Two interesting interviews recently: that of Gen. Petraeus on C-Span, and Vice-President Cheney on CNN.

Petraeus was firm and gracious and professional. His reasoning (e.g.,to the effect that anything that might give the enemy the impression we had the weaker will would of course be damaging to the war effort…) was in startling contrast to the rambling nonsense of most of his questioners.

I’m always intrigued by the mob mentality of Senators’ questioners: flamboyant and blood-hungry when they sense a Rice or Rumsfeld is the new victim, respectful and wary when someone like Petraeus might still enjoy public support.

Cheney’s monosyllabic answers–whether in response to McCain’s attacks on him or Rumsfeld, or awkward and irrelevant questions about his daughter’s pregnancy–seemed to put the onus back on an uncomfortable Wolf Blitzer. He somehow seemed to think that he was going to get to referee a political version of the Trump/Rosy back and forth.

Usually the by-rote DC reporters bare their fangs when the interviewed seems gushy, or eager to please, or to expand on their resumes. But Cheney, who comes off immune to those urges with his yep/nope answers, seems to make the reporters freeze like deer in the headlights.