Hotline After Dark -- McChange
The reviews of John McCain's speech are still coming in this a.m., but here is a preview of what has been said:
FNC's Angle: "You obviously had John McCain going into [Barack] Obama territory talking about change, mentioning it some 30 times. He already has the experience argument locked up. ... The most interesting thing was the enthusiasm for Sarah Palin down here. He only mentioned, 'I have found a good partner to help me shake up Washington.' The crowd leapt to its feet and started cheering before he even mentioned her name. ... The credit has to be given to Sarah Palin on that, who has reassured conservatives in the party who were always a little lukewarm about John McCain" ("On the Record," 9/4).
New York Times' Brooks: "I think what burns through the speech and which people will remember is the intense desire to rise above the last eight years. And that's what allowed him to build to that crescendo at the end, which was truly impressive" ("NewsHour," PBS, 9/4).
Washington Post's Capehart: "It was the last 90 seconds, as if someone flipped the switch, and he just took off. He was on fire with that 'Stand up and fight. Stand up and fight.' It was beautiful. It was fantastic. And if only that speech had been that way from the beginning" ("Morning Joe," MSNBC, 9/4).
Obama comm. dir. Robert Gibbs: "I think a lot of people like me watched this speech, a lot of people sitting in houses and homes in Youngstown, Ohio and Scranton, Pennsylvania, wondering whether John McCain was going to outline for them a plan to get this economy moving again, to make health care more affordable, to break the grip of special interests and break our dependence on foreign oil. ... I thought the speech was very underwhelming and lacked any specifics about what we're going to do in this country to get it moving in the right direction" ("LKL," CNN, 9/4).
See today's Hotline for more.
After the jump, O'Reilly finally gets his Obama interview.
(KATHERINE LEHR)
IT FEELS LIKE THE FIRST TIME
Meanwhile, FNC's Bill O'Reilly sat down for his first interview with Obama on 9/4. The rest of the interview will air 9/8, 9/9, and 9/10.
O'Reilly: "Well, first of all, thanks for being a man of your word."
Obama: "You bet."
O'Reilly: "But I was worried there for awhile. It's been nine months since we last met in New Hampshire."
Obama: "It took a little while. I've had a few things to do in between, but I appreciate you having me on the show."
Obama, on how threatening Iran is: "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 the military option off the table."
O'Reilly: "But would you prepare for one?"
Obama: "Well, listen ..."
O'Reilly: "Answer the question, senator. Anybody can say option. Would you prepare for it?"
Obama: "Look, it is not appropriate for somebody who is one of two people who can 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 official to say I would not take 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 that, for six, seven years, during this administration, we weren't a working as closely as we needed to do with the Europeans to create sanctions."
Obama, on why he won't say that the surge in Iraq has worked: "If you listen 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 is down. I believe that that is a testimony to the troops that were sent and General [David] Petraeus and Ambassador [Ryan] Crocker. I think that the surge has succeeded in areas 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 awakening, partly because of the Shia military."
O'Reilly: "If it were up to you, there wouldn't have been a surge."
Obama: "No, no, 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 an open-ended policy that did not create the kinds of pressure on the Iraqis to take responsibility and reconcile."
O'Reilly: "But it worked. It worked. Come on."
Obama: "Bill, what I said is -- I've already said it succeed beyond our wildest dreams."
O'Reilly: "Why can't you say, 'I was right in the beginning, and I was wrong about the surge?'
Obama: "Because there's an underlying problem where what have we done. We have reduced the violence. ... But the Iraqis still haven't taken responsibility, and we still don't have the kind of political reconciliation. We are still spending, Bill, $10 to $12 billion a month."
Obama, on Pakistan: "We are providing them military aid without having enough strings attached. So they're using the military aid that we use -- they're not, to Pakistan, they're preparing for a war against India."
O'Reilly: "So you're going to pull it out and let the Islamic fundamentalists take them over?"
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 ..."
O'Reilly: "He's doing that now. Funds over there, and he's doing that."
Obama: "That is not what we've been doing, Bill. We've wasted $10 billion with Musharraf without holding them accountable for knocking out those safe havens. ... We can't -- we can't have -- and nobody talked about some full-blown invasion of Pakistan, but the simple point that I made was we've got to put more pressure on Pakistan to do what they need to do" ("O'Reilly Factor," 9/4).
Walter Shapiro: "His acceptance speech Thursday night was a mirror of McCain the contradictory political figure -- sometimes unorthodox and daring, sometimes plodding and pedestrian; rich in character, light in policy substance, much stronger in its sincere tone than in its rhetorical gloss."
Joe Klein: "More a valedictory than an acceptance speech -- more the end of a career than the beginning of a presidency."
Andrew Sullivan: "Quite a deflation after the drama of last night with the sportscaster-governor. It made me realize how much I am still fond of this guy. And also clearer about why this is not his moment. The specifics were very vague, and the entire presentation based on biography, nostalgia and a kind of strained, exhausted mildness. His performance at Saddleback was much, much better. He seemed very tired to me."
Jonathan Martin: "McCain hit all his message targets, eschewing partisan red meat to cast himself as a man who will work across party lines to reform a broken capital. But his delivery, especially in the first portion when he was discussing policy issues, was uninspired and did little to captivate the audience."
Michael Crowley: "...this is a very underwhelming speech. Familiar points explained in pedestrian terms. No overarching themes--right now it's sounding like a State of the Union laundry list. Even the crowd in the hall isn't jazzed. This is the sort of reception Tom Ridge got."
David Corn: "He offered an unexciting mix of GOP orthodoxy and declarations of personal maverickness--which was capped by yet one more long and detailed recounting of his POW days of forty years ago. Enough already."
Taegan Goddard: "McCain Delivers Flat Speech
Unlike nearly every speaker from last night, Sen. John McCain started his acceptance speech with an appeal to independents and moderate Democrats. He spoke with a very respectful tone when referring to Sen. Barack Obama and his supporters. It's what he needed to do.
Reinforcing his calmer image were at least two anti-war demonstrators who caused quite a stir in the convention hall. McCain handled it well, creating the opposite effect the protesters wanted: They looked like jackasses, not him.
However, the most striking thing about the speech was the lack of specifics of what he wants to do as president. When Obama was criticized for not talking specifics, he made sure to dedicate a large part of his acceptance speech to specifics. A McCain presidency seems to be mostly about his character and a few tired Republican ideas, such as school choice, cutting foreign aid and the new favorite, "drill, baby, drill."
McCain is much stronger when talking about foreign policy and the military. He's very convincing and reassuring when he talks about hating war and wanting to keep the country safe. It's as if he knows he's been too bellicose on the campaign trail so far.
We've now heard McCain's personal story as a prisoner of war dozens of times in just three days and he included again in his speech. It's truly inspiring. No one would ever doubt that McCain loves his country.
But no matter the content, McCain had serious delivery problems with this speech. Starting with the awful lime green background (that later turned to blue) and continuing through McCain's difficulties reading from the teleprompter, the speech was very disjointed and hard to follow. To top it off, the crowd reaction at the end of the speech seemed forced and staged, almost like delegates were reacting to flashing "applause" signs at the side of the stage.
Overall, it was a very mediocre performance. I'm not sure it got the job done."
Unenthusiastic speech, except maybe at the end. I did not quite understand the "Stand up and fight" line. Fight whom? The same bunch that McCain has been a part of for the last 26 years?
So the GOP is now going to reform Washington. Is this the same Washington they've ran for the last 8 years.
Maybe they mean Washington state, and if so residence of Seattle, be afraid, be very very afraid.
PS- Be aware of old men in bath stalls.
Why has 9/11, been the trade mark of the Republican campaign in this election. Why are they (Republicans) taking pride on a failed protection of a nation while they were on guard.
Finally, 9/11 effected all walks of live in America and success and failure should not be claimed by one particuler party as both sons and daughters of Dems and Reps died on that attack as well sons and daughters of Dems and Reps are fighting together today to get things settled.
So, no one party has the right to claim success.