Juan Cole: The Cheapening of American Politics: Why Did Obama Reward O’Reilly With an Interview?

[eridani]

This really made me feel like vomiting. Wonder wny Obama won't go on Thom Hartmann and discuss the TPP?

http://www.nationofchange.org/cheapening-american-politics-why-did-obama-reward-o-reilly-interview-1391525633

Fox has conducted a serial propaganda campaign against Obama since the day he was sworn in. It has pushed phony stories, invented scandals where none existed, and allowed guests to compare Obama to Dick Nixon and speak of impeachment. None of the so-called scandals they have pushed have any substance, or are even easy to comprehend, much less gaining traction with the public.

But predictably, O’Reilly’s interview questions were all drawn from this fantasy parade of imaginary “scandals,” many of them flogged by Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA), the nicest sociopath on the Hill. Basically, Obama allowed O’Reilly to put him on trial, with a series of 5 serious charges laid out against him, against which he was supposed to defend himself.

George Lakoff has been warning for years that liberals are letting conservatives frame the issues and dominate the public debate. Obama just did it again. Although he defended himself admirably from the trumped up charges, nevertheless, the interview consisted of broadcasting those charges to millions of people– an enormous audience. Why give Fox that boon? Why give it to a serial killer of the truth like O’Reilly?

It is because liberals believe that good public policy comes out of vigorous debate. But there is a difference between debating someone in good faith and indicting someone with false and libelous charges. Conservatives can always spike the debate by subverting it toward propaganda by basic dishonesty. That tactic should be punished, not rewarded. Obama rewarded it.

[Egalitarian Thug]

1. Why indeed. n/t

[yeoman6987]

52. O'Reilly

Hate him or love him is part of President Obama's constituency regardless of whether he voted for him or not. I don't know what the problem is anyway. I thought the President did outstanding. Why is everyone upset? Do you guys think the President did horrible?

[n2doc]

2. Hubris and arrogance

I can think of no other reason than President Obama feeling like "I can take this chump". Unfortunately, this wasn't a moderated debate. This was mud wrestling.

[randome]

4. How about 'confidence' and 'composure'?

To show he's not afraid of anyone -and is the President of everyone- is no small task.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]"There is a crack in everything. That's how the light gets in."
Leonard Cohen, Anthem (1992)[/center][/font][hr]

[cali]

20. seriously? you can't possibly believe that. wait, you can.

that's just silly.

[Cha]

37. Oh you would think "hubris and arrogance".. which is totally

wrong. That's not even in his character.. but, here you are smearing with a cheap ignorant pot shot.

I call bullshit.

[cprise]

56. Really? A former General was on there talking about armed revolution

...the week before.

You can think of no other reason?? I can.

[Jerry442]

3. Remember Obama with Rick Warren in 2008?

Same thing. Everyone's shaking their heads wondering why he gave that lowlife the time of day. And then he invited him to pray at the inauguration. Go figure.

[gLibDem]

16. The Sally Fields of politicians.

He's looking for that "you like me!" moment which will sadly never come.

[DeSwiss]

25. I'm using that.

[gLibDem]

35. I'm honored

[El_Johns]

40. I doubt it very much. Do you really think the President is stupid? Do you really think everything

is about his personal desire for acceptance (from Bill O'Reilly for god;s sake!!!)?

Uh, no.

[gLibDem]

47. No, I don't think Sally Fields was stupid.

And intelligence has nothing to do with unconscious wants and needs.

I know a few intelligent people still seeking approval from their father, or brother, or sister.

The President isn't perfect, he's simply human. Good golly.

[uponit7771]

5. Chuck Todd, "...not our job..." that's why, the M$M isn't illuminating their lies

[Cha]

38. Thank you, uponit.. that why he did it to get the word out if

he could.. but, right freaking away.. there's an Ignorant Pot Cheap ass pot shot.. of "hubris and arrogant"..

[heaven05]

6. The Democrat Party and it's leadership

are WEAK and have been doing nothing but fighting a holding action since 2000 and slowly losing that. That's why! I could not understand this move at all. O'lielly? Really? Faux news? Really? I do so wish we had more tooth and nail fighters. Dr, Warren and Bernie in 16?

[G_j]

7. K&R

[cprise]

8. They're threatening revolution

In that light, this is a form of grovelling.

Former Clinton USDA Official: “Our political system is basically evil versus spineless now"

[MannyGoldstein]

9. "This time, I *know* they'll finally realize I'm a man they can do business with."

Appeasement: what could go wrong?

[OnyxCollie]

10. Because O'Reilly paid for it would be my guess.

In 2012, Obama was the top recipient of campaign contributions from News Corp pac and employees.

http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=D000000227

Top Candidate Recipients, 2011-2012
Barack Obama (D) $165,400
Howard L. Berman (D-CA) $58,300
Ben Cardin (D-MD) $39,375
Mitt Romney (R) $38,150
Henry A. Waxman (D-CA) $22,500

[Demeter]

28. Well, that would be more than cynical, more than sick

more than likely, too.

[cprise]

36. All the more significant a ret. general appears on Fox

...and fields the idea of forcibly ousting the President.

President then appears on the network less than a week later to answer their accusations.

-

[El_Johns]

41. Murdoch, doncha mean. Big supporter of education "reform".

[AtheistCrusader]

11. Why did we watch the superbowl at all, given it was conveyed to us by and massively profited Fox?

Yeah, I'm guilty too. Just saying. Even though I'm from Seattle, I didn't have to watch the game. Could have listened to it on KIRO, or played ball with my kid or anything else.

Yet I watched. And my butt in that seat brought Fox advertising dollars.



Giving FOX an interview is a tradition, for whichever network is carrying the superbowl. That's just something that is done. That's the reason why.

It's going to take considerable effort for us to walk away from that sort of thing, because frankly, it's alluring. It supplies something we want.

[packman]

12. I too found it disturbing

I vomit on O'Reilly's name (Tide goes out, Tide goes in) - However, the contrast between the two has got to have changed some minds. To see that Finger wagging Interruptus bully trying to intimidate the President did nothing but reinforce in my mind, at least, that conservatives have no style, manners, or grace. The President handled him.

[NewJeffCT]

13. Because no politician can resist appearing before tens of millions of registered voters

wasn't this the most watched Super Bowl ever in terms of actual viewership?

[cali]

21. well, 99% of them, anyway. I think yours is the most likely reason.

[IggleDoer]

14. More like Roger Ailes paid for it.

It's been a recent tradition that the network showing the Super Bowl that year gets that interview with the President. The interview was supposed to be about the value of athletics in American life ... not at all political. Of course Fox co-opted this.

Why did O'Reilly get to do the interview. He doesn't appear on the Fox Network. He is on a subsidiary, Fox News. When NBC had the Super Bowl, they had Matt Lauer do the interview. Imagine how right wing heads would explode if they had Rachael Maddow do the interview.

[Enrique]

15. both sides benefit from the fake scandals

none of scandals are of any real consequence anymore, but the GOP loves attacking on them and the dems love defending on them.

And I also thought of the TPP like you did. Neither side wants to talk about issues like this that they agree on, they would both much rather talk about the fake stuff.

[bvar22]

27. ^^^^THIS^^^^

.

[El_Johns]

42. +1

[notemason]

17. Why preach to the choir

somewhere when you have a golden opportunity to speak directly to the opposition (en masse). How often do the Fox viewers hear the truth? And just maybe a few more will switch affiliations.

[durablend]

19. You've GOT to be kidding

If anything I'd expect many of them will have hardened up their disgust towards the president.

[cali]

22. uh, this wasn't the choir or not the choir. Fox carried the Superbowl

and it's ridiculous to think anyone will change affiliation over the interview- let alone a lot of people. there's no evidence to show that that happens.

[Android3.14]

18. Why? Perhaps...just perhaps

Why? Perhaps...just perhaps, President Obama is a willing participant in the effort to keep the unwashed masses focused on a contrived conflict with each other rather than on their own collective interests.
What a disappointment.

[MrScorpio]

23. If a Fox News person had to do the interview, I'd pick Shep

At least Shep wouldn't go out his way to be an irresponsible idiot on national TV, the way that Billo did.

[mrchips]

24. With All Due Respect

It is my understanding that those interviews which are traditional, at least since Bush, are determined by the network televising the game. FAUX chose Bill O'Lielly, who cut the number of interruptions from 73 down to 38. Of course, this was a shorter assault than the last time the president faced off against this hot-headed blowhard. Ergo, instead of asking about TPP or the KXL, we had the president dismantling the FAUX News pseudo scandal gate propaganda. It seems to me that when puppets on that network start howling like stuck pigs, the president fared well.

To the other part of the post, if the president had declined to be interrogated, he would have been declared a coward.

I prefer the president take on FAUX news if he is going to deal with them at all. The whole country understood that he was telling the truth when asked if that network has treated him unfairly. Well, duh!

But don't pay any attention to me, I'm just a democrat who is glad Obama is in the White House.

[Cha]

45. Excuse me! I will pay attention to you, mrchips..

check out this.. bill o'reilly is defensive about criticism to his interview with President Obama.. he really should read some on DU dissing the President about the interview.. it will no doubt make him feel better.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4452773

[sheshe2]

50. Spot on, mrchips. n/t

[Coyotl]

26. Agree, but Obama made a fool of Bill-O and set in stone Bill-O's and Fox's idiotic witch trial.

From this time forward, Bill-O will be remembered as that stupid guy who interviewed Obama and got his ass handed to him.

[Cha]

46. O'reilly is all up in arms about criticism of his interview..

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4452773

[Coyotl]

48. He's probably losing sleep over this. Reality strikes home when your on the mat hearing the count.

[DFW]

29. One thing I didn't do and one I ddn't know

I did not watch the game. I couldn't care less about televised sports and we don't get Fox here in Germany anyway.

Also, I had no idea that the network televising the Super Bowl also did a pre-game interview with the President.

That is one "tradition" I think I would strongly consider doing away with. I don't care if Obama wiped the floor
with this clown or not.

The rabid masses that would jump into the crater of an erupting volcano if Fox told them God willed it
are surely convinced that O'Really tore Obama to shreds, and will go to their graves believing it, while
voting Teabag every chance they get in the meantime.

[JDPriestly]

30. If Obama is serious about talking to those of us who spent the hours and hours and hours of

time making sure he got re-elected, he would talk to Thom Hartmann or someone from Democracy Now or from Real News or one of the liberal radio programs. Because that is what we listen to. How about that, Democracy Now, Thom Hartmann and Real News. There are a number of programs --- TYT, quite a number of programs.

[progressoid]

31. I think it was a wash.

He lost points for appearing on Fox but he won points for kicking Billo's ass.

[treestar]

32. Because it looks like he is trying to avoid the questions?

This is ridiculous. Why "reward" any particular interviewer? Based on their positions, really? OR be like Bush or Palin who only "reward" interviewers who will soft peddle? And what do we say about Palin when she does that?

[Cha]

39. There's the ODS way of looking at this and

there's reality.

[libdem4life]

33. PBO doesn't get it...made me ill to see him grovel, on global TV, to even agree to such a thing

Then, while trying to act like "the grownup" and chuckling... O'Reilly clearly had the dominant personality, demeanor and I'll bet his ratings went up. Doubt PBO's did.

Another bad decision...where are his advisors?

[Cha]

43. Newsflash.. President Obama wasn't "groveling".. You're the

one who doesn't "get it".

"o'reilly clearly had the dominant personality" BFD.. I see you admire that but many many people don't admire bill o'reilly except those who tune into him.

[libdem4life]

53. I disagree. I don't at all admire people who are Dominants. Christie and Republican

bullying come to mind. I think they are mostly weak. And even though not an avid fan of PBO or Hillary, I voted for him and have cheered him on many, many things. I'm way to the Left of all of them, apparently.

But the Superbowl...he felt he needed the stage of the Super Bowl to elevate his status as President, in a schoolyard fight with a Known Bully? No. What would have been appropriate to his office would have been to have his family bundled up as non-partisan fans in the crowd, shivering and eating popcorn or whatever...and he would have gotten a lot of family friendly poses and approving publicity from the cameras on all the stations. Hell, Fox wouldn't have even shown his face, they detest him so much.

He has done that to great success on many occasions...the selfies and all are so cute...as is the warmth of his family. Frankly, that's how most Americans want to see him...an average guy with a great family who represents himself and us well on the national and global stage. Because of his race, it has been a much more difficult battle, but I feel he has broken through that bigotry and done us proud...for the most part.

I don't need your snark that "I didn't get it". I got it. I just have a different opinion. To we Liberals, different opinions are OK and don't reflect deficient or obtuse thinking. It was a cheap publicity trick...and it should have been better thought out. At least an MSNBC interviewer, then let Fox and their Right Haters scream to high heaven. They do anyway.

We don't want him to even like Bill O'Reilly, (or Huckabee/Sugar Daddy/women's libido or Hannity or Beck...) let alone present himself in O'Reilly's Special Fox Den-Receiving Room. They and their ilk are offensive to our sensibilities. He made us watch O'Reilly and that was upsetting. In fact, I turned it off shortly in disgust after it started. Perhaps he did better later on.

[DeSwiss]

34. Why???

Here's why: The Neo-Dems of today (the infiltrators of the party after Jimmy Carter's defeat) and who now control the party, want all the focus to be directed upon those ''crazy-ass Republicans'' rather than upon themselves. That way they can be cast as the responsible adults in the room, and with this status they can command the lion's share of the corporate largesse. Once having gained such position, they can now accomplish in ''rear-guard actions and weak-kneed compromises'' what no Republican ever could with a frontal assault on social programs.

Quite ingenious actually. Of course it doesn't take elaborate planning to fool most Americans owing to their terrible educations and knowledge of their own history. As well as their basic inability to think independently, again due to their terrible educations.

Then you couple all that with a goodly sprinkling of mass layoffs, foreclosures and bankruptcies among the middle classes - allowing bankers to steal retirement funds with impunity -- giving war-induced PTSD drugged-up cops free reign to go upside the head of grandmas and/or bashing the heads of young people whether its for wanting to use marijuana to cure cancer, protesting for being mass-surveilled, protesting another goddamned corporate war, or because they've discovered that they're now slaves because their degrees ain't worth spit but their education debts will follow them to their graves.

Then you plaster all that over Youtube and the various social media outlets (all of which we now know are being monitored) -- and people can be made more malleable and accepting of diminishing returns on the social contract. A ''cat food once a week ain't so bad'' mentality begins to take over.

These Neo-Dems, these kinds of minds, it doesn't really matter what label you slap on the outside, they're actually pretty damned barbaric really. They're unevolved humans. Lacking an ability to connect with society's unwashed. Those of us who built it all. They're those who have little or no ability to empathize with others -- they act almost exclusively in favor of self -- and who live almost solely for plain 'ol greed. Clearly some of them are better at pretending and masking what they're doing than others.

- These problems can be solved, but it requires that everyone open their eyes first.....


K&R

[center][/center]

[Cha]

44. O'Reilly Unloads On 'Weasel,' 'Beneath Contempt' WaPo Columnist Dana Milbank

"Bill O'Reilly is pretty defensive about his Super Bowl interview with President Obama.

Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank learned as much on Tuesday. Milbank dared to write a critical piece on the nationally televised interview, and he unleashed O'Reilly's famous temper.

"He's a weasel, in my opinion. Beneath contempt," O'Reilly told conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt.

O'Reilly said that Milbank shouldn't expect an invitation to the "No Spin Zone" anytime soon partly because "the audience despises him."

But O'Reilly couldn't care less about Milbank.

"I care that the Washington Post employs him," O'Reilly said. "That's what I care about. Whatever he says, doesn't bother me because I know where it's coming from. But the fact that the Washington Post would employ a guy like that — I mean, it's really disturbing."

Really, it's not about Milbank.

"But I’m not on a jihad against Milbank. I’m on a jihad, a holy war, against declining standards of journalism. The Washington Post editors — if they watched the interview, which, God knows if they did or not — had to know that Milbank was lying," O'Reilly continued."

The rest of the shining example of journalistic integrity of bill o'reilly.. brawawaaaaaaa
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/bill-oreilly-super-bowl-obama-dana-milbank-weasel

Poor bill o'really.. he should really read DU.. some appreciate him on here.

[kpete]

49. I loved the interview

and have more respect for our President for being SO damn cool.

must admit, part of me wishes he would have boxed O'really in the ears,

but you know what i always say,


peace,
kp

[Cha]

55. thanks kpete

peace to you~

[Boomerproud]

51. I couldn't care less about Dana Milbank but Billo calling himself a "journalist"?

[Cha]

54. I know huh?! And, he's on a "jihad" for journalist

integrity?