Is Obama seeing the Questions in Advance?

[we vs us]

quote:Originally posted by Conan71
I'm bent more toward the Libertarian spectrum, so a lot of Obama's solutions for larger gov't aren't going to strike a chord with me.  He's promised to cut taxes, yet I've heard no solution from him about balancing the budget nor cutting spending.  All I keep hearing about are expansive government programs and promoting tax cuts to people who aren't paying taxes now.  He wanted another tax rebate this fall???  That's trying to buy votes with MY tax money.

Mr. McCain, I'd like to introduce you to Google.  

From ontheissues.org:

quote: BQ: Would it be a priority of your administration to balance the federal budget every year?

A: Over the last seven years, what we've seen is an economy that's out of balance because of the policies of George Bush and the Republicans in Congress. Not only do we have fiscal problems, but we've got growing inequality. People are working harder for less and they're seeing costs go up. So what I want to do is get the long-term fundamentals right. That means that we are investing in education & infrastructure, structuring fair trade deals, and also ending the war in Iraq. That is money that can be applied at home for critical issues.

Q: So a priority to balance the federal budget, or not?

A: We are not going to be able to dig ourselves out of that hole in 1 or 2 years. But if we can get on a path of sustained growth, end the war in Iraq, end some of the special interest loopholes and earmarks that have been clogging up the system, then I think we can return to a path of a balanced budget.

Source: 2007 Des Moines Register Democratic debate Dec 13, 2007

Granted this is 9 months old, but, he was running for president back then, too, and I assume this still holds.

[akupetsky]

quote:Originally posted by Hoss

How about that bumbling interview by Mrs. Palin?  Can anyone address a person during an interview by their given name more than she did with Charlie Gibson?

I'm glad to know I wasn't the only one who found her constant use of "Charlie" annoying.  Every sentence ended with Charlie.   "Well, Charlie,...blah, blah, blah, Charlie...In what respect, Charlie?

I recall from a criminal justice class that using first names is a technique that cops use in order to maintain the upper hand in an interview of a witness.  Repeatedly using someones first name can create an air of superiority.

Before anyone jumps on me as sexist, I would in no way imply that Ms. Palin use Charlie Gibson's last name.  I just thought her constant use of his first name was annoying and a bit odd.

[Hoss]

quote:Originally posted by akupetsky

quote:Originally posted by Hoss

How about that bumbling interview by Mrs. Palin?  Can anyone address a person during an interview by their given name more than she did with Charlie Gibson?

I'm glad to know I wasn't the only one who found her constant use of "Charlie" annoying.  Every sentence ended with Charlie.   "Well, Charlie,...blah, blah, blah, Charlie...In what respect, Charlie?

I recall from a criminal justice class that using first names is a technique that cops use in order to maintain the upper hand in an interview of a witness.  Repeatedly using someones first name can create an air of superiority.

Before anyone jumps on me as sexist, I would in no way imply that Ms. Palin use Charlie Gibson's last name.  I just thought her constant use of his first name was annoying and a bit odd.

That wasn't what I was taught, although your explanation may be more to the mark.  I was always under the impression that using someone's first name alot during conversation, especially if you didn't know them real well, was meant as conversational 'filler', if you felt like what you were saying wasn't substantive.  She blinked a lot as well during the tougher parts of the interview.  I have a law enforcement officer I know pretty well and I've been told that someone that blinks an inordinate amount is usually deviating from 'truthiness'.  [8D]

[jiminy]

She did great, I thought.  She explained her positions very clearly (cheerfully even) and cleared up several things that people have been trying to pin on her.  She definitely treated Charlie with greater respect than he treated her.  The Bush Doctrine question was a lame attempt to trip her up and she knew it the second he asked.  The fact is, there is no document sitting somewhere titled  the "Bush Doctrine".  It is a title the media has ascribed to various policies that Bush has used to justify some of his decisions.  The one Charlie used is not even considered the current one.  So, sure, she knows about the preemptive war policy, but didn't realize (like everybody watching) that's what Charlie meant by the Bush Doctrine.  Her response asking him to clarify was exactly right.

[Friendly Bear]

quote:Originally posted by joiei

and something else I just thought about, Obama has real answers, all Palin has is gobbeldy gook nonsense nonanswers.  I don't know who is prepping her but they are doing a frigging terrible job.  Beyond the concept that Palin has no earthly idea what she is being asked to comment on.

Maybe he has the real answers because he has seen the real QUESTIONS in advance of the interview?

It's fairly obvious that in unscripted interviews with Rev. Rick Warren, and with Bill O'Reilly, that when Obama hasn't seen the questions in advance, that he badly stutters and stammers with his answers.

Anyone else notice?

Reason:  His left-wing supporters in the MSM are providing him with the questions in advance.

[Hoss]

quote:Originally posted by jiminy

She did great, I thought.  She explained her positions very clearly (cheerfully even) and cleared up several things that people have been trying to pin on her.  She definitely treated Charlie with greater respect than he treated her.  The Bush Doctrine question was a lame attempt to trip her up and she knew it the second he asked.  The fact is, there is no document sitting somewhere titled  the "Bush Doctrine".  It is a title the media has ascribed to various policies that Bush has used to justify some of his decisions.  The one Charlie used is not even considered the current one.  So, sure, she knows about the preemptive war policy, but didn't realize (like everybody watching) that's what Charlie meant by the Bush Doctrine.  Her response asking him to clarify was exactly right.

Make sure you take your Dramamine after that...

[:O]

[waterboy]

quote:Originally posted by Hoss

quote:Originally posted by jiminy

She did great, I thought.  She explained her positions very clearly (cheerfully even) and cleared up several things that people have been trying to pin on her.  She definitely treated Charlie with greater respect than he treated her.  The Bush Doctrine question was a lame attempt to trip her up and she knew it the second he asked.  The fact is, there is no document sitting somewhere titled  the "Bush Doctrine".  It is a title the media has ascribed to various policies that Bush has used to justify some of his decisions.  The one Charlie used is not even considered the current one.  So, sure, she knows about the preemptive war policy, but didn't realize (like everybody watching) that's what Charlie meant by the Bush Doctrine.  Her response asking him to clarify was exactly right.

Make sure you take your Dramamine after that...

[:O]

I must have watched some editted reruns of that interview! Didn't see it that way. Jiminy, doctrines are rarely addressed formally as such. The Monroe Doctrine was a name applied to a policy written by President Monroe, and not by his detractors but by historians, editors, educators etc. If she followed national politics it would have been an easy question.

My take is that Gibson was hardly an aggressive interviewer. Certainly no more than other celebrities that have been interviewed by him.

The use of Gibson's first name by Palin includes all that was mentioned above. The use of first names in a sales presentation is a salesmans attempt to cross over to the customers side of the desk and establish rapport. A levelling techique that is designed to allay any tension. If used too early in the presentation, as she did, it is perceived as disrespectful.

Using it in the opposite manner where you use formality such as Mr, Mrs, or Your Honor, helps to establish a tone of respect and is used if your prospect is craving of that respect. The idea is to allow the prospect to feel so powerful as to be gracious to his lesser when you ask a favor of him.

It can also be used to establish dominance if the person you're talking to is bound by rules of professionalism in addressing you. Gibson had to call her "Governor" or appear disrespectful but Palin could establish strength of position by calling him by a slang of his given name. Mr. Gibson became, Charles which became Charlie. She skipped right to Charlie but her motivations were debatable. Her handlers would have used this ploy for sure but it could just be her small town upbringing.

Its generally acceptable, if you are not being manipulative, to ask the other party permission to use such informality. It then sets the tone of the discussion. Most politicians use these tecniques subconsciously in different ways depending on their motives. McCain does it too by using "my friend(s)". Obama does too. Anyone trying to persuade or dominate the other party uses the technique.

[FOTD]

Only an idiot would come up with Jiminy as an identity. How's Goofy?

You're headed for purgatory....and take your cartoon clone Bear too.

"Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit upon his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats."
-- Henry Louis Mencken

[USRufnex]

quote:Originally posted by Friendly Bear

quote:Originally posted by joiei

and something else I just thought about, Obama has real answers, all Palin has is gobbeldy gook nonsense nonanswers.  I don't know who is prepping her but they are doing a frigging terrible job.  Beyond the concept that Palin has no earthly idea what she is being asked to comment on.

Maybe he has the real answers because he has seen the real QUESTIONS in advance of the interview?

It's fairly obvious that in unscripted interviews with Rev. Rick Warren, and with Bill O'Reilly, that when Obama hasn't seen the questions in advance, that he badly stutters and stammers with his answers.

Anyone else notice?

Reason:  His left-wing supporters in the MSM are providing him with the questions in advance.

Yeah bear..... and don't forget, 9-11 was an inside job.  [)]

Spin, spin... lie, lie... you just can't help it, can you FB?

[Friendly Bear]

quote:Originally posted by USRufnex

quote:Originally posted by Friendly Bear

quote:Originally posted by joiei

and something else I just thought about, Obama has real answers, all Palin has is gobbeldy gook nonsense nonanswers.  I don't know who is prepping her but they are doing a frigging terrible job.  Beyond the concept that Palin has no earthly idea what she is being asked to comment on.

Maybe he has the real answers because he has seen the real QUESTIONS in advance of the interview?

It's fairly obvious that in unscripted interviews with Rev. Rick Warren, and with Bill O'Reilly, that when Obama hasn't seen the questions in advance, that he badly stutters and stammers with his answers.

Anyone else notice?

Reason:  His left-wing supporters in the MSM are providing him with the questions in advance.

Yeah bear..... and don't forget, 9-11 was an inside job.  [)]

Spin, spin... lie, lie... you just can't help it, can you FB?

It's obvious that the MSM is feeding Obama the questions in advance.

A blind man can see it.

Why did Obama wait until AFTER his coronation at the Democratic Convention to submit to an actual potentially hostile interview, namely Bill O'Reilly?

He knows he's an Empty Suit that only knows how to read a teleprompter, and answer pre-digested questions.

[USRufnex]

Do you have one tiny little bit of proof...

I've watched Obama in debates for years..... his answers have always been too careful and too cautious and too academic...

You simply see all the conspiracies you want to see.... here's another one for ya I'm sure you'll like....  [)]

[Hoss]

quote:Originally posted by Friendly Bear

quote:Originally posted by USRufnex

quote:Originally posted by Friendly Bear

quote:Originally posted by joiei

and something else I just thought about, Obama has real answers, all Palin has is gobbeldy gook nonsense nonanswers.  I don't know who is prepping her but they are doing a frigging terrible job.  Beyond the concept that Palin has no earthly idea what she is being asked to comment on.

Maybe he has the real answers because he has seen the real QUESTIONS in advance of the interview?

It's fairly obvious that in unscripted interviews with Rev. Rick Warren, and with Bill O'Reilly, that when Obama hasn't seen the questions in advance, that he badly stutters and stammers with his answers.

Anyone else notice?

Reason:  His left-wing supporters in the MSM are providing him with the questions in advance.

Yeah bear..... and don't forget, 9-11 was an inside job.  [)]

Spin, spin... lie, lie... you just can't help it, can you FB?

It's obvious that the MSM is feeding Obama the questions in advance.

A blind man can see it.

Why did Obama wait until AFTER his coronation at the Democratic Convention to submit to an actual potentially hostile interview, namely Bill O'Reilly?

He knows he's an Empty Suit that only knows how to read a teleprompter, and answer pre-digested questions.

And I bet you have anti-black-helicopter guns on your property as well.

Maybe it was because he wanted to wait until he was actually given the nomination by his party?

Oh, the scandal!

[:O]

[jiminy]

quote:Originally posted by waterboy

quote:Originally posted by jiminy

She did great, I thought.  She explained her positions very clearly (cheerfully even) and cleared up several things that people have been trying to pin on her.  She definitely treated Charlie with greater respect than he treated her.  The Bush Doctrine question was a lame attempt to trip her up and she knew it the second he asked.  The fact is, there is no document sitting somewhere titled  the "Bush Doctrine".  It is a title the media has ascribed to various policies that Bush has used to justify some of his decisions.  The one Charlie used is not even considered the current one.  So, sure, she knows about the preemptive war policy, but didn't realize (like everybody watching) that's what Charlie meant by the Bush Doctrine.  Her response asking him to clarify was exactly right.

I must have watched some editted reruns of that interview! Didn't see it that way. Jiminy, doctrines are rarely addressed formally as such. The Monroe Doctrine was a name applied to a policy written by President Monroe, and not by his detractors but by historians, editors, educators etc. If she followed national politics it would have been an easy question.

My take is that Gibson was hardly an aggressive interviewer. Certainly no more than other celebrities that have been interviewed by him.

The use of Gibson's first name by Palin includes all that was mentioned above. The use of first names in a sales presentation is a salesmans attempt to cross over to the customers side of the desk and establish rapport. A levelling techique that is designed to allay any tension. If used too early in the presentation, as she did, it is perceived as disrespectful.

Using it in the opposite manner where you use formality such as Mr, Mrs, or Your Honor, helps to establish a tone of respect and is used if your prospect is craving of that respect. The idea is to allow the prospect to feel so powerful as to be gracious to his lesser when you ask a favor of him.

It can also be used to establish dominance if the person you're talking to is bound by rules of professionalism in addressing you. Gibson had to call her "Governor" or appear disrespectful but Palin could establish strength of position by calling him by a slang of his given name. Mr. Gibson became, Charles which became Charlie. She skipped right to Charlie but her motivations were debatable. Her handlers would have used this ploy for sure but it could just be her small town upbringing.

Its generally acceptable, if you are not being manipulative, to ask the other party permission to use such informality. It then sets the tone of the discussion. Most politicians use these tecniques subconsciously in different ways depending on their motives. McCain does it too by using "my friend(s)". Obama does too. Anyone trying to persuade or dominate the other party uses the technique.

I guess people see what they want to see... I didn't see any disrepect at all in her use of his first name.  I found it endearing.  Keep in mind they spent a fair amount of time together off the air as she showed him around.  Some libs seem to think this should have been more like a debate, not an interview.

And he was plenty aggressive.  Many thought he was chosen because he would play softball, but I didn't see that at all.  If he were to go after Obama in the same fashion, it might go something like this:

Charlie:  Do you support sex education for kindergartners?
Obama: I think age-appropriate sex education could be a good thing for children of any age in school.  What "age-appropriate" means would be above my pay-grade; that's for the educators to decide.
Charlie:  I'm sorry that's a lot of words.  Yes or no, do you support comprehensive sex education for kindergartners?
Obama: Well, no, but listen...
Charlie (interrupting):  Then why did you vote for it?
Obama:  (sputter) well, ummm ... I'm going to lower taxes!  After I raise them, though, but don't tell anybody.

[FOTD]

Hey Jiminy ! How's Goofy and the rest of your gang?


[]

[waterboy]

Jiminy, just how much of your life is governed by yes or no answers? Thats a significant trait of conservatives. Life is black and white, good and evil for them. They frame the questions to reflect what they already believe. Unfortunately life just doesn't mirror that philosophy. We are faced with decisions that require sorting out and weighing the options.

For instance, change your questioning by Charlie. "If you believe that kindergarten children should be given basic understandings of what can be touched by others and what is off limits to others in order to protect them against child molestors, vote yes. If you believe that they shouldn't be made aware so that child predators can molest them without fear, vote no.

Lots of words, but worth the effort.