海角大神

Fox News host Bill O鈥橰eilly interviewed President Obama prior to the Super Bowl on Sunday, and it was a tough, . Mr. O鈥橰eilly interrupted Mr. Obama a number of times, while Obama blamed some of his problems on Fox.

So who won?

Well, it鈥檚 tough to 鈥渨in鈥� or 鈥渓ose鈥� in a presidential interview, given that there鈥檚 no easy way to keep score. But we鈥檇 say both men accomplished what they set out to do. O鈥橰eilly got clips he can use on his show for weeks. Obama got to challenge the veracity of the conservative news worldview 鈥� something that will play well with his own supporters.

First, the host. O鈥橰eilly sounded tough and focused on the three subjects his network has been pounding on for months: the botched "Obamacare" rollout, the Benghazi attack in 2012 that killed the US ambassador in Libya, and the Internal Revenue Service's targeting of conservative groups applying for tax-exempt status.

On Obamacare, O鈥橰eilly asked when the president knew there would be problems. Obama replied that everyone knew it wouldn鈥檛 go perfectly, and so forth, and then the host jumped in and asked why Obama hadn鈥檛 fired Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius.

This seemed to put the president back on his heels a bit. He said, 鈥淲hen we鈥檙e in midstream, Bill, we want to make sure that our main focus is how do we make this thing work so that people are able to sign up?鈥�

O鈥橰eilly then asked if Obama felt his biggest mistake had been telling people they could keep their health insurance, if they liked their insurance.

鈥淥h Bill, you鈥檝e got a long list of my mistakes of my presidency,鈥� replied Obama, turning the question around.

He added, as he has when asked in the past, that this was a matter he 鈥渞egretted.鈥�

Perhaps because he felt pressed for time, O鈥橰eilly didn鈥檛 follow up here. He just moved on. Next subject up: Benghazi.

For the most part here O鈥橰eilly looked backwards. He dwelt on why administration officials didn鈥檛 use the word 鈥渢error鈥� in their initial reports about the attack.

Obama said that initial reports were confusing but that 鈥減eople understood at the time that something dangerous was happening.鈥�

鈥淲e鈥檝e got to make sure that not only have we implemented all the reforms that were recommended by the independent agencies, but we also have to make sure that we understand our folks out there are in a hazardous, dangerous situation,鈥� said Obama.

Then there was some back and forth as to whether the administration had not described Benghazi as a terrorist attack because Obama鈥檚 campaign team did not want that word used prior to the November 2012 election, lest Al Qaeda appear resurgent.

Detractors believe this, said O鈥橰eilly.

That鈥檚 when Obama turned around and put the blame on Fox.

鈥淭hey believe it because folks like you are telling them that,鈥� he said. He also noted that many congressional hearings have spent hours looking at all these questions.

Then O鈥橰eilly moved on to the IRS. He noted that a former IRS chief, Douglas Shulman, was cleared to visit the Obama White House 157 times. The implication, which he did not address directly, is that top administration officials were aware of the extra scrutiny the IRS gave conservative groups applying for tax-exempt status.

Obama noted that Mr. Shulman was involved in the Obamacare rollout and thus had lots of White House meetings to attend. (As , most of those meetings were in the Old Executive Office Building, not the White House itself, and three-quarters of them were regularly scheduled health-care meetings.)

鈥淚 do not recall meeting with him in any of these meetings, which are pretty routine meetings,鈥� said Obama.

That was about it. They ended on a positive note with O鈥橰eilly saying he felt Obama鈥檚 鈥渉eart was in the right place,鈥� and Obama making a wildly inaccurate prediction for the score of the upcoming game.

Was O鈥橰eilly insulting? Or was he too easy? In fact, some critics of the president were annoyed that the Fox host focused on asking questions that Obama has been asked many times before, on subjects that have chalked up hours of congressional scrutiny, as the president himself said.

O鈥橰eilly conducted a 鈥渇aux-tough interview made up of questions that were virtually guaranteed to elicit nothing of value,鈥� wrote , who has been critical of the administration鈥檚 drone and surveillance policies.

鈥淭hose who want Obama to face tough questions saw an opportunity squandered, and were bored to tears by stuff we鈥檝e already heard,鈥� Mr. Freidersdorf added.

He was not the only journalist who said O鈥橰eilly鈥檚 tough demeanor actually concealed the fact that the questions were framed in such a manner as to make them easily deflectable.

鈥淚t鈥檚 a shame. O鈥橰eilly had 15 minutes and an audience of millions to ask the president hard questions. Instead he lobbed lumpy softballs,鈥� , editor-at-large of the news magazine The Week.

To some conservatives, however, the interview revealed that Obama is persisting in explanations that they hold to be implausible.

鈥淥bama DOUBLES DOWN on IRS targeting denial鈥� was part of the headline on the right-leaning about the interview, for instance.