About half-way through his interview on “Fox News Sunday” yesterday, Barack Obama, in response to a question about his propensity to toe the party line, said, “There are a lot of liberal commentators who think I’m too accommodating.”
The irony, of course, is that Obama was saying this on Fox News, which led many to argue he was being far too accommodating by appearing on the Republican network in the first place.
On Friday, after the Obama campaign announced that the senator would end his informal boycott and appear on “Fox News Sunday,” Greg Sargent talked to a campaign advisor who said, “We are clear-eyed about Fox’s role in the dissemination and amplification of Republican talking points this election. They have been the tip of the spear when it comes to repeatedly broadcasting some of the most specious of rumors about Obama. He is going on their Sunday show to take Fox on, not because we have any illusion about their motives or politics in this election.”
That’s not exactly what happened. Not at all, really. Obama did “take on” some of the typical Republican attacks — which Chris Wallace was happy to put into question form — and he was pretty effective at defending himself, but Obama did not push back against the network itself and Fox News’ role in disseminating bogus Republican talking points and pushing smears into the political mainstream.
TPM was kind enough to put together a highlight reel.
Who benefited from Obama’s appearance? It’s hard to say, actually.
Fox News, regrettably, certainly benefited. The reason progressives in general have been so aggressive in urging Dems not to appear on the network is that it legitimizes a partisan news outlet. By Obama appearing on “Fox News Sunday,” the network gets a ratings boost and a credibility boost.
Some wondered in advance about whether Obama might challenge Wallace the way Bill Clinton did during that famous exchange in which the former president became quite animated pushing back against slanted and unfair questions. That was probably an unrealistic expectations; it’s just not Obama’s style.
Which leads us to wonder whether Obama benefited from the appearance. I suppose it was a question of what he hoped to achieve. If the goal was to impress Republicans who might not otherwise hear what he has to say, then Obama may have done fairly well. John Hinderaker, of all people, responded to the interview this way:
Obama showed, once again, that he is a rare political talent. In contrast with his uncharacteristically poor performance in the Pennsylvania debate, Obama handled questions about Wright, Ayers, flag lapel pins–all the hot button topics he would rather avoid–deftly. Rather than showing resentment at being asked about such things, Obama acknowledged that voters want to know who he is, and that these topics are therefore fair game. He skillfully deflected questions on these as well as more substantive issues.
The problem, though, is that Fox News viewers aren’t going to consider Obama anyway, so the strength of his performance is almost secondary.
Andrew Sullivan added:
One of the most striking things I discovered about Obama last year was how many conservatives and Republicans who have encountered or met or engaged him over the years think highly of him. When the partisan right tries to swift-boat him with any number of polarizing clips, smears and half-truths, his best bet is to counter them directly, in the lion’s den. He should do more of these interviews. He should go on O’Reilly and Hannity. His ability to talk to and engage those on the other side of the aisle is real. It’s an asset he shouldn’t hide.
Maybe, but I’m not convinced. The number one indicator of Republican support in 2004 wasn’t NRA membership or attendance at evangelical churches; it was Fox News viewership. We’re talking about an audience that is not just conservative, but blindly loyal to the Republican Party.
They saw Obama capably and intelligently respond to a series of process and trivia questions — polls, Wright, flag pins — but did he “engage” the Republican activists that constitute Fox News’ audience? I’m skeptical.