O’Reilly vs. Obama

[Back]

Tonight at 8pm on F-news!

[Khariz]

Seriously?

[Daniel]

Yea.

[crb]

The only reason Obama probably agreed was to try to steal some thunder tonight... still, Bill will not be easy on him

[Daniel]

yea. No shit.

[Back]

So did the NFL.

Oh wait, hurricane Gustav pushed things back.

[Khariz]

I'm sad I can't watch this live. I'll be eager to catch up on it though.

[Mabus]

The only reason Obama probably agreed was to try to steal some thunder tonight... still, Bill will not be easy on him
If O'Reilly gets to offensive it will play into Obama's hands (making him "the victim"). Hopefully he will stick to substantive issues. Otherwise it will be the main news story come tomorrow, and the gamble will have won.

Of course it is meant to draw attention from the convention, just as the Palin announcement was meant to draw from the DNC convention. Good political maneuvers.

[Kranar]

While O'Reilly is known to go berserk against some of his guests, a lot of them are actually pretty dumb to begin with. I have yet to see O'Reilly get offensive against any semi decent guest and don't expect him to behave anything but professionally with Obama.

If you're looking for a bloodbath, you may end up disappointed.

[Back]

Just to whet the appetite...

Colbert vs. O’Reilly (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VPfZBtxrT5s)

[Khariz]

The O'Reilly-Hillary interview was good. This one should be too.

[Back]

Parts 2, 3, and 4 next week.

A bit underwhelming, on both parts. Of course, O’Reilly has editing. It probably benefitted O’Reilly’s ratings.

[crb]

Obama actually finally admitted the surge was a success.

He wasn't wrong for voting against it mind you, but he finally said "The surge was a success"

My heart skipped a beat.

[Mabus]

Obama actually finally admitted the surge was a success.

He wasn't wrong for voting against it mind you, but he finally said "The surge was a success"

My heart skipped a beat.
Now there is some "change". He actually, finally said it was a "success"?

[Gan]

Imagine that.

[crb]

Now there is some "change". He actually, finally said it was a "success"?
http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/09/04/obama-surge-succeeded-beyond-wildest-dreams/

[Khariz]

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/09/04/obama-surge-succeeded-beyond-wildest-dreams/

LOL @ "I've always said it's succeeded beyond our wildest dreams."

[crb]

Why does Obama suddenly remind me of 1984 and the ministry of truth was it? Rewriting the history books from "east eurasia is our ally" to "we have always been at war with east eurasia" (I may be misremembering the actual country name).

[Mighty Nikkisaurus]

Why does Obama suddenly remind me of 1984 and the ministry of truth was it? Rewriting the history books from "east eurasia is our ally" to "we have always been at war with east eurasia" (I may be misremembering the actual country name).

I have no idea because that's a pretty fantastical stretch.

[Khariz]

I have no idea because that's a pretty fantastical stretch.

Not really. He re-writes his own reality by claiming that he said things and had positions on things in the past that he either didn't have, or had no vote on. It's quite laughable.

[crb]

"Iran... these nations are tiny, they aren't threats to us."

1 week later after being called on it.

"Iran is a grave threat."

etc

In July Katie couric "so the surge was a success" obama: "That isn't what I'm saying"

[Gan]

"Iran... these nations are tiny, they aren't threats to us."

1 week later after being called on it.

"Iran is a grave threat."

etc

In July Katie couric "so the surge was a success" obama: "That isn't what I'm saying"

Can you source that? Thats a pretty significant flip/denial/fantasyland'esque attitude if its true.

[Khariz]

Here's one:

The Threat of Iran: Obama's comments in Oregon:


I mean think about it. Iran, Cuba, Venezuela, these countries are tiny compared to the Soviet Union. They don't pose a serious threat to us the way the Soviet Union posed a threat to us....You know, Iran, they spend one-one hundredth of what we spend on the military. If Iran ever tried to pose a serious threat to us, they wouldn't stand a chance.And we should use that position of strength that we have to be bold enough to go ahead and listen. That doesn't mean we agree with them on everything. We might not compromise on any issues, but at least we should find out other areas of potential common interest, and we can reduce some of the tensions that has caused us so many problems around the world.


Then THE NEXT DAY in Montana, Obama changed his tune:
Iran is a grave threat. It has an illicit nuclear program. It supports terrorism across the region and militias in Iraq. It threatens Israel's existence. It denies the Holocaust...

http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2008/05/obama_flipflop_on_iran.asp

(Link contains sub-links to both)

[Mighty Nikkisaurus]

I don't get how that's a flip flop.

He says they're a grave threat but he's also saying that they're not so much of a threat that we just need to turn their country into one big sheet of glass. I don't really get what people expect him to say about this? He's tempering a view that is getting him labeled as... well, a pussy or delusional (diplomacy) with an admission of something that even the Republicans can't deny or attack him on and helps cut down on the assertion that he can't understand the foreign issues.

I'm not saying he's right or wrong about us needing to have diplomatic talks with Iran, but that's hardly a flip flop.

[Daniel]

Here's one:

The Threat of Iran: Obama's comments in Oregon:


I mean think about it. Iran, Cuba, Venezuela, these countries are tiny compared to the Soviet Union. They don't pose a serious threat to us the way the Soviet Union posed a threat to us....You know, Iran, they spend one-one hundredth of what we spend on the military. If Iran ever tried to pose a serious threat to us, they wouldn't stand a chance.And we should use that position of strength that we have to be bold enough to go ahead and listen. That doesn't mean we agree with them on everything. We might not compromise on any issues, but at least we should find out other areas of potential common interest, and we can reduce some of the tensions that has caused us so many problems around the world.


Then THE NEXT DAY in Montana, Obama changed his tune:
Iran is a grave threat. It has an illicit nuclear program. It supports terrorism across the region and militias in Iraq. It threatens Israel's existence. It denies the Holocaust...

http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2008/05/obama_flipflop_on_iran.asp

(Link contains sub-links to both)


These two are not mutually exclusive.

Iran can be a grave threat (True) and yet Russia can be an extremely grave threat (Also True).

[Khariz]

I understand. I was posting the context for Gan so he could decide what he thought. I do believe those are the two statements that crb was talking about.

[Gan]

These two are not mutually exclusive.

Iran can be a grave threat (True) and yet Russia can be an extremely grave threat (Also True).

So he's just being politically vague. Is that like voting "Present"?

Call it for what it is. Pandering.