The American Spectator

Reader Mail

Picking Up the Pieces

10.6.08 @ 12:01AM

(Page 3 of 6)

But the monster of them all, right up there with his "President Roosevelt came on TV after the 1929 Stock Market Crash to speak to the American people," was his statement that the U.S. and France kicked Hezbollah out of Lebanon, and that he and Obama both want to move NATO troops in there to "fill the vacuum." The only vacuum that exists is the one between Biden's ears. Mind you, this is the expert in international affairs that the Dummycrats have decided that the inexperienced Obama needs as a partner in the campaign. The next stop I want to see from Biden is a spot on "Are You Smarter Than a Fifth Grader?" Jeff Foxworthy and the kids would have a field day with this one.

To his credit, the good Senator from Delaware did give out his own name correctly...I think.
-- Jim Bjaloncik
Stow, Ohio

Count me as one who, because of Palin's performance last night, cannot and will not vote for John McCain after all. The moderator I feel is standing in and asking questions for the American people. Palin decides she doesn't need to answer those questions and actually has the gall and arrogance to come right out and say so. Add to that, the fact that she looked down and had to read every answer to whatever question happened to pop into her head. You felt she did a great job last night? You can try to fool your readers but you can't be serious. She scared the living hell out of me. Although I find myself in complete disagreement with most of Obama's positions, he will now get my vote because of my terror at the thought of this woman possibly being in charge of my country. Country first indeed.
-- Paul Zarnikow
Madison, Wisconsin

I believe you raise some good points regarding interviewing of candidates and how they sometimes are not questioned rigorously enough, as in your example with Couric and Biden. However, I would also point out Hannity at Fox News threw quite a few softballs to Sarah Palin when he interviewed her. These things seem to always work both ways, even if not acknowledged by the right or the left.

What I do question about your article is your characterization of how a politician should be interviewed. You seem to assert that an interview is somehow different than being questioned, or "quizzed" as you put it. I believe an interview of a politician, especially one who is going to be very close to an opportunity to run our country, should ask questions of foreign policy, economics, etc. And when a candidate does not respond when asked a specific question and rather talks in generalities, that candidate should be questioned again until they actually answer the question with specifics.

I would agree this problem exists on both sides of the political/media spectrum and too often politicians get away with not answering questions. The presidential race is not a likability contest, and the notion that interviews should treat them as celebrities, rather than treating them like they are interviewing for a job, which they are, is ludicrous.
-- Travis

Your assumption that Bill Clinton was not asked about foreign policy in 1992 in completely incorrect. In 1991 and 1992 Bill Clinton regularly answered any and all questions about foreign policy. He was found to have a very firm grasp of complex foreign policy matters.

That the managing editor of a major magazine of political opinion thinks the president of any country -- let alone the World's only superpower -- need not know "foreign policy stuff" shows what an upside-down World we now live in.
-- Guynemer Giguere
Brooklyn, New York

Great article. Insightful.

Another point on reporters like Couric and Gibson is how they skip blatant catastrophes of Obama from the Debate.

Obama made some huge mistakes and gaffs that pundits let him pass on.

For example, Obama spent 3 minutes pounding on John McCain about how Kissinger supports Obama's decision to meet without precondition with the four world's leading henchmen, including Pres. Ahmadinejad.

McCain fought back, and told Obama the truth about what his 35 year close friend Kissinger said about that point.

Pundits not only gave the points to Obama; but, took away points from McCain for being correct. Then, they neglected to hold Obama's feet to the fire when Kissinger himself called in and told the world that there was no way he would ever advocate Obama's position, and that Obama's position was naive and dangerous.

Tell me, sir. If McCain made that gaff, or is Palin made that gaff, how many newspapers front pages would those headlines be on, and for how many days? And, if Palin made that gaff, how many pundits would be calling for her resignation, or simply for her to be burned at the stake?

Letter to the Editor

topics:
Transportation, Foreign Policy, Education, Health Care, John McCain, Barack Obama, Joe Biden, Sarah Palin, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Economics, Business, Religion, Islam, Hollywood, Constitution, Law, Supreme Court, Iraq, NATO, Socialism, Alaska, Oil