The interesting thing to me about the O'Reilly/Obama interview is not the information--if any--it contained. I have enough confidence in Obama's ability to obfuscate and O'Reilly's good sense to not be a total penile-encephaleptic in the presence of the President to know that there weren't going to be any fireworks.
No, what strikes me is how it's a lose-lose for Obama, and a win-win for O'Reilly, and was from the moment O'Reilly asked for an interview. If the President declined an interview, O'Reilly could call him a coward. If he agreed, O'Reilly's standing as a "media personality" is enhanced. And the converse for Obama; he could either resign himself to being called a coward, or allow himself to be diminished by allowing an interview with an arrogant blowhard who doesn't understand what holds the moon up.
Those White House guys really need to figure out a way to handle Fox News, don't you think? Because whatever they're doing now, it just ain't working.
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
O'Really?
aliquot
Dave Cullen
Thomas Rogers
john blumenthal
Kathy Riordan
Salon.com
Comments
also - it seems to me that it's impossible to 'win' with awful people by anything but just doing the reasonable thing...and in this case, accepting an interview with an enemy. Rather than trying to figure out strategy vis a vis said enemy... (Tho, come to think of it, that's never worked out for me!)