Is it just me or is Zardari smacking around David Gregory?

[Wetzelbill]

I don't really recall somebody turning an interview around so much. It seems like Gregory will ask him a question and Zardari will counter with something scathing. Like he brought up how the U.S. gave billions to the dictator who had him imprisoned etc. Or Gregory asked him about how many nukes they have and why don't they give that info up to the world, and he replied back something like: "Why don't you?".

I thought Gregory looked stumped and couldn't get too much info. Seemed like a much tougher interview than Gregory expected.

[MADem]

1. Yes, and Gregory LET HIM ANSWER. He didn't step on his responses, he didn't

snark back, he asked the confrontational questions in a very straightforward fashion, and allowed Zardari to defend himself--which Zardari did with APLOMB.

It was a superb interview, and demonstrates why Gregory is head and shoulders (in more ways than one) above Russert, his detractors here notwithstanding.

Gregory didn't looked stumped. He had a set of questions from an opposing perspective (which is how he plays it--he always does the "devil's advocate" approach) to prosecute, and he ran through them. It was some of the best TV I've seen in a long while.

[Wetzelbill]

2. are you being serious?

I've always seen Gregory take the conventional wisdom approach, not really an opposing perspective. He interrupted his other guest Hamid Karzai plenty of times. With Zardari he just didn't seem to know what to say or follow up with.

[MADem]

3. Absolutely. He takes the "conventional wisdom" approach that is in opposition

to the view of the person he's interviewing.

He allowed Karzai to finish every thought. He redirected Karzai when he was "filling" (like Bush used to do--not answer the question). The Karzai interview was equally interesting--he brought out the Afghan leader's perspective, which hasn't really been spotlighted thus far at all.

We apparently weren't watching the same interviews. I thought the Zardari interview was fabulous--and I thought it was great because Gregory asked the questions that, say, the US Congress might submit for him--and allowed Zardari to respond from his perspective. What more could anyone want? What would you prefer that he ask? Zardari's comments were very honest, and they hopefully made a few people on this side of the pond think.

I don't understand what people want of the guy. He'd be a fucking tool if he was a cheerleader--is that what people want? For him to stand up and rah-rah for Obama like Russert did for Bush?

All he can do is root around and craft questions that others might ask, that others are curious about, questions that challenge the perspective of the person he's interviewing, and let it rip. He did that.

[Wetzelbill]

4. I guess if you like no information

it was great. He's usually unwatchable but his guests this week were compelling.

[MADem]

6. Well, your idea of "no information" and mine are quite different.

"Z's" attitude, in and of itself, given the present situation in his nation, was tremendously instructive. His responses were geared towards more than one audience, as were Karzai's. That's often the case with the current MTP interviews--it's not simply a parade of Administration Toadies reciting talking points, like it used to be under the late Potato.

You can vote with your remote if you'd like. I find the program worthwhile, so we'll simply have to agree to differ--you're not changing my mind on this issue.

[otohara]

5. I Don't Know, You Tell Me

I was in prison!

He said that several times - Gregory not knowing how to respond kept moving to the next question.