The “Obama Watch” has reached zero hour twice with Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama’s interviews with Chris Wallace and Bill O’Reilly. O’Reilly’s interview with Obama was divided into segments with the final segment happening last night concerning America’s dependency on oil.
It was a brave decision to go on the air with O’Reilly, yet the content of what he said should be focused on, not merely his decision to come on the show.
In his interview with O’Reilly, Obama let his conservative counterparts know where he stood on certain key issues, such as the growing concerns in national security. There also was a discussion concerning taxes. This may be a stretch for those who imagine themselves living in a perpetual Never Never Land here at Mississippi State University, but one day everyone here will have to file and pay income taxes. Yes, even you freshmen. How would a tax-paying citizen feel if he were forced by the government to pay more taxes for someone else?
Well, that’s what Obama hopes to do when it comes to taxes if he becomes president of the United States. I am not against helping people when they are in a bind and when they are in trouble. However, I am against the government forcing me to pay more money to do so.
This principle of redistributing wealth vaguely reminds me of socialism. It was for this reason that O’Reilly called the presidential candidate Robin Hood Obama during the interview. In my opinion, the government should encourage people to help others by providing some incentives to do so.
I do not think an interview with Obama could be done without the mention of the candidate’s former pastor Rev. Jeremiah Wright. There is really no need for me to discuss and add any further comment on where Wright went wrong or anything like that. Among the more conservative voters, there could be understandably some concern about how Obama’s relationship with Wright and others have affected his personal politics.
Obama responded to O’Reilly’s question about Wright quite well by saying that he went to church to worship God, not the pastor. Obama was on the defensive for most of this segment of the interview trying to disassociate himself from some of his previous relationships. Should people continue to judge someone based on whom they have relationships with or should they be judged independently of that group? It is only logical to assume that if someone is the friend of a thief, he is a thief himself, which is otherwise known as guilt by association. But is it really fair to judge me on the basis that one of my friends who I made in kindergarten turned out to be a felon?
In contrast, everything in the arena of politics is open and treated as public knowledge. Unless it can be proven that his dubious associations have affected the way he has voted in the past and his ideas for the future, this should be a non-issue. We can look at his voting record to determine how his relationships have influenced his public policy.
Obama’s interview with O’Reilly was engaging and very informative because it allowed people to see both points of view, conservative and liberal, and make an appropriate decision for themselves. An interview like this could not have been on CNN hosted by Chris Matthews or some other network similar to it because they would simply have a love affair with Obama and not question anything he said. They would be captivated with the mere sound of his articulate voice.
Now I am looking forward to Republican presidential candidate John McCain’s interview with Lou Dobbs on “Tonight.”
Lawrence Simmons is a senior majoring in communication. He can be contacted at [email protected] .