Obama finally will go into the no spin zone toe to toe against Bill O'Reilly on Thursday's THE FACTOR.

Man, it's opening night of the NFL. This is tough! :(

O'Reilly's actually a pretty fair interviewer, and Obama's an excellent debater. Regardless of which side of the fence you fall on, I think this will come off well for both men.

Obama is doing it to take some viewership away from the Republican Convention. Will this become another tradition? The attempt to disrupt the opposing party's convention?

How? It's on fox news, I'm sure they are covering the convention too.
AND it's not going to air at 10pm, which is when McCain's speech will be.

How? It's on fox news, I'm sure they are covering the convention too.
AND it's not going to air at 10pm, which is when McCain's speech will be.
They'll cover the convention on Fox Business I'm sure.

:banana:

He didn't come off good. Actually, it wasn't too bad until O'Reilly asked him about his birth certificate and Obama said "Shut the fuck up, fool!"

O'Reilly's actually a pretty fair interviewerWhat?

I've just got to think that if McCain had pulled some stunt like this on Barack's, "Big night," that the Democrats would have been crying, "Foul."

Hell, they didn't like McCain coming out the next day with his choice for VP and taking all the discussion away from Obama's speech. That may be what prompted this.

I've just got to think that if McCain had pulled some stunt like this on Barack's, "Big night," that the Democrats would have been crying, "Foul."

Hell, they didn't like McCain coming out the next day with his choice for VP and taking all the discussion away from Obama's speech. That may be what prompted this.
It amazing how the one upsmanship evolves. What's going to top this in 2012?

What's going to top this in 2012?

I guess we'll have to wait until 2009 when the campaigning begins for that election.

They have a replay at 11 pm eastern don't they?
I'm going to miss it because of school, but I guess I could tape it also.
But i'd rather watch it straight off of tv.

I wonder if Bill will be able to keep his trap shut and allow Obama to answer his questions?

I wonder if Bill will be able to keep his trap shut and allow Obama to answer his questions?
As long as Obama doesn't going down a rabbit trail to avoid the questions and wind down the clock, yes he will.

I think that O'Reilly is one of the more fair (and certainly most mischaracterized) news commentator so it should be interesting. I find it funny that so many were surprised that O'Reilly was fair to Hillary Clinton when he treated her like he treats all of the people he interviews. He definitely treats people that he interviews differently than those who are on the show to express their side of an issue.

Question: What does Obama gain from going on The Factor?

Maybe sympathy?

Question: What does Obama gain from going on The Factor?

Maybe sympathy?
He gains attention (taking it away from the Repub Convention) and he can at least stop the criticism that Hillary went on and he was too scared to do it. I think it's a shrewd move (as long has he doesn't blow a lot of questions).

It amazing how the one upsmanship evolves. What's going to top this in 2012?The Apocalypse (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012). ;)

Question: What does Obama gain from going on The Factor?Just a guess, but maybe swing voters who lean right but are disgusted with the current iteration of the Republican Party? But maybe not, since I just described myself and I don't watch O'Reilly's show. :lol:

He gains attention (taking it away from the Repub Convention) and he can at least stop the criticism that Hillary went on and he was too scared to do it. I think it's a shrewd move (as long has he doesn't blow a lot of questions).

But O'Reilly has a tendency (ability) to piss guests off, and they say things they later regret.

Hell, the few times I heave watched him, he pisses me off, and I'm not even a guest. :)

Just a guess, but maybe swing voters who lean right but are disgusted with the current iteration of the Republican Party? But maybe not, since I just described myself and I don't watch O'Reilly's show. :lol:

Question: Are you as disgusted with the current iteration of the Democratic Party?

I know you've heard the same thing.

:)

But O'Reilly has a tendency (ability) to piss guests off, and they say things they later regret.

Hell, the few times I heave watched him, he pisses me off, and I'm not even a guest. :)
It's a gamble, no doubt. Still, you can't sit on your hands in the current electoral environment. You have to keep pushing the envelope.

If he's got the lead that the polls suggest - why push the envelope?

Question: Are you as disgusted with the current iteration of the Democratic Party?Not yet, but ask me again in eight years. ;)

He definitely treats people that he interviews differently than those who are on the show to express their side of an issue.

Fair enough. :) I'll be tuning in.

But O'Reilly has a tendency (ability) to piss guests off, and they say things they later regret.

Hell, the few times I heave watched him, he pisses me off, and I'm not even a guest. :)Unless the interview "goes south" for some reason I do not see O'Reilly being imflammatory with Sen Obama -- especially since he could be talking to the next US president and would obviously like to have him as a future guest.

If he's got the lead that the polls suggest - why push the envelope?
If you just sit around, you will perish. I think he wants to keep branding himself as different.

If you just sit around, you will perish. I think he wants to keep branding himself as different.

But intelligent voters like you & I know he's not different - except for the obvious.

;)

He's already got my vote even if he bombs tonight.

Remember I'm an Obamanator or something.

I remember when rumors went around that McCain might announce his VP during Obama's speech during the DNC and some of our Democratic friends here were outraged he would do such a thing. As we know, he waited until the next day and let Obama have his moment.

Where's the outrage against Obama now? Planning to go on the same night as McCain's speech. Anyone? Double standard?

Where's the outrage against Obama now? Planning to go on the same night as McCain's speech. Anyone? Double standard?McCain announcing his running mate is a unilateral action. Obama appearing on O'Reilly's show is bilateral. The fact you are ignoring this presents us with a double standard.

He's already got my vote even if he bombs tonight.

Remember I'm an Obamanator or something.


Well - I don't believe you're an Obamacrat. :)

McCain announcing his running mate is a unilateral action. Obama appearing on O'Reilly's show is bilateral. The fact you are ignoring this presents us with a double standard.

Hogwash. Obama could have done this the following night. There's a good reason he picked that particular night. I'm sure the factor would have happily done it the next night.

You just don't want to admit that Obama is sinking lower than McCain on something. Come on.. you can do it.

Hogwash. Obama could have done this the following night. There's a good reason he picked that particular night. I'm sure the factor would have happily done it the next night.So you're saying Obama has unilateral control over the scheduling of <i>The O'Reilly Factor</i>? With power like that, why bother running for president?

So you're saying Obama has unilateral control over the scheduling of <i>The O'Reilly Factor</i>? With power like that, why bother running for president?

Are you aware of what went into the agreement for him to appear on the factor? Do you know who all was involved in that decision? Look into it and you'll see exactly what I'm talking about. Yes - they would have scheduled Obama for any night.

Why are there 4 votes on the poll already? Advance screenings? :lol:

You just don't want to admit that Obama is sinking lower than McCain on something. Come on.. you can do it.
It is a little rude to take away from the convention. How's that?

Are you aware of what went into the agreement for him to appear on the factor? Do you know who all was involved in that decision? Look into it and you'll see exactly what I'm talking about. Yes - they would have scheduled Obama for any night.How about this?: Not knowing about the negotiations, I will state that if Senator Obama insisted on appearing tonight, and tonight only, then it was an underhanded move.

Is that enough for you? ;)

I remember when rumors went around that McCain might announce his VP during Obama's speech during the DNC and some of our Democratic friends here were outraged he would do such a thing. As we know, he waited until the next day and let Obama have his moment.

Where's the outrage against Obama now? Planning to go on the same night as McCain's speech. Anyone? Double standard?

could you link some of the posts. I couldn't really find any of this "outrage."

Who cares if Obama takes away from the convention. It hit its highlight last night with Palin's speech. I doubt McCain will get nearly as enthusiastic of a reception.

My work here is done :)

Having said all that I'm glad he's agreeing to this interview even on convention night. It will be nice to see how he handles himself against someone who is likely not to pitch him a bunch of softball questions.

My work here is done :)

Having said all that I'm glad he's agreeing to this interview even on convention night. It will be nice to see how he handles himself against someone who is likely not to pitch him a bunch of softball questions.


so you're not going to post any links proving that people were outraged by the idea of McCain announcing his running mate the night of Obama's speech? doesn't that negate your whole argument then? post some links. then your work will be done. ;)

McCain didn't hold off on his VP pick until Friday out of respect... he did it because it would have been stupid to announce it before Obama's speech. Announcing the next day was timed perfectly, as it certainly squashed a weekend that would have been otherwise filled with Obama speech analysis. Palin proved to be just the right distraction.

It will be interesting to see if Obama can really counter any convention hype with his appearance. I'm really looking forward to it and hope he does well.

At the very least, it will provide a stark contrast to what will likely be a very "blah" McCain speech. Of course, Obama won't really be in his "element" giving his own speech. That would have been the best counter perhaps, had he not speeched himself up only a week ago.

I think the entire interview is going to come down to the questions about Palin. If Obama is too hard on her, he'll be perceived as piling on with the rest of the liberal elites. If he's too soft on her, it'll only strengthen her as a candidate.

So he has to hit the middle ground exactly right: I think a statement like "Palin's slutty daughter should be off limits in this campaign!" would be perfect. ;)

I think a statement like "Palin's slutty daughter should be off limits in this campaign!" would be perfect. ;)If only he could work in a comment about her redneck, in-bred boyfriend. ;)

If he's got the lead that the polls suggest - why push the envelope?


I don't think Obama's base watches O'Reilly. This gives him a chance to reach out to convervative voters and (as a poster already pointed out) gives him a little of his own press on the night McCain is making his big speech.

Doesnt' matter - most of America's watching football anyway. :)

BTW, 6 votes have already been made in this poll. :lol:

At least we have an equal number of partisans voting. It's 3-3 right now. :lol:

BTW, 6 votes have already been made in this poll. :lol:Would those votes be any different if the people had actually watched the programs? Dems will be coming here praising Obama's performance, Reps will be coming here talking about how O'Reilly cut him down to size. What actually happens in the interview itself is irrelevant.

Would those votes be any different if the people had actually watched the programs? Dems will be coming here praising Obama's performance, Reps will be coming here talking about how O'Reilly cut him down to size. What actually happens in the interview itself is irrelevant.
Killjoy.

Killjoy.

I took it that he already voted.

I refuse to vote in any poll that forces me to accede to either "He did good" or "He didn't come off good". -ohbfrank-

I refuse to vote in any poll that forces me to accede to either "He did good" or "He didn't come off good". -ohbfrank-
You prefer the proper use of the English language?

You prefer the proper use of the English language?Either that, or I was hoping for a "twikoff done good" option. ;)

I refuse to vote in any poll that forces me to accede to either "He did good" or "He didn't come off good". -ohbfrank-

Agreed. The options need to be:

1) Amazing. Just... amazing. :up::up:
2) All words, fake substance. His inexperience really showed. I'm sure the Obamaniacs will love it though -rolleyes-
3) After a detailed analysis of the candidates available, the only conclusion I can draw is to vomit.

I love how Fox News...FOX NEWS(!)...is apparently now in on the conspiracy to distract from the convention. :lol:

Agreed. The options need to be:

1) Amazing. Just... amazing. :up::up:
2) All words, fake substance. His inexperience really showed. I'm sure the Obamaniacs will love it though -rolleyes-
3) After a detailed analysis of the candidates available, the only conclusion I can draw is to vomit.
Add:
4) Makes me glad that I'm Canadian.

I'm glad Obama will finally go on the O'Reilly Factor. Maybe we'll finally learn if he's stopped beating his wife.

I predict mostly softball questions with some slightly tough ones, no matter what people think of O'Reilly. He's interviewing a presidential candidate. He will assuredly reign it in.

I still won't be able to bring myself to watch O'Reilly. :lol:

I predict mostly softball questions with some slightly tough ones, no matter what people think of O'Reilly. He's interviewing a presidential candidate. He will assuredly reign it in."SHUT UP...please?"

I love how Fox News...FOX NEWS(!)...is apparently now in on the conspiracy to distract from the convention. :lol:Damn liberal media :mad:

I still won't be able to bring myself to watch O'Reilly. :lol:

I have to confess that I have never been able to sit through it myself. I might watch this one though to see how Obama does. If it will be available online?

What?
He means fair with the viewers.
If a guest is asked a question and the guest doesn't answer the question and goes off with some speech about something else. O'Reilly gets loud and tells him your dodging the question. This is what liberals don't like about FOXNEWS is that a liberal can't go on there without having their game exposed.
When liberals appear on LARRY KING they say what they want and if Larry asks a tough question and the guest doesn't answer it but gives a b.s. speech the guest is not challenaged. On BILL MAHER it's better even if it's 3 liberals and the audiance against one conservative. At least the viewing public gets both sides.

I wonder if Bill will be able to keep his trap shut and allow Obama to answer his questions? Not if Obama goes off not answering the question. I want to know what Obama is about. Not just hear I'm about change. Change like in how and what? I already seen Obama dance on Ellen and seen the cutesy questions on Tyra and been told how great Obama is by Oprah. I want to hear him answer questions.

Question: What does Obama gain from going on The Factor?

Maybe sympathy?

He could get the vote of people like me.
Who doesn't care that he is black so I should vote for him or else I'm racist.

But O'Reilly has a tendency (ability) to piss guests off, and they say things they later regret.

Hell, the few times I heave watched him, he pisses me off, and I'm not even a guest. :)
But are the things that piss you off true?
People tend to get pissed off when someone says something that is true and they have no comeback to answer that person.
I know, because I post on the Cubs thread.
Even though I put up links to newspaper articals backing what I say I get called names like I'm some lone goof.
I know I'm in the majority on my opinons on the Cubs.

Advance screening found:

2tJjNVVwRCY

Warning NSFW language.

Sorry, but I love that clip. :lol:

wm lopez - it's because after Bill asks his question, and someone answers the question not the way he'd answer it, he just says things like "that's not true," or "no he didn't, that's a lie," or "you're wrong," usually without support, and in a very condescending and snappish way. It's a very hostile environment on his show.

I've just got to think that if McCain had pulled some stunt like this on Barack's, "Big night," that the Democrats would have been crying, "Foul."


So Obama is in charge of scheduling at Fox News now, or are they in collusion with the Democratic Party to undermine McCain now?

So Obama is in charge of scheduling at Fox News now, or are they in collusion with the Democratic Party to undermine McCain now?

No Collusion. Obama agreed to do the interview with an arrangement that it would be shown tonight. Fox agreed as it is to air before McCain's appearance. And, quite frankly, who is going to pass up the opportunity to interview him?

So I don't know where the collusion and undermine terms were dredged up from but at the end of the day it's just basically Obama attempting to step on McCain's night when McCain waited for Obama. Just shows a lack of class. But.. not much of it in this election anyhow.

Obama didn't have a gun to O'Reilly's head.

McCain is not speaking at the same time as The Factor. I don't see what the big deal is.

Even if he was, I understand there's all sorts of time-shifting doodads available now that might allow one to watch a conflicting program at a later date/time.

That doesn't look like Obama. :mad:

Is the interview going to be live? Because the FoxNews O Reilly website has a sneak preview with Obama answering 2 of OR's questions.

This better not be taped, because otherwise they're going to edit it like crazy.

They're gonna stretch out the interview over a number of days. That's a bit annoying.

It's taped. This is disconcerting.

Is the interview going to be live? Because the FoxNews O Reilly website has a sneak preview with Obama answering 2 of OR's questions.

This better not be taped, because otherwise they're going to edit it like crazy.


My guess is that because it is taped, Obama got the right to approve it in some way. Can't imagine it going any other way.

Caught Newt. I gotta' run, but I see why I don't watch. Bill is such a pompous blowhard. :lol:

Newt was great though.

Maybe they want to edit out all the "uhh"s so that they won't have to create a mini-series to show what should be just an hour interview.

Thank god for Tivo so I can fast forward through O'Reilly's blowhardedness. Spreading it out over 3 days? Grrrrrrrreat. I get to see Dick Morris or some lame body language segment where O'Reilly ogles his female guests.

Now, will Senator McCain (the anti-Messiah) go on Keith Olbermann's show?

I already seen Obama dance on Ellen and seen the cutesy questions on Tyra and been told how great Obama is by Oprah. Man, you sure watch a lot of shitty television.

Man, you sure watch a lot of shitty television.

:lol:

Now, will Senator McCain (the anti-Messiah) go on Keith Olbermann's show?

:lol: @ "anti-Messiah." That'd be great. I do know Obama's going to be on Countdown next Monday.

Man, you sure watch a lot of shitty television.

That explains the grammar.

:lol: @ "anti-Messiah." That'd be great. I do know Obama's going to be on Countdown next Monday.


I hear KO's buying exta Chap-Stik, just in case.

Oh a whole 5 minutes!

Anyone want to time how much O'Reilly spoke vs. Obama? It had to be 50/50 by my estimation. A 4-day interview - what a ratings grab!

Obama is a smart man. No question about that. He's got the wrong ideology though, and there's no getting around that. And while he's intelligent, he's neither a genius nor an erudite man.

Sounded pretty presidential to me.

Obama is a smart man. No question about that. He's got the wrong ideology though, and there's no getting around that. And while he's intelligent, he's neither a genius nor an erudite man.I was disappointed in that I kept thinking I could answer some of those questions better (more realistically) than he did. He really said nothing.

The surge shouldn't have worked so I was against it even though it did kind of work. Pressure Pakistan more, hold back weapons from them. :rolleyes:

The surge shouldn't have worked so I was against it even though it did kind of work. Pressure Pakistan more, hold back weapons from them. :rolleyes:

stress "kind of."

and what else was he supposed to say about Pakistan?

:lol: @ "anti-Messiah." That'd be great. I do know Obama's going to be on Countdown next Monday.Not sure how that's funny... or why it deserves a :lol:.

stress "kind of." And that's where he was wrong.

Do you know the status of the benchmarks we set for the Iraqi government to meet? Evidently, neither does Obama.

Not sure how that's funny... or why it deserves a :lol:.

because the right has pathetically labeled Obama "The One," or "The Messiah," that's why.

And that's where he was wrong.

Do you know the status of the benchmarks we set for the Iraqi government to meet? Evidently, neither does Obama.

you mean a timetable?

O'Reilly was going to start his 20-something part series called "The Obama Chronicles" (lol!) on Monday. Since O'Reilly has been ticked off about being ignored by Obama, it was probably going to be pretty negative. That, combined with the close polls, and the RNC - probably led to Obama agreeing to do it.

Let's post the video links here as they come in... I'll be very curious to check it out.

because the right has pathetically labeled Obama "The One," or "The Messiah," that's why.Ok.

Maybe they want to edit out all the "uhh"s so that they won't have to create a mini-series to show what should be just an hour interview.

"uhhhhh(quick man think!!! what's the Messianic answer to this!!!)"

you mean a timetable?No, the benchmarks aren't a timetable. They're more like goals that you can measure progress against.

No, the benchmarks aren't a timetable. They're more like goals that you can measure progress against.

oh, hell, that has been going on for years. just a couple of more years, right? mission accomplished.

Just watched part 1 of the interview on the fox site.

Bill wasn't pussyfooting around as some have suggested he would/did.

And Obama did pretty well I think, for only the first part at least. The answers were a little vague, but nothing that is more vague than could be expected.

A man who is about to be President doesn't spell out anything in great detail, even in debates. Especially about an ongoing war.

Obama didn't do bad in part 1 at all.

found it on the tube already. Enjoy.
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/2iaCO1qZkR4&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/2iaCO1qZkR4&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

is the interview going to be live?

Do it live!

Wow, what an asshole - I mean O'Reilly, of course.

absolutely pointless

Good interview. Its definately showing how much Obama lacks the balls to run this country. I think if it came down to it Obama would hesitate on invading iran.

Good interview, Obama did well, considering Orielly was pressing him on using military force a little too much. Whats he gonna say, yeah we are gonna bomb them?

Obama did well and hope hes the next president, not mcain :wacko:

Dems will be coming here praising Obama's performance, Reps will be coming here talking about how O'Reilly cut him down to size.Holy fucking shit. I'm a regular Kreskin. -rolleyes-

absolutely pointless

that pretty much covers every O'Reilly interview, ever.

Good interview. Its definately showing how much Obama lacks the balls to run this country. I think if it came down to it Obama would hesitate on invading iran.I would hope he'd hesitate.

Maybe you've noticed how tough Iraq has been? Well Iran is more than 3 times bigger in size and population, and it would take much more than Obama's say-so to invade - we'd need the support of many nations, and that would only happen if Iran did something really bad - so bad that pretty much any president would invade. Things aren't as cut and dried as you assume.

Absolutely no one would invade Iran based on an idle threat, and it'd be dumb to do so.

Good interview. Its definately showing how much Obama lacks the balls to run this country. I think if it came down to it Obama would hesitate on invading iran.
Any sensible CIC should hesitate before invading Iran. We need to be lessening our overall footprint in the ME, not increasing it.

"It's all hypothetical!"

Obama is really great sometimes at just breaking it down.

Any sensible CIC should hesitate before invading Iran. We need to be lessening our overall footprint in the ME, not increasing it.

:thumbsup:

The idea of invading another middle eastern country is lunacy. It should be avoided at all costs. Another pointless occupation that would be even tougher than Iraq would just destroy the country's economy, kill more Americans, for little appreciable gain.

Obama is doing great so far in the interview. :up:

This 4-part business sucks though.

Its definately showing how much Obama lacks the balls to run this country.Also, if the last 8 years have taught us anything, it's that we need less balls in the white house and more brains.

I thought Obama did fine. I think it is ridiculous to try to get someone running for president to basically threaten an invasion. It would be completely irresponsible for either Obama or McCain to say they will invade another country just to placate voters.

Thank god for Tivo so I can fast forward through O'Reilly's blowhardedness. Spreading it out over 3 days? Grrrrrrrreat. I get to see Dick Morris or some lame body language segment where O'Reilly ogles his female guests.

Now, will Senator McCain (the anti-Messiah) go on Keith Olbermann's show?

I didn't end up getting to watch any of it. But the only thing I can imagine having McCain on Olbermann's show doing is showing us who the bigger jackass is between him and O'Reilly.

Both of them seem to think being correct is contingent on volume and indignation.

Any sensible CIC should hesitate before invading Iran. We need to be lessening our overall footprint in the ME, not increasing it.

We don't need to invade Iran, but we also don't need them to jerk us around like Iraq did to Clinton. We need a tough line on Iran, as it's foolish to even think for a second that their nuclear program is anything but a cover for a weapons program.

I didn't end up getting to watch any of it. But the only thing I can imagine having McCain on Olbermann's show doing is showing us who the bigger jackass is between him and O'Reilly.

Both of them seem to think being correct is contingent on volume and indignation.
I like Bill O'Reilly. I thought it was a good solid interview. O'Reilly cut through the talking points and the spin and Obama responded with more detail than I've seen in previous public appearances.

One needs a solid opponent for their own true colors to show through. And I thought that O'Reilly so far did a good job of digging a bit deeper into who Barack Obama is.

So far, it looks like a win-win to me.

It amazing how the one upsmanship evolves. What's going to top this in 2012?

The candidate whose convention goes first will appear on Dancing With the Stars during his/her opponent's acceptance speech. Or maybe "America's Got Talent".

I thought Obama did very well except for his reluctance to go anywhere near an admission that he might have been wrong about the Surge. He said it had succeeded "beyond our wildest expectations" but indicated that no one could have predicted its success, therefore it was not a mistake to oppose it (he also indicated that, because the final chapter had yet to be written, it was too early to proclaim it an ultimate success).

He was perfectly right in failing to take the bait to specify exactly what military actions he would take against Iran to prevent nuclear weapons. He said all that was needed by saying that he would not hesitate to take military action and that allowing Iran to develop nuclear weapons was unacceptable.

At this point, I'm still voting for Palin...um, McCain.

We don't need to invade Iran, but we also don't need them to jerk us around like Iraq did to Clinton. We need a tough line on Iran, as it's foolish to even think for a second that their nuclear program is anything but a cover for a weapons program.
If any military action takes place against Iran, I expect it will be some sort of punitive bombing campaign. Even that has more drawbacks than potential success marks in it for me. Do we have the best intelligence on the site locations (they're spread all over the country)? Do we have the weaponry to get at bunkers buried under mountains? How many civilians will we kill and what will be the blow back from the average Iranian who says "Death to America" as their leaders demand, but then follow American pop culture? The people who are disgusted with Iranian leadership will rally behind the cause of the nuts like Ahmadinejad and the Ayatollahs if they are attacked by America. I think it's too much risk for not enough reward, at least for the US. Israel on the other hand, it might be worth it as they are the main target of any weapon the Iranians develop.

As far as invasion is concerned, people calling for a full on invasion don't really understand the magnitude of what they are asking for. Given our current military commitments around the world, we're not even in a position to pull something like that off. Not without a draft anyway.

As far as invasion is concerned, people calling for a full on invasion don't really understand the magnitude of what they are asking for. Given our current military commitments around the world, we're not even in a position to pull something like that off. Not without a draft anyway.

Exactly, especially if you consider that article you posted in the Russia/Georgia thread.

Exactly, especially if you consider that article you posted in the Russia/Georgia thread.
Yes. We're so obsessed with Iran right now, we're not really understanding that the Bear has reawakened and is ready to really start trouble in former Soviet and Warsaw Pact countries.

I think if it came down to it Obama would hesitate on invading iran.That part where he said he would "never hesitate" gave it away, didn't it?

I missed all the festivities last evening. I was in Oklahoma City eating a not very good steak from Toby Keith's Steakhouse.

Can somebody give me a concise synopsis of the interview?

Thank you.

I missed all the festivities last evening. I was in Oklahoma City eating a not very good steak from Toby Keith's Steakhouse.


How can you get a bad steak in Oklahoma. That's like getting bad seafood in Maine.

I'm not saying its unpossible...

How can you get a bad steak in Oklahoma. That's like getting bad seafood in Maine.

I'm not saying its unpossible...

Trust me - it's not difficult at all to get a bad steak in OK. ;)

Interview with O'Reily seemed pretty good to me. I like the Pakistan answer better than the surge answer

Isn't Obama between a rock & a hard place with any answer he gives about the surge?

I missed all the festivities last evening. I was in Oklahoma City eating a not very good steak from Toby Keith's Steakhouse.

Can somebody give me a concise synopsis of the interview?

Thank you.

The interview is youtubed on the previous page. It was concise as it is... just a 5 mins segment or so. Even on dial-up you should be able to handle it. It's worth watching.

Trust me - it's not difficult at all to get a bad steak in OK. ;)

Trust me, its easier to get a bad steak up here than it is down there.

Somehow I don't think I would want to eat at a seafood restaurant in OK. -wink-

The five-minute video is the ENTIRE interview?!

The five-minute video is the ENTIRE interview?!

Its in four parts. That was only the first.

The interview is youtubed on the previous page. It was concise as it is... just a 5 mins segment or so. Even on dial-up you should be able to handle it. It's worth watching.
We've been through this yesterday...He's got dialup.

Start downloading now c-man. We await your thoughts by close of business today. :D

Can somebody give me a concise synopsis of the interview?O'Reilly: Why do you support Islamic terrorism?

Obama: I think you mis...

O'Reilly: No, really, why do you support Islamic terrorism?

Obama: If, if you'd just...

O'Reilly: Please tell me what makes you hate America so?

Obama: I think the question...

O'Reilly: Why won't you answer?!?

wendersfan's post answered one of my questions. It seems that O'Reilly was his usual asshole self.

What I really wanted to know - which questions do you believe Obama answered well; and, which questions did he did not answer so well.

Be objective - please.

wendersfan's post answered one of my questions. It seems that O'Reilly was his usual asshole self.

What I really wanted to know - which questions do you believe Obama answered well; and, which questions did he did not answer so well.

Be objective - please.
wendersfan is a liar. It didn't go down that way.

O'Reilly was a little short with him on a couple of occasions, but he wasn't bad. Obama danced around the success of surge and his stance against it previously, but overall on Afghanistan and Pakistan I think he handled the questions well.

wendersfan is a liar. It didn't go down that way.:sad:

I assumed everyone would realize I wasn't being serious.

:sad:

MR. O'REILLY: Thanks for staying with us. I'm Bill O'Reilly. In the Impact Segment tonight, our first conversation with Senator Barack Obama. It's been a long time coming, as you know, but this afternoon, I met with the senator in York, Pennsylvania. Now, we're going to play you the first part of the interview right now, and the rest of it which is fairly extensive and provocative will be seen next Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday.


Roll the tape.

(Begin videotaped interview.)

Well, first of all, thanks for being a man of your word.

SEN. OBAMA: You bet.

MR. O'REILLY: But I was worried there for a while.

SEN. OBAMA: (Laughs.)

MR. O'REILLY: It's been nine months since we last met in New Hampshire.

SEN. OBAMA: It took a little while. I've had a few things to do in between.

MR. O'REILLY: I understand.

SEN. OBAMA: Yeah. But I appreciate you having me on the show.

MR. O'REILLY: Okay. Let's start with national security. Do you believe we're in the middle of a war on terror?

SEN. OBAMA: Absolutely.

MR. O'REILLY: Who is the enemy?

SEN. OBAMA: Al Qaeda, the Taliban, a whole host of networks that are bent on attacking America, who have a distorted ideology, who have perverted the faith of Islam. So we have to go after them.

MR. O'REILLY: Is Iran part of that component?

SEN. OBAMA: Iran is a major threat. Now, I don't think that there is the same -- they are not part of the same network. You know, you got Shi'a and you got Sunni. We gotta have the ability to distinguish between these groups because, for example, the war in Iraq is a good example where I believe the administration lumped together Saddam Hussein, a terrible guy, with al Qaeda which had nothing to do with Saddam Hussein.

MR. O'REILLY: All right. We'll get to that in a minute.

SEN. OBAMA: And as a consequence, we ended up, I think, misdirecting our resources. So they're all part of various terrorist networks that we have to shut down and we have to destroy. But they may not all be part and parcel of the same ideology.

MR. O'REILLY: But I still don't understand -- and I'm asking this as an American as well as a journalist -- how threatening you feel Iran is. See, look, if Iran gets a nuclear weapon, okay, to me, they're going to give it to Hezbollah if they can develop the technology. Why not? And so we don't have anything to do with it. So therefore, the next president of the United States is going to have to make a decision about Iran, whether to stop them militarily. Because I don't believe -- if diplomacy works, fine. But you've got to have a plan b. And a lot of people are saying, look, Barack Obama's not going to attack Iran.

SEN. OBAMA: Here's where you and I agree. It is unacceptable for Iran to possess a nuclear weapon. It would be a game changer, and I've said that repeatedly. I've also said I would never take a military option off the table.

MR. O'REILLY: But would you prepare for one?

SEN. OBAMA: Well, listen --

MR. O'REILLY: Answer the question, Senator. Anybody can say options. Would you prepare for it?

SEN. OBAMA: Look, it is not appropriate for somebody, who is one of two people who could be the president of the United States, to start tipping their hand in terms of what their plans might be with respect to Iran. It's sufficient to say I would not take the military option off the table and that I will never hesitate to use our military force in order to protect the homeland and United States interests.

But where I disagree with you is the notion that we've exhausted every other resource. Because the fact of the matter is is that for six, seven years during this administration, we weren't working as closely as we needed to with the Europeans to create --

MR. O'REILLY: Diplomacy might work. You might be able to strangle them economically.

SEN. OBAMA: Sanctions, maybe.

MR. O'REILLY: Maybe. But that's just all hypothetical.

SEN. OBAMA: Well, everything is hypothetical. But the question is, are we trying to do what we need to do to ratchet up the pressure on them to change their --

MR. O'REILLY: Okay. We'll assume that you're going to ratchet everything you can ratchet.

SEN. OBAMA: Right.

MR. O'REILLY: But I'm going to assume that Iran's going to say, "blank" you, we're going to do what we want. And I want a president, whether it's you or McCain, who says, you ain't doing that.

All right, let's go to Iraq. I think history will show it's the wrong battlefield, okay. And I think that you were perspicacious in your original assessment of the battlefield.

SEN. OBAMA: I appreciate that.

MR. O'REILLY: I think you were desperately wrong on the surge. And I think you should admit it to the nation that now we have defeated the terrorists in Iraq. And the al Qaeda came there after we invaded, as you know. Okay, we've defeated them. If we didn't, they would have used it as a staging ground.

We've also inhibited Iran from controlling the southern part of Iraq by the surge which you did not support. So why won't you say, I was right in the beginning, I was wrong about that?

SEN. OBAMA: You know, if you've listened to what I've said, and I'll repeat it right here on this show, I think that there's no doubt that the violence in down. I believe that that is a testimony to the troops that were sent and General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker. I think that the surge has succeeded in ways that nobody anticipated, by the way, including President Bush and the other supporters.

It has gone very well, partly because of the Anbar situation and the Sunni --

MR. O'REILLY: The awakening, right.

SEN. OBAMA: -- awakening, partly because the Shi'a --

MR. O'REILLY: But if it were up to you, there wouldn't have been a surge.

SEN. OBAMA: Well, look --

MR. O'REILLY: No, no, no, no.

SEN. OBAMA: No, no, no, no, no, no, no.

MR. O'REILLY: If it were up to you, there wouldn't have been a surge.

SEN. OBAMA: No, no, no, no. Hold on.

MR. O'REILLY: You and Joe Biden -- no surge.

SEN. OBAMA: No. Hold on a second, Bill. If you look at the debate that was taking place, we had gone through five years of mismanagement of this war that I thought was disastrous. And the president wanted to double-down and continue on open-ended policy that did not create the kinds of pressure in the Iraqis to take responsibility and reconcile --

MR. O'REILLY: It worked. Come on.

SEN. OBAMA: Bill, what I've said is -- I've already said it succeeded beyond our wildest dreams.

MR. O'REILLY: Right! So why can't you just say, I was right in the beginning, and I was wrong about the surge?

SEN. OBAMA: Because there is an underlying problem with what we've done. We have reduced the violence --

MR. O'REILLY: Yeah?

SEN. OBAMA: -- but the Iraqis still haven't taken a responsibility. And we still don't have the kind of political reconciliation. We are still spending, Bill, 10 (billion dollars) to $12 billion a month.

MR. O'REILLY: And I hope if you're president, you can get them to kick in and pay us back.

SEN. OBAMA: They've got $79 billion in (New York ?)!

MR. O'REILLY: And I'll go with you!

SEN. OBAMA: Let's go!

MR. O'REILLY: We'll get some of that money back.

SEN. OBAMA: (Laughs.)

MR. O'REILLY: All right. Let's go to Afghanistan. Look, there's no winning the Taliban war unless Pakistan cracks down on the guys that are in Pakistan.

SEN. OBAMA: You and I agree completely.

MR. O'REILLY: Okay, yeah, we all know that.

SEN. OBAMA: Right.

MR. O'REILLY: You gave a speech in Denver -- good speech, by the way --

SEN. OBAMA: Thank you.

MR. O'REILLY: -- but you bloviated about McCain not following him to the cave. You're not going to invade Pakistan, Senator, if you're president. You're not going to send ground troops in there. You know it.

SEN. OBAMA: Here's the problem. John McCain loves to say, I would follow him to the gates of hell.

MR. O'REILLY: Well, he's not going to invade, either.

SEN. OBAMA: The point is, what we could have done is --

MR. O'REILLY: Not "could." Let's stay now.

SEN. OBAMA: What we can do --

MR. O'REILLY: Yeah.

SEN. OBAMA: -- is stay focused on Afghanistan and put more pressure on the Pakistanis.

MR. O'REILLY: Like what?

SEN. OBAMA: Well, for example, we are providing them military aid without having enough strings attached. So they're using the military aid that we use --

MR. O'REILLY: For nothing!

SEN. OBAMA: -- to Pakistan, they're preparing for war against India.

MR. O'REILLY: So you're going to pull out and let the Islamic fundamentalists take them over?

SEN. OBAMA: No, no, no, no. What we say is, look, we're going to provide them with additional military support targeted at terrorists, and we're going to help build their democracy and provide the kinds of funding --

MR. O'REILLY: The things that we're doing now. Negroponte is over there, and he's doing that now.

SEN. OBAMA: That's not what we've been doing. We've wasted $10 billion with Musharraf without holding him accountable for knocking out those safe havens.

MR. O'REILLY: All right. So you are going to, again, more diplomacy -- and we need it, absolutely -- try to convince the Pakistani government to take a more aggressive approach and saying, if you don't, we're going to pull the funding.

SEN. OBAMA: And what I will do is, if we have bin Laden in our sites --

MR. O'REILLY: Yeah.

SEN. OBAMA: -- we target him, and we knock him out.

MR. O'REILLY: But everybody will do that. That will be the biggest win Bush could have if he could do that.

SEN. OBAMA: Of course.

MR. O'REILLY: But you can't send ground troops in because if all hell breaks loose.

SEN. OBAMA: We can't have -- nobody talked about a full-blown invasion of Pakistan. The simple point that I made was we've got to put more pressure on Pakistan to do what they need to do.

(Pause videotaped interview.)

MR. O'REILLY: All right. Again, the rest of the interview will be seen on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday of next week, and it is lively.

wendersfan's post answered one of my questions. It seems that O'Reilly was his usual asshole self.

What I really wanted to know - which questions do you believe Obama answered well; and, which questions did he did not answer so well.

Be objective - please.Objectively, I think Obama has problems with his answers regarding the surge. I also thought he should have flatly stated that it's not the president's job to come up with military plans, it's his job to weigh the option of all plans and go with the one he thinks is best. And for me his big error when answering questions about Iran was to come right back at O'Reilly and point out that looking at Islamic terrorism through a state-centered perspective is the main reason why we've been failing so miserably at combating it. All in all I thought Obama did quite poorly.

Thank you, JasonF.

I think VinVega summed it up pretty well.

I won't have broadband until next Thursday. So keep me informed. :)

What you miss in the transcript is O'Reilly's tone, which was just dripping with pure asshole.

A bad steak in OK is probably a good steak to most of us, they just have a higher bar to reach. O'Reilly dripping with pure asshole is really just O'Reilly.

The steak itself was probably fine, I'm just guessing that OK is like the rest of the country, and most cooks aren't exactly the cream of the crop and can't be bothered to cook a steak properly on a consistent basis.

To say the surge "succeeded beyond our wildest dreams" is the only real gaffe here. It succeeded beyond his own dreams, but not the dreams of those who wanted the surge. Even if you don't credit the surge with the successes there, Obama messed this answer up.

Otherwise though, he handled questions very well.

I don't think O'Reilly's tone was all that bad. He kept things to the point, which I appreciate, and Obama fielded the questions on his feet. I've never really watched O'Reilly before so I can't compare to other interviews. I see the Fox News logo there... I assume O'Reilly's show is one of the Fox News standards?

A bad steak in OK is probably a good steak to most of us, they just have a higher bar to reach. O'Reilly dripping with pure asshole is really just O'Reilly.


But have you ever tried a juicy steak, just dripping with pure asshole?

:lol: Eww!

That's got to be sig worthy for somebody.

Man, you sure watch a lot of shitty television. I don't watch Kieth Oberman or any MSNBC. So your wrong.

I don't watch Kieth Oberman or any MSNBC. So your wrong.rotfl

I assume O'Reilly's show is one of the Fox News standards?You are presuming that Fox News has standards?

http://i36.tinypic.com/ae7702.jpg
"How dare you sir! How dare you!"

;)

I'll take that as a Yes.

Cable news is like a plague. I can't stand to have that on during the day. The few times I've turned on shows like this, it always seemed to be a bunch of yelling or someone with an agenda who is willing to overlook facts or reason to prove a point. I'm sure there are good moments but the cesspool that surrounds them is too much. I guess they get the ratings, which is even sadder.

It's nice that certain interviews like this can find their way onto the net so one doesn't have to wade through the trash to hope to catch something good.

Isn't Obama between a rock & a hard place with any answer he gives about the surge?

Yes. Unbelievably the Iraq War might be one of the largest contributing factors to Obama losing the election.

If you listen to Obama the surge has done a good job in lowering casualities and allowing us to be in a place to start the really hard political work. If you listen to McCain we're winning.

Which do you think the US wants to hear?

If you listen to Obama the surge has done a good job in lowering casualities and allowing us to be in a place to start the really hard political work.

That was the entire point of the surge to begin with. Obama wanted the really hard political work to be done during a withdrawal, rather than a surge.

That's the difference, and why he is in trouble if he acknowledges that "the surge worked." However, to admit that it was "successful beyond our wildest dreams" is just as dangerous for him, in my opinion. He might be better off acknowledging that he was right at the beginning, but wrong about the surge, just as O'Reilly prompted. Focus instead on how we will move forward from where we are right now. But we all know how dangerous it is to admit you were wrong in an election year, so that won't happen. It puts Obama in a tough position.

The bottom line is, Obama was wrong about the surge. That doesn't mean his alternative plan would have failed or been the wrong course. It's not a matter of just one or the other. It may have "worked" too. But he was wrong about the surge.

If will be very difficult for Obama to acknowledge the surge has worked.

He'll lose some of his base if he does.

I think he has to play it 'both ways.'

If his opponent was anyone but McCain, I think he would be able to state that the surge worked and move forward. As it stands, he cannot afford to utter those words.

Thor I agree on all points. Problem is the American public wants nothing more than to hear we're winning and McCain is giving that to them.

Yes. Unbelievably the Iraq War might be one of the largest contributing factors to Obama losing the election.


It's the economy. Is today, will still be on Nov. 4th. People vote according to their pocketbook.

It's the economy. Is today, will still be on Nov. 4th. People vote according to their pocketbook.

You don't think Iraq or the "War on terrorism" will be a factor? I think the economy will be the #1 issue but don't think it alone will decide the election.

It's the economy. Is today, will still be on Nov. 4th. People vote according to their pocketbook.


sometimes

If will be very difficult for Obama to acknowledge the surge has worked.

He'll lose some of his base if he does.

I think he has to play it 'both ways.'

Obama was going for the "bigger picture" argument, which in a way makes O'Reilly look kinda small-minded.

In other words - as I said, Obama is trying to have it both ways.

It may work. It may not.

What you miss in the transcript is O'Reilly's tone, which was just dripping with pure asshole.
That is one way to interpret it. But maybe you are just accustomed to the fluffy marshmallows served on a memory foam pillow masquerading as questions on shows like Larry King Live.

:shrug:

In other words - as I said, Obama is trying to have it both ways.

It may work. It may not.

The problem wasn't Obama's answer, but O'Reilly's question, as well as O'Reilly providing his opinion on whatever subject he's asking, making it about himself and not the interviewee. Actually, he "commanded" Obama to admit being "wrong," when it is much more complicated than that. But I get why some would like O'Reilly's question, because it's very black and white, and gray just doesn't register with some people.

In other words - as I said, Obama is trying to have it both ways.

It may work. It may not.I agree he's trying to have it both ways, but I just don't think it's going to matter that much. As far as I'm concerned, this election boils down to one very basic question: are the voters upset enough over the economy that they are willing to elect a black man as president? I think everything else is negligible.

I agree he's trying to have it both ways, but I just don't think it's going to matter that much. As far as I'm concerned, this election boils down to one very basic question: are the voters upset enough over the economy that they are willing to elect a black man as president? I think everything else is negligible.

be careful, someone is going to claim you're using the race card. (not me though, I'm in full agreement)

Larry King: Mr. Obama? Do you like garlique?

be careful, someone is going to claim you're using the race card.I really doubt it.

I really doubt it.

well you're luckier than me then.

The problem wasn't Obama's answer, but O'Reilly's question, as well as O'Reilly providing his opinion on whatever subject he's asking, making it about himself and not the interviewee. Actually, he "commanded" Obama to admit being "wrong," when it is much more complicated than that. But I get why some would like O'Reilly's question, because it's very black and white, and gray just doesn't register with some people.
Sometimes things ARE black and white. And when they are, they should be presented as such.

Brack, Obama was wrong about the effect that the surge would have. Plain and simple. Either that or he misspoke in his given answer to the question.
Absolutely. That is an illustration of his elitism, IMO. I see that the surge worked. You can see it. But Obama doesn't. The implication is that he is looking "above it" and can see the nuances of the situation that we cannot and that is why he doesn't believe the surge worked.

Wendersfan, I thought you said people will vote Rep/Dem based on their ideals?I don't think that's exactly what I said but I don't remember the exact context of that thread now. Do you have a link?

Anyway, here's how it works. Lets divide the electorate into five groups for ease of analysis:
Strong Republicans
Weak Republicans
Independents
Weak Democrats
Strong Democrats
Now, let's say for the sake of the argument that each group is 20% of the electorate. And, let's make the following assumptions:

Strong Republicans will always vote for the Republican.
Strong Democrats will always vote for the Democrat.
Weak Republicans will usually vote for the Republican, but in bad economic times might not vote at all or even vote for the Democrat.
Weak Democrats will usually vote for the Democrat, but in bad economic times might not vote at all or even vote for the Republican.
Independents vote almost solely on economic conditions (barring a war or some other extraordinary circumstance) and don't have allegiance to either party.
This means the Democrats and Republicans each have 20% straight off the bat. The other 60% of the electorate will vary in behavior, based largely on the economy. Let's say the Republicans hold the office but the economy sucks. What happens then if half the Weak Republicans vote for the GOP, 1/4 don't vote, and 1/4 switch sides, while 3/4ths of the Weak Democrats vote Democratic and the others split between abstention and the GOP? Now the Democrats have half the vote. as long as the unaffiliated break Democratic (which we can easily assume they would), the Democrats win handily.

Make sense?

There were no conditions set for success for the surge so how can it have worked? It had positive effects but no goals were stated. If the goal was to end the war the surge failed. It seems like supporters of the surge would have claimed success no matter what the end result was as long as the result was at least slightly better than before.

It's the economy. Is today, will still be on Nov. 4th. People vote according to their pocketbook.

If that is true, it will depend on whether they actually believe Obama will lower taxes. I don't think even his supporters believe that deep down.

Gov. Palin had said something earlier today: (paraphrasing): When he's(Obama) been so profoundly wrong about this vital national security issue(running away from Iraq) I guess it's comforting for him to pretend that everyone has been wrong.

When the Messiah comes out and says that everyone has been surprised the surge has worked(or words to that effect--"beyond their wildest dreams" etc..) he's projecting his own incompetence on to others. The whole purpose of the surge was to reduce violence. It has fulfilled that objective. The surge wasn't intended to do something else and somehow reducing the violence has been a side-effect of it.

Gov. Palin had said something earlier today: (paraphrasing): When he's(Obama) been so profoundly wrong about this vital national security issue(running away from Iraq) I guess it's comforting for him to pretend that everyone has been wrong.He's certainly been "righter" than almost every Republican.

What you miss in the transcript is O'Reilly's tone, which was just dripping with pure asshole.

Meaning he didn't conduct the interview from a kneeling position hands folded together.

He's certainly been "righter" than almost every Republican.

Bullshit. He said the surge wouldn't succeed in reducing the violence. Now he's admitted that the surge "worked beyond everyone's wildest dreams."
More bullshit for his devotees to lap-up. The point of the surge was to reduce violence so that Iraqi security and govt. would be more able to run their country. We just handed over Anbar province to the Iraqi's for security.

I agree he's trying to have it both ways, but I just don't think it's going to matter that much. As far as I'm concerned, this election boils down to one very basic question: are the voters upset enough over the economy that they are willing to elect a black man as president? I think everything else is negligible.


Currently - I believe that analysis is correct.

Things can change in two months. God forbid there's another terrorist attack on the U.S.

Bullshit. He said the surge wouldn't succeed in reducing the violence. Now he's admitted that the surge "worked beyond everyone's wildest dreams."
More bullshit for his devotees to lap-up. The point of the surge was to reduce violence so that Iraqi security and govt. would be more able to run their country. We just handed over Anbar province to the Iraqi's for security.While the situation just screams for a facile analogy I'll resist and simply say that, the success of the surge notwithstanding, the entire Iraq War was a fundamental mistake and simply because one aspect of it has been successful doesn't excuse an effort that has cost billions of dollars, thousands of lives, and has dangerously weakened America's ability to defend its interests.

Absolutely. That is an illustration of his elitism, IMO. I see that the surge worked. You can see it. But Obama doesn't. The implication is that he is looking "above it" and can see the nuances of the situation that we cannot and that is why he doesn't believe the surge worked.


I don't see it. I thought the surge would do more than lower our casualties. While I'm happy we have lower casualties we are spending even more money in Iraq and aren't any closer to their government being able to stand on it's own.

Guess I must be an elitist.

While the situation just screams for a facile analogy I'll resist and simply say that, the success of the surge notwithstanding, the entire Iraq War was a fundamental mistake and simply because one aspect of it has been successful doesn't excuse an effort that has cost billions of dollars, thousands of lives, and has dangerously weakened America's ability to defend its interests.

I don't agree with that but that's a point for another thread. Obama wasn't in on the decision to go to war in Iraq. So what he thought at that point doesn't really matter. He was part of the process of deciding if the surge would take place and he and nearly the entire democratic caucus in both houses are on record saying that it had no chance of succeeding before it started. Not only that, while it was going on, many of the dem leadership were on record saying that it was failing. Now that it has succeeded, Obama wants to fool everyone into believeing that no one thought it would succeed. Sorry, I'm not a devotee, therefore I'm not buying it.

I don't agree with that but that's a point for another thread. Obama wasn't in on the decision to go to war in Iraq. So what he thought at that point doesn't really matter. He was part of the process of deciding if the surge would take place and he and nearly the entire democratic caucus in both houses are on record saying that it had no chance of succeeding before it started. Not only that, while it was going on, many of the dem leadership were on record saying that it was failing. Now that it has succeeded, Obama wants to fool everyone into believeing that no one thought it would succeed. Sorry, I'm not a devotee, therefore I'm not buying it.I'm in almost total agreement with this, with one exception - what Obama thought about the war does matter, since it's probably what got him the nomination over Clinton.

I don't agree with that but that's a point for another thread. Obama wasn't in on the decision to go to war in Iraq. So what he thought at that point doesn't really matter. He was part of the process of deciding if the surge would take place and he and nearly the entire democratic caucus in both houses are on record saying that it had no chance of succeeding before it started. Not only that, while it was going on, many of the dem leadership were on record saying that it was failing. Now that it has succeeded, Obama wants to fool everyone into believeing that no one thought it would succeed. Sorry, I'm not a devotee, therefore I'm not buying it.

:up:

Of course this falls into Obama's typical pattern on not taking personal responsibility for bad decisions. If he's wrong.. everyone was wrong in his opinion. Don't we have a president who already doesn't take personal responsibility for bad decisions? I thought we wanted change?

I'm in almost total agreement with this, with one exception - what Obama thought about the war does matter, since it's probably what got him the nomination over Clinton.


You think so? It would be ironic if he had to use that to get the nomination, but the belief also kept him from getting elected.

I'm in almost total agreement with this, with one exception - what Obama thought about the war does matter, since it's probably what got him the nomination over Clinton.


I believe that's true.

I bet Hillary wishes she could bring back late 2002. ;)

You think so?It's hard to say, but I know a lot of staunch Democrats pretty well, and almost all of them mistrusted Clinton because of her vote for authorization. Given how close the primary race was, that could easily have been the difference. But, it's just as likely that it was the mundane reason of Obama's organization being better.

When the Messiah comes out and says...I stopped reading after that. I stopped taking your posts seriously a long time ago, but you're not really helping your case by exasperating this juvenile shit.

I also believe that her vote on the Iran Resolution hurt her some - though not nearly as much as her vote on the Iraq Resolution.

I also believe that her vote on the Iran Resolution hurt her some - though not nearly as much as her vote on the Iraq Resolution.The CW is that she assumed she had the nomination in the bag, so she started running in the general election a year or two earlier than she should have.

I stopped reading after that. I stopped taking your posts seriously a long time ago, but you're not really helping your case by exasperating this juvenile shit.

I'm not here to "make my case", just poke fun at Obama. That really seems to get his devotees going.

Obama is awfully lucky he wasn't in office for the authorization vote. :lol:

Obama is awfully lucky he wasn't in office for the authorization vote. :lol:And don't think he doesn't realize it. :)

I'm not here to "make my case", just poke fun at Obama. That really seems to get his devotees going.I would love to laugh at any and all politicians, Obama included, and while the Messiah bit may have been funny once, many moons ago, it's stale and boring now. IOW, if your goal is simply to make fun (as opposed to take on issues), by all means do so, but I would just ask that you at least be funny...

There were no conditions set for success for the surge so how can it have worked? It had positive effects but no goals were stated. If the goal was to end the war the surge failed. It seems like supporters of the surge would have claimed success no matter what the end result was as long as the result was at least slightly better than before.
Gee, a few posters back someone was complaining that things aren't black and white, that it is gray, and here you're looking for a black and white criteria for success. Maybe there IS a place for black and white views on some things. ;)

The purpose of the surge was to reduce insurgent violence, reduce American casualties, increase control by the local government. The result is that those have happened. From that point of view, it was a success. (whether it was worth it or if there were more effective alternatives, is another issue entirely)

And I'll flip it around... if there really was no criteria for success, how can Obama have taken the position that the surge wouldn't work? Wouldn't work to accomplish WHAT? ;)

wendersfan's post answered one of my questions. It seems that O'Reilly was his usual asshole self.

What I really wanted to know - which questions do you believe Obama answered well; and, which questions did he did not answer so well.

Be objective - please.

:lol:

Wendersfan was being objective? you're new here aren't you?

Wendersfan's post had nothing to do with the actual interview at all.

Wendersfan was being objective? you're new here aren't you?I like to think I'm usually objective. :(

I like to think I'm usually objective. :(

Yeah well OJ likes to think he's innocent I'm sure.

"The ways of man are always right in his own eyes, but..."

;)

And I'll flip it around... if there really was no criteria for success, how can Obama have taken the position that the surge wouldn't work? Wouldn't work to accomplish WHAT? ;)

Simple, lacking any goals one would could reasonably assume the purpose was to end the war or put us in a position where the end to the war was near.

Wendersfan was being objective? you're new here aren't you?While no one is truly objective, I think Wenders, fwiw, is more objective than most - though around here, that's not saying much.

Obama is awfully lucky he wasn't in office for the authorization vote. :lol:

It is amazing how everything weighs in over time as the election process plays out. Without this, does Obama have a speech at the convention 4 years ago? What about Katrina and all of the emotions related to its handling and race? Do any of these things tip the scale for Hillary if they are rearranged?

A butterfly flaps its wings in China and a few years later we have our first black president?

That's not to take away from our actual analysis of these candidates of course. :) But it seems that fate plays a role in our political future.

I don't watch Kieth Oberman or any MSNBC. So your wrong.

His wrong what?

Sometimes things ARE black and white. And when they are, they should be presented as such.

be careful, someone is going to claim you're using the race card.

It is amazing how everything weighs in over time as the election process plays out. Without this, does Obama have a speech at the convention 4 years ago? I'm pretty sure I pointed it out here before, but none of this would have happened if 7 of 9's husband didn't like kinky sex.

I'm pretty sure I pointed it out here before, but none of this would have happened if 7 of 9's husband didn't like kinky sex.

You can't put all the blame on Mr. Borg. If the Illinois GOP hadn't been such a mess in 2004, they would have been able to recruit a reasonable and credible candidate to run against Senator Obama. Instead, they were forced to airlift Alan Keyes in. As it is, they had a choice between Mr. Keyes and a guy named Jim Oberweiss, so they decided to go with the more moderate candidate.

You can't put all the blame on Mr. Borg.Maybe not, but I still like saying it. :)

I mean, seriously, she wasn't enough for him? :lol:

Maybe not, but I still like saying it. :)

I mean, seriously, she wasn't enough for him? :lol:

People are strange when it comes to sex -- especially Senators. Just ask Larry Craig, John Edwards, or David Vitter. I think Mr. Ryan would have fit right in.

His wrong what?

Now, I don't care who you are...that there's funny.

Regarding your last post, Jason...Sex, Shmex. Can't we just give all our politicians an extra hooker stipend??? CAN'T WE ALL JUST GET ALONG???? Like Kwame Kilpatrick said yesterday (speaking not only for himself but the other pols you mentioned, "I'll have another day.")

Now, send up another one of them interns to discuss "policy". Looks like an all-nighter.

From the very little I've seen I thought Obama did fairly well. he lost points with the "surge" but came back well. I'll have to see the whole interview before I can officially call it.

Simple, lacking any goals one would could reasonably assume the purpose was to end the war or put us in a position where the end to the war was near.Benchmarks are measurements of goals. You would be well served to look up the current status of the 18 benchmarks we set out for the Iraqi govenment to meet.

Benchmarks are measurements of goals. You would be well served to look up the current status of the 18 benchmarks we set out for the Iraqi govenment to meet.

it'd serve everyone well to understand our country's arrogance.

You don't believe we should set benchmarks for a country where he have sacrificed lives & treasure - whether we should or should not have embarked on the endeavor?

I fail to see how that's arrogance.

Benchmarks are measurements of goals. You would be well served to look up the current status of the 18 benchmarks we set out for the Iraqi govenment to meet.

The 18 benchmarks were goals to measure the overall progress of Iraq not the progress of a single mission. No one ever gave a specific measurable goal for the surge. No one ever stated what was an acceptable cost for this mission. If Bush said the surge would scratch off one of the benchmarks then yes one could call it a success. However, no such goal was stated, it was left to the imagination so they could claim anything as a success.

What you are trying to do is dictate winning conditions after the game has been played.

The purpose of the surge was absolutely clear, to reduce the violence and gain a better foothold where the Iraq government could start to do its thing. If you fail to grasp that, you simple weren't paying attention. Perhaps you bought the line that we simply wanted more war.

The 18 benchmarks were goals to measure the overall progress of Iraq not the progress of a single mission. No one ever gave a specific measurable goal for the surge. No one ever stated what was an acceptable cost for this mission. If Bush said the surge would scratch off