Friday, September 19, 2008

Comparing apples to apples

Could Charlie Gibson's utter contempt for Sarah Palin be more obvious? Let's compare him asking Palin and Obama virtually identical questions. I've transcribed the interview snippets, but do watch the YouTube clips for the apparent visual cues of his hatred of Palin and his love for Obama.

First Palin (about 38 seconds in):

Gibson: What if Israel decided it felt threatened and needed to take out the Iranian nuclear facilities?

Palin: Well first, we are friends of Israel and I don't think that we should second-guess the measures that Israel has to take to defend themselves and for their security.

Gibson: So if we wouldn't second-guess it and they decided they needed to do it because Iran was an existential threat, we would be cooperative or agreeable/agree with that?

Palin: I don't think we can second-guess what Israel has to do to secure its nation.

Gibson: So if it felt necessary, if it felt the need to defend itself by taking out Iranian nuclear facilities, that would be all right?

Palin: We cannot second-guess the steps that Israel has to take to defend itself.
Now, Obama (5:07 in):
Gibson: So what if Israel decides in the name of its own security that it needs to make strikes on Iran?

Obama: Well, it is not my job, certainly as a candidate for president to tell Israelis what their defense posture should be. Um, I have said that I would not take military options off the table when it comes to Iran and dealing with their nuclear capacity. Beyond that, I think that we have to make sure that we are doing everything we can to avoid having to make that choice.

Gibson: Senator, good to talk to you.
Both Obama and Palin answered by saying that it wasn't appropriate for the US to tell Israel how to defend herself. Gibson responded to Palin by drilling at her, asking the question not twice but three times, implying that she was giving a non-answer. And when Obama gives virtually the identical answer? Gibson responds with acceptance and makes kissyface.

Gee Charlie, as long as your reporting remains unbiased and balanced.

1 comment:

YM said...

...Beyond that, I think that we have to make sure that we are doing everything we can to avoid having to make that choice.

By saying that, Obama was signaling that Israel is not allowed to attack Iran. By not saying that, Palin was signaling that Israel is allowed to attack Iran. Don't you, web girl, know how to interpret the nuance of political speech? Gibson was horrified that Palin may end up one step away from the Oval Office and yet doesn't know how to disassemble and double-speak!