I have now examined long stretches of tape. (I sound like an assistant football coach, I know.) And he is amazingly condescending, prosecutorial, and snippy — even interrupts a lot. Insufferable. This is not the Gibson American television viewers have long known.
Years ago, I worked in an office where a particularly warm woman was in love with Charlie. I wonder what she thought about the interview, if she saw it.
But here’s the point I wish to make — something specific: In his loud sighings and overall body language, he reminded me quite a lot of Al Gore, in the first 2000 debate.
Remember that debate? Governor Bush did poorly, but Gore’s behavior was so boorish, people tended to focus on that (and a Saturday Night Live parody absolutely slew Gore).
Palin did much better than that (and Bush rose to the occasion — more than rose — in the second and third debates). (Same thing happened in ’04, oddly enough.) And she’ll get nothing but better, I predict.
P.S. Gibson’s behavior was so “out there” — drawing attention to itself — I think Palin should have remarked on it, in the course of her answers. What do I mean by “out there”? Well, I mean intrusive, in a way. Blatant.
Often, a good interviewer is seamless in his performance — he almost absents himself from the proceedings, so that the questions and answers take over. But it was like Gibson was the co-star — if not the lead star — of the whole show.
He was as much adversary — debate opponent — as questioner. And that’s not my idea of how these shebangs should go. (Whether the interviewee is an R or a D.)