I do as well.
You make some good points and it's nice rather than scary to know we have something in common. I disagree with you, however, on your belief that President Bush should have asked for a "commercial-free" program. Why? Because this interview was not a SOTU speech, it was not a modern-day fireside chat, nor was it an important message from the nation's president to the people. Tim Russert has done interviews with presidential candidates and this interview was one of them. Yes, he is the POTUS, but in the context of the interview yesterday, he was a candidate just like all the others.
Can you imagine the outcry if he had received "special treatment" by NBC in this case? I believe that would have caused far greater damage to President Bush's campaign for re-election than what some consider to be a "poor showing" in the Russert interview.
My personal opinion is that President Bush did an admirable job of answering the questions put forth by Tim Russert. I will admit to a rose-colored bias on my part, but I don't believe it's humanly possible to eliminate all partialities since our entire lives are made up of choices that give us our viewpoints.
Your turn. :o)
Well, I hate to disappoint you ... but I agree with most of your comments :-)
I thought the purpose of the interview was to be more of an explanation to the American people for certain past decisions (fireside-chat'esqe), but in the context of it being a candidate interview, I suppose it would have been percieved as unfair to grant an full hour to his positions.
I guess i'm just getting old and cranky and after listening to the POTUS wistfully express regret over the casualties we have experienced in Iraq - the subsequent pitch for a cure for erectile dysfuntion, and Lassie perfoming kung-fu on a mountain lion seemed a little, well, odd.
On second thought, maybe it's just the current crop of commercials that I don't like :-)