Nine months after Bill O’Reilly shoved an Obama staffer and was subsequently wrangled by the Secret Service in his attempt to entice the candidate to come on his show, the brazen talk show host was finally able air his first sit down with him.He’s not known for subtlety. The interview comes four months after Sen. John McCain laced up his boots and entered the “no spin zone.” While they met at the same place, the two candidates received very different treatment.Both senators were subjected to O’Reilly’s in-your-face approach to public discourse: running through as many topics as possible, throwing in a few buzzwords and then leaving the audience without understanding what just happened.That’s where the similarities ended.A self-described tough interviewer, O’Reilly led the McCain interview with perhaps the most open-ended question that could be handed to a politician: “What’s [Obama’s] main weakness?” The softball wasn’t just an open invitation for McCain to recite his campaign’s talking points, it allowed the candidate to establish himself out of the gate in a dominant light. From here, the interview was on McCain’s terms.Sen. Barack Obama’s task would not be so easy. “Do you believe we’re in the middle of a war on terror?” the host led with. This question didn’t just include a politically loaded term, it also served to highlight a perceived weakness in his candidacy. The pretense behind the question was that there is some doubt whether Obama is aware that Islamic extremists wish to harm the United States.It is debatable whether Obama is really the weaker candidate on defense — what’s clear is that McCain’s campaign wants to paint him with this brush. O’Reilly’s willingness to lead off with such a condescending and politically charged question was an all but blatant play to his audience.During no time in the interview was Obama gifted a politically friendly question. Rather, the senator was forced to devote most of his time trying to shore up O’Reilly’s rapid succession of oversimplifications of his positions in between the host’s constant distracting interjections.Obama’s interview was distinct from McCain’s — O’Reilly’s line of questioning toward Obama was always geared at making the senator defend his position. Challenging candidates on their stances is necessary to the political process. However, in light of the rhetoric used, O’Reilly’s motives must be questioned. Professional journalists don’t quiz candidates on their tax policies by asking, “You are a big ‘tax the rich’ guy, aren’t you?”O’Reilly justified his tactics as an antithesis to the “coddling” of Obama by the “mainstream media.”O’Reilly’s choice of “controversial” topics in his interview with McCain included the senator’s support of the ban on ANWR drilling and his opposition to the torture of inmates in Guantanamo Bay. While contrary to the general positions of the Republican Party, these are hardly radical views. In addition, McCain’s views were accurately described. This allowed him to easily parry most of O’Reilly’s prodding as he wasn’t forced to waste time clearing up his actual position.Consequently, the senator managed to appear confident in his tangles with O’Reilly as he maintained the jolly, Reaganesque disposition that evokes the constant repetition of “my friends” and grandfatherly chuckles. Further, it was just enough to establish the Maverick’s supposed knack for blazing trails without bringing up the serious disagreements he has with his party.O’Reilly’s slanted approach to these interviews even more evident in his eagerness to detract from legitimate discussion with Obama. Predictably, O’Reilly resurrected the specter of Rev. Jeremiah Wright — along with names like Flager, Ayres and Dailykos.com — in his attempt to associate Obama with the words of others, rather than his own.When McCain was reminded in his interview of his association with Pastor John Hagee, it was predicated as a weak association and the question quickly segued into an O’Reilly rant about The New York Times’ motives. Although there is no question that Obama was in enemy territory, the senator was able to skillfully address his host’s hostility with eloquence and grace. Even with the constant berating from O’Reilly and his skewed questions, Obama did well in clearing up the facts and stating his position. The inequity of O’Reilly’s professional integrity is no revelation. However, these interviews may serve as insights into what is in store when the two candidates meet to debate their policies later this month. We’ve seen Obama have the kitchen sink thrown at him all in one sitting. While his appearance isn’t expected to win over any votes from the O’Reilly contingent, his performance shows seriousness in purpose, and most of all: substance.—-contact Mark MacMurdo at [email protected]