Clinton on O'Reilly and Obama interview with Chris Wallace - Propoganda +Foreign Policy Implications

[grantcart]

Perhaps the main point of difference between the two candidates goes to how they would handle foreign affairs. Obama wants to engage world leaders, not just the ones that are on our side. Even if there are serious differences.

Clinton criticizes Obama saying that such efforts should only happen after concessions are obtained and that to have discussions without preconditions offers too great a chance for opposition leaders to use the President for propoganda purposes.

If you look at the two interviews (links below)you get a clear contrast on the styles of the two.

Obama while very engaging is much more formal and in control of the interview. When Wallace starts to frame the argument Obama requalifies the parameters so their are addressing the issues on his terms.

Clinton is much more collaborative and congenial with O'Reilly. He was much more successful in getting Clinton talking about his issues and getting her to agree (with minor qualifications) to his issues. He basically got her to agree that not only were Dr. Wright's comments unpatriotic but that all of the people in the congregation who were applauding him were also unpatriotic.

Obama and Wallace

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4pJ00Ax3Sv8&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eztOpB7QHGk&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ko4TZLnQr4Y&feature=related

Clinton and O'Reilly

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HPepj2G9IA0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eYkUVwKIRZI


Obama has a much more secure and distant tone in the interview while Clinton strives to show her like mindedness with O'Reilly. It shows that Obama has the personal strength in one on one interactions. View the two interviews and it is clear to me who is more Presidential and more equipped to engage foreign leaders that may be opposed to American interests.

From these two interviews given in very similar situations it is clear to my eye that Obama has a much greater ability at holding the 'narrative' of the interview and in this case Clinton was used for propoganda to a much higher degree than Obama.

What is your opinion?

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

1. Thank you for posting links

as a non-partisan in this fight (Kucinich is my candidate), I applaud anyone who posts links to videos so we can watch ourselves and compare. I'll be back later with my comments, but wanted to be the first to k&r.

[grantcart]

2. I'll be curious to see how you evaluate the two interviews

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

3. both did a good job getting their points in

Obama appeared to me to be calmer, but I felt Clinton was more specific on what she would do.

[grantcart]

5. that is a good point

unfortunately some of the things Clinton wants to do is ineffective pandering like the Gas tax holiday.

As supply and demand control price and not cost, if you take the tax off the price will be the same and then the oil companies will simply reap the benefits in higher profits.

Now she does say that she wants to then add another tax on the oil companies but that wouldn't be in place this summer and in any case wouldn't have any impact on the price.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

12. oh, I agree any candidate that advocates for a gas tax holiday

is not thinking in the long term, but rather playing to the crowd--and then the lowest IQs in the crowd. Pandering to our weaknesses isn't going to solve the problems we face.

[TragedyandHope]

4. Clinton consistently shows an insecure tendency to over-appeal to what she thinks her audience wants

And that is subject to change at a minute's notice, depending on what audience she is playing to.

Obama is a thoughtful and confident problem solver, with no use for bluster. He's in-touch, down-to-earth and secure enough in himself and his positions that he is willing to openly listen and consider other opinions and various sides of the issues. Obama bases his leadership decisions on what will be the BEST solution to deal with the problem at hand, rather than simply choosing one that might be the most popular or one that will make him look good in the short-term while damaging the country in the long term.

[grantcart]

6. I thought that the interviews showed that Clinton had a stronger effort to try and

find agreement with the interviewer and Obama was more secure in his own views.

[Voice for Peace]

10. Interesting post, agree with your pov on this.

I think Clinton was wanting to show she was capable of dealing with O'Reilly but in fact he was simply using her, as he uses everybody.

[grantcart]

11. thanks

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

14. Very good point about O'Reilly

I don't think he was entirely successful in what he tried to do--but maybe that was because to me it is obvious what he is trying to do. Don't know what his fans thought of the interview. It might be interesting to find out.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

13. It did strike me

that Obama was more willing to come up with solutions by working with everyone on Capitol Hill. He also made it clear that there were going to be some tough times ahead. I felt, though, that he would be able to inspire the nation to "bite the bullet" as it were and make sacrifices in the short term so that we would all benefit in the long term.

[grantcart]

15. thank you for your input

[barack the house]

7. Exactly basically obama would control his message as he has done and maintain help

maintain friednly relaitons between nations.

[DrFunkenstein]

8. I Am Sure That Clinton Would Never Agree With Foreign Policy Hawks

Just because she has for the last 8 years doesn't mean she will for the next 8 years. She would never use language like "totally obliterate" or insist on keeping nuclear weapons "on the table" against a handful of terrorists.

She CERTAINLY never go along with anyone trying to start a pre-emptive war against a country that posed no threat to our own for the sake of her ambitions, then go on the ground for the failed policy and suggest that the upsurge in suicide bombings was a sign of progress.

She is her own woman. Even though Bill Clinton knew very well that there was no Al Qaeda presence in Iraq, that didn't stop Hillary from backing Ahmed Chalabi and invoking the 9/11 attacks in her speech justifying her IWR vote.

And, of course, she would never play the right wing fear card with Osama Bin Laden images against her Democratic opponent.

[grantcart]

9. the strange irony is that I think if she just stopped trying to be some

image that they have crafted and fired all of those idiots and just was her self she probably would have been a great candidate and won the nomination.