Midnight CDT. Obama’s not on until about 3/4 through though.
Kinda makes you wonder if they knew the baby would cancel out the less exciting scandals and her pick was influenced by it.
Um…no…Obama said exactly the same thing on O’Reilly.
This has got to be the most well-reasoned and articulated pile of WRONG that I have ever seen.
OK, so cheeseball O’Reilly is going to spread a 30 minute interview over 4 nights. Maybe that’s a good business decision, but hell if I’m going to tune in for that.
I watched tonight’s portion, and this is what I like about Obama. I think he hit it out of the park in that short segment. I like the way he thinks on his feet, how he really understands the issues and isn’t intimidated. If I hadn’t been on his side before, I probably would have made the switch. Great answers to the questions, and absolutely didn’t let O’Reilly do what he likes to do best-- take control of the situation. I give a big plus to Obama now. I like him much better when he’s talking off the cuff than when he’s preaching to the choir.
Seriously? He’s no such thing. I try to avoid watching political commentators myself, but being around my parents means I see a fair amount of him anyway since they’re loyal viewers. He’s as conservative as I am. Not as conservative as my folks, but he’s definitely a moderate conservative.
Uh, Obama said the surge would make things worse.
There are some things O’Reilly has said from time to time that makes me think O’Reilly likes him, and maybe even wants to (privately) support him, but he was sulking a little bit because Obama hadn’t gone on his show. O’Reilly, in his grandiosity, fancies himself as some kind of a kingmaker and has said he thinks GWB’s appearance on his show in 2000 was instrumental to him getting elected.
O’Reilly has said in the past that his favorite politcal hero, oddly enough, is Bobby Kennedy, and I wonder if he sees something of that in Barack Obama.
I did think it was interesting when O’Reilly said in the segment after the Obama clip, that "He’s a tough guy. I looked in his eyes and he’s not a wimp. " I think O’Reilly is probably used to people being intimidated by him and Obama wasn’t. I think he might have earned a little bully’s respect.
It was interesting that O’Reilly said Iraq was the wrong war. I wonder when he made that conversion.
I wonder if that’s an indicator of how he and the campaign will react to the inevitable (and present) negative campaigning from the other side.
He said it wouldn’t “solve” the sectarian violence. He said, the surge would take the pressure off the Iraqis to reach a political solution, which is what we needed. And what he’s always said.
"“I didn’t see the actual transcript of Senator Clinton’s speech, but my assessment is that if we put an additional 30,000 of our troops into Baghdad, that’s going to quell some of the violence in the short term. I don’t think there’s any doubt that as long as U.S. troops are present that they are going to be doing outstanding work.”
He voted against the surge because he thought it would delay the Iraqis from reaching a political solution, not because it wouldn’t reduce violence.
That’s what fucking kills me about all this feigned outrage. It’s a smoke screen. It’s a way of saying, if you attack her we’ll attack you. Who gives a fuck if someone put Sex Lies and scandal on the cover to sell a rag magazine? There’s plenty of real issues with documented info to back it up. I’ve watched several people talk about the horrible sexist attacks and not one of them has mentioned a single real issue about her record. What bullshit.
Yes, a presidential candidate does deserve the scrutiny. Both do.
Obama was very good. I’ll look forward to the rest. I give ORielly credit for acknowledging Iraq as the wrong war. I thought his questions were challenging and direct and Obama did great.
In the mini discussion afterward ORielly asked the two guests. Is Obama the terror warrior. One said we’ll see. The other said no. I’d say yes, he’ll deal with terrorism with good judgment and the right mix of diplomacy, sanctions, and military muscle.
ORielly said, Obama’s a tough guy. I looked him in the eye and he’s no wimp. Fairly big props coming from O.
False by omission. Yes he said it would take pressure off the Iraqis to make a political solution. However, he specifically said in the video I linked:
“I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there. In fact, I think it will do the reverse.”
What is the reverse of solving sectarian violence?
He also said that he couldn’t imagine the surge making “a substantial difference on the situation on the ground.”
O’Reilly is indeed a prick. Like Rush Limbaugh he might have some good points now and then, but it gets lost in all his overreactions and holier than thou attitude.
O’Reilly was on Letterman once and Dave was trying to turn the tables on him, Dave asked him “Admit it Bill, you’re basically full of shit.” That got a big laugh. It was an awkward interview, I don’t know if it was an act or not.
O’Reilly’s blog entryon his impressions of Obama.
My god, he actually sounds fair and balanced.
Wow. That does seem like pretty high praise from him.
Maybe they were fairly big props coming from O’Reilly, but it was like a left-handed compliment. He wanted Obama to admit he was wrong in the worst way. And O’Reilly was wrong to make this surge thing into a right and wrong issue… it’s too sensitive there are too many factors. Obama explained himself perfectly… YET O’Reilly did a spin job on his response in his discussion afterward (and here’s my email to O’Reilly):
O’Reilly, you’re a fraud! You’ve been begging for an interview with Senator Obama, and here was your chance to focus on issues, not party. Yet you spinned his response in your analysis. You’re a spinner! You spinned his responses into something he did not say! He carefully explained the different levels and effects of the surge and you ignored it. You wanted him to admit defeat. You wanted a black and white response. Shame on you O’Reilly. Face it, you’re biased. You would have never treated Senator McCain in the same confrontational manner. I think you’re in a Spin Zone.
Not that I disagree with you, but the verb is “spun,” not “spinned.” (i.e. “you spun his response…”). On the extreme off chance that he might read your email on the air, make sure you get your spelling, grammar and punctuation perfect or you’ll just give him an easy cheap shot.
And after that fair and balanced analysis, he throws in a real zinger for is finale:
"He can be ruthless, kind, unfair, and generous. In short, he’s a real person trying to achieve an unreal position—that of the most powerful person in the world.
God help him."
Trying to achieve an unreal position? What’s that suppose to mean?