What question did Obama dodge? I actually thought he answered his dumb questions pretty well. What was annoying, but not surprising, was that O'Reilly wouldn't let Obama finish his answers.
Not sure what the fuss is about, both guys appeared reasonable throughout the interview. During the Egypt part, Bill was trying to lead Obama a bit too much and that is the only time it seemed like Obama was dodging questions, but other than that, seemed like a pretty standard interview
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/02/06/obama-and-oreilly-talk-mubarak-and-football/?partner=rss&emc=rss That is a dodge.
Actually it was an incredibly deft way to handle the situation. Mubarak should resign but Obama shouldn't publicly call on him to do so. Other people who are allies don't want to feel that they will be thrown under the bus. They want to see that the U.S. will stick by it's "friends". So while pushing Mubarak to go, but not publicly calling for his resignation is one smart move by the administration.
Yeah, I'm not sure what else he can do. Of course I think it would be strikingly appropriate for the US to call for his immediate resignation, but that's just not politically prudent, nor is it really going to achieve any sort of character rehabilitation for the USA given the last 3 decades of support for Mubarak. Basically, this is what is bound to happen when the "leaders of the free world" support violent dictatorships. America, **** yeah!
Couldn't Hannity edit the tape if Obama does an interview with, say, Katie Couric instead of O'Reilly? I disagree that Obama has nothing to gain. Going on Fox serves a couple of purposes as far as I can tell: (1) He is showing his balls-- showing that he is not afraid to handle tough, or even possibly unfair, questions from a right-leaning interviewer. This, by the way, makes for a good contrast between him and, for example, Sarah Palin, who not only (a) has not held an open press conference since becoming a national figure, and (b) refuses to go on any "mainstream" interviews after exposing herself with Katie Couric, but also (c) is now refusing to go on even O'Reilly (probably because he would ask her some real questions). http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/...alin----so-why-wont-she-come-on-my-show-1.php (2) More important, he is making a case to the "persuadables" among Fox viewers that he is not the bogeyman that the Glenn Becks of the world claim he is. As for helping Fox, I think they are doing fine without Obama. It's not like most Fox viewers aren't convinced that Fox is truthful and independent anyway and the rest of us sees Fox for what it even if Obama goes on it.
What you call deft I would call dishonest. You are saying he won't express his views to the American people because he doesn't want our allies to know his views. Thats pretty dishonest to me.
I don't understand Obama diplomacy. I do understand how to treat/keep allies and it isn't with lies of omission.
He seems to think it's more important to publicly share the internal strategy of US policy than it is to actually work to ensure the best outcome for Egyptians.
Given that every nation in the world and every past US President has kept information to themselves about diplomatic positioning, it's quite clear you don't understand diplomacy in general, as opposed to Obama diplomacy.
One would expect nothing less from the only undergraduate at the University of Arizona who also possesses a doctorate in political science.
NY Times and other papers have reported that the Americans have privately pressured Mubarak to leave the presidency and discussed solutions such as making him an "honorary president" without actual powers in order to move the discussions among various opposition parties and the government forward. I think "our allies" knows Obama's views just fine. In fact, I think anyone who reads the news knows Obama's views just fine. He's simply not calling out Mubarak in public because that's not gonna do any good. It embarasses Mubarak (and thus risk making him more stubborn) and makes the U.S. sound like they are making some imperial decree/demand on the Egyptians. Better to serve as a broker where they can but otherwise it's wiser to let the Egyptians sort it out. There is only so much you can do about a foreign country. Calling Obama dishonest here is like calling Adelman dishonest for not publicly calling out Aaron Brooks and demanding that he be removed from the team.
Here is the reason she won't go back on O'Reilly. She had a serious "deer in the headlights" look last time... <iframe title="YouTube video player" width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/uvF0slEXuS0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Adelman doesn't have to answer to the fans. He answers to Morey/Alexander. Obama on the other hand answers to Americans. Why would Obama take the interview if was not going to share his views on Egypt or answer questions about what he would do if the supreme court overturned Obamacare? Obviously he was gonna be asked about this stuff.
Again, for having a Doc in Political Science, you don't seem to have a very good grasp of international politics.
And you suck at arguing. Try using reason instead of ridicule, or try using reason and ridicule if you have trouble not insulting people. For example: What in my comment leads you to believe I have a bad grasp of diplomacy?
