [word salad]...). Or as was observed in the debates, "I'm so gosh darn mavericky that I will not answer your question and instead answer my own that I have a memorized talking point for..."

So yes, while there are similarities here and Biden may lose a few marks here for canceling an interview with his wife after he got an exceptionally tough interview, Palin's much worse reputation is justified insofar as she responded to much easier interviews much more poorly.

VonVulcan wrote:Interesting that adding comments has been disabled for this video... is that something set by the contributor or is that a youtube action?

Set by the contributor.

did we watch the same Video?!?!?!?!!?!?

Biden didn't even attempt to answer the questions. he just got pissed and started slamming in the Video I watched.

I watched the video linked in TB's post.

His response to West's last question was just a slam against the question, but for the others, if there was a slam, it was a quick one followed by an actual answer, an answer that you may or may not agree with.

Part of carrying on yourself in an interview is to call out irresponsible questions when they are asked. If you're asked a \"gotcha\" question, sometimes it's better to expose it as a gotcha question instead of trying to answer it. Biden demonstrated that he thought that comparisons of his tax policy to Marxism and Swedish socialism were absurd. The former he still answered after slamming the question, and the second (which is really just a different formulation of the first, which Biden should have pointed out) he just slammed as an absurd question. Even if you thought that they were fair questions, at least that seems to be a reasonable disagreement instead of just a giant blunder on Biden's part.

Biden was much more crass about it than he could have been though, and we could see his temper flaring. But in the past he has gotten a fair amount of flak for it, and he is getting a fair amount of flak for it now.

But while Biden may be guilty of a hot temper, Palin's responses demonstrate naivete, and that's why she has a much poorer reputation as an interviewee. If Palin thought that asking what newspapers she read was an unfair question, then if she had said so at the time, she probably wouldn't have gotten her poor reputation as an interviewee. But instead, she appeared to just not know the names of any newspapers that she read. If she thought that asking which court case decisions she disagreed with was an unfair question, she should have said so at the time. But instead, she appeared to just not know of any decisions that she disagreed with. (And in all fairness, she probably didn't...)

Palin has problems even answering questions nowhere near gotcha status too, like when asking her opinion on the bailout. Instead of giving an intelligible response, she descended into a word salad of talking points. Biden will occasionally say something stupid, but it's usually just a slip of the tongue, and it doesn't appear to stem from actual ignorance of the issues, even if it is embarrassing.

Obviously each candidate could have performed better in their respective interviews, but Palin's performance in interviews is typically much worse than Biden's is and demonstrates ignorance of the issues rather than something akin to hot-temperedness.

The whole video represents a huge issue.

The whole bit about ACORN was just bulls***. Anyone who frequents YouTube can see that ACORN and Obama are buddy-buddy, even if they're not directly connected. I thought it was really odd the way he immediately denied that the Obama campaign was funding them. Where is the insinuation/accusation that he appears to be arguing against?

With regard to his prediction that Obama would be tested, he lied, plain and simple. I bet that makes you Democrats uncomfortable.

She brought up the issue of their platform's parallels with Marxism, and he just brushed that one off. It's inconceivable to me that he doesn't know of the connection, though I do get the impression that he might be defending some of those issues from a standpoint of ignorance with regard to the implications of Obama's positions, which doesn't let him off the hook at all, in my book, because either way he's complicit with a man who has an incredibly socialistic vision for the United States of America.

It's a non-issue to the Obama fan-club, certainly, but for people that care about this country it represents some pretty important issues with Obama.

For you folks that don't know, or roll your eyes at the idea of Obama having Marxist ideas, please look into it. Look into Liberation Theology (it's a politically motivated theology), then look into Black Liberation Theology, then look at his church of 20 years where he became a \"Christian\" (heavily into Black Liberation Theology). Look at his mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, and her political leanings. Look at his many associations, Mr. Ayers included (f*** the bombings--something he did 40-some years ago and is unrepentant of--there is every reason to believe that his wildly socialistic political ideals remain relatively unchanged). I hate to say it, because it tends to flip a defensive switch, and not to build myself up, because I'm still finding some of this out, but a lot of you have been very naive. You think something has to look evil to represent the failed ideals that have caused so much trouble in other countries and throughout history? Look I know why you all like this guy, he's more of a thinker than the Republicans would ever give him credit for. It shows through in his campaign, the debates, and in his book (or at least in his commentary about his book, which I listened to). He is also very polished. I'm not trying to build him up so that I can cut him down, it's just that I have noticed some of his qualities showing through in my research, and I have to acknowledge it. I'm not arguing against an idiot, and I don't think I'm arguing against a terrorist, but what I am arguing against is some of the most blatant (though disguised) Marxists connections that I have ever seen. Mark my words, this is what Marxism looks like in America, and it sounds great to the uninformed, but it is directly opposed to our founding ideals (which interestingly enough aren't taught as they ought to be, in our liberal schools). C'mon, guys, use your heads! As Americans, you should be angry if anyone would dare to replace our founding principles with something as totally opposite as that. This s*** has already been put to the test and it failed, and if we'll only learn some wisdom from our founders we would see why. Inalienable rights! Life, Liberty, ... Our LIBERTY is what socialism takes away, with the promise of prosperity and happiness. This country has stood alone for its accomplishments, throughout history, are we going to be stupid enough to run to failed, foreign philosophies for solutions to its problems?! It's like the founders left us a tractor, and we're going to use it as a f***ing vegetable planter!

I'll give you a better analogy: picture yourself at some event (a dance, a party, it doesn't matter), and there are a number of punch bowls (we'll say 6). Now all of them were cherry to begin with, and it doesn't taste all that great, so these people try to add things to make them taste better, and one of the ingredients is always dog piss. The punch bowls become undrinkable. Now you're standing at one end of the table, and these people have hit several of the bowls, leaving them totally ruined, when you come up with a great idea, and adding some cream of coconut, pineapple, and a little rum. The result is great punch. It's very popular, and everyone is coming to your punch-bowl to get some, eventually this includes the folks with the supply of dog piss (which they still haven't given up on). Now they f***ed up all of the other punch bowls, so they try to convince everyone to let them perfect your punch, the last punch, everyone's punch, with their special ingredient. Are you angry?

Marxism/socialism has been in America for quite a while, but Barack Obama wants to take radical Marxist ideas--with a basis in Liberation Theology--to the White House!

This is the change that Barack Obama is talking about.

I am 100% sure on the associations here. It is absolutely inescapable. The real problem is that even if everyone in America could hear this right now, I'm confident that there is too much wide-spread ignorance (not to mention incredulity) with regard to Marxism/socialism (not to mention Liberation Theology), and our own founding principles and documents, for it to make an appreciable difference. I can only hope, for the sake of what's left of this country, that Obama is not elected.

Like I said, look into it. Give it a good day's study, maybe more. It's worth it.

The most succinct line was about how Obama thought it was a tragedy that SCOTUS would not pursue a redistribution of wealth scheme. So little Karl Obama is petulant that the highest court in the land does not pursue a socialist/communist agenda? Heaven help us if this man gets elected.