I thought O’Reilly had a relatively good assessment actually.

Now Chris Matthews on the other hand:

Matthews Calls West Point, Site of Obama Speech ‘The Enemy Camp,’ ‘Strange Venue’ (see newsbusters).

In fairness to O’Reilly, he wasn’t completely negative towards Obama, but he seemed to have it both ways. He agreed with the President on some material points of his speech, but took exception to his lack of passion and energy behind the speech.

So he agreed with some stuff… and disagreed with other stuff. It sounds like you’re confused about this, or this is a complaint. Isn’t that… you know… life? Parts were good, parts weren’t, and there were a few parts that were missing… I don’t think everything has to be so black and white, “This was great,” or “This was bad.” Do you?

It’s sad that O’Reilly, Matthews and several other commentators have complained about the speeches lack of historical style, whether it’s the Gettysburg Address or the cartoonish, cowboy up buffoonery that was the Bush administration. War is a serious matter and this setting and tone was just right. Unlike the commentators, my interest in the speech wasn’t how he said it, but what he said. I’m not concerned with aesthetics. This country is still in deep financial trouble and jobs are still scarce. As the President stated, we’ve already spent 1 Trillion on these 2 wars. I’m thrilled that he’s laid down a timeline. We can’t stay there forever and the people of Afghanistan have to take responsibility for their country. I was against escalation but, because the President has placed an expiriation date on this, I’m happy about that.

instead of talking about how bill o’reilly had some good things and some bad things to say about the speech, how about covering chris matthews calling West Point “the enemy camp”???

Yes, those cadets looked really angry, particularly as they reached out to shake Obama’s had while similtaneously snapping a photo on their cellphones. Sheer hostility!

roxsteady says:
December 1, 2009 at 11:33 pm

So you’d disagree with MSNBC’s Chris Matthews comments then?

I didn’t see a lot of warmth in that crowd out there …uh, that, uh, the President chose to address tonight. And I thought that was interesting he went to, maybe, the enemy camp tonight to make his case. That’s where Paul Wolfowitz used to write speeches for … back in the old Bush days … that’s where he went to rabble rouse “we’re going to democratize the world” campaign …

http://proteinwisdom.com/?p=15574

pretty sure rox was being sarcastic.

regardless its an outrageous comment to make and of course being overlooked…

I didn’t think the Gettysburg address was received all that well at the time. But of course I wasn’t there.

This “Android” lacks any kind of human interaction with the audience. He merely reads words from a frickin’ Teleprompter. No passion, no real eye contact. The audience reacted in a very cold way, as compared to the way they reacted to George Bush with interruptions for applause. The rhetoric was lovely, but the delivery was dead, cold, passionless. Mr. Spock, personified.

The whole ‘teleprompter’ thing has moved past ridiculous and nauseating. Watch as Obama alternately looks left-right-left-right-left and never ONCE looks into the camera…the CENTER. Because that’s not where the teleprompters are! The image this leaves is a clear one: He isn’t speaking to ME.

Our President has a pre-written speech and reads from it. He sucks because he wrote it in advance instead of just rambling on the fly.

Who gives a damn if it’s a teleprompter or if it’s a piece of paper he’s reading from? This is an example of the Obama Devil complex where you guys hate Obama so much, with basically religiously fundamentalist fervor, that anything he does even if it’s extremely insignificant, you guys just hate. He can’t go take a crap without you guys saying he’s doing it wrong.

Rush was right — he is a manchild. Not Presidential at all, very defensive, and blamed Bush from start to finish. He needs to grow up.

pS: Did anyone see the video of the guy who threw his shoes at Bush got shoes thrown at him in France and the Iraqi who threw the shoe said the original shoe thrower embarrassed Iraq?

Only Fox Not News Channel Viewers take O’Reilly seriously. Hell, Obama could have given the Gettysburg Address in 1863 and Bill O, on the spot reporter, would have assessed it as mediocre. As for reading speeches — are you effing kidding me? That’s your criticism? Childish at best in your criticism.

The Gettysburg Address was not received all that well at the time, it was only after that it became iconic. But did you see the Cadets swarm Obama, taking photographs and trying to reach him to shake his hand? Impressive. Gives the lie to the rightwingnumbnutz story that the military doesn’t like Obama.

Take your whining about the military not liking Obama to Chris Matthews — he is the one who said Obama was entering “an enemy camp”.

As for the swarming — SOP.

As for the reception — luke warm. Just compare how the cadets greeted Bush on his last visit. Lots of huah’s, standing O’s, etc.

“Just compare how the cadets greeted Bush on his last visit. Lots of huah’s, standing O’s, etc.”

using your logic, which i cant believe unless i see it, but lets say youre right… maybe thats why matthew’s made his “enemy camp” comment. as you said, the reception that he got from that crowd of cadet’s wasnt so cheery and behind him as much as they would be with bush. obviously, matthews used the wrong words to make his point, but he is right as far as how the speech was received.

m says:
December 2, 2009 at 6:53 am

I’m going to half agree with you, half disagree.

First half: Obama actually DID look to the middle at a point or two in the speech. I remember him looking straight into the camera, and thought that was an interesting technique (makes it look like he’s looking right at the viewer at home… he saw me washing dishes). But more importantly, the issue isn’t the teleprompter itself… it’s that the words disconnected from the actual event.

Second half: And that’s the problem with Obama’s teleprompter reliance. Not that he’s reading… but that he always comes across as academic and detached from the situation. It’s not clear that he believes or understands what he’s saying… only that he’s reading it. Where’s the passion? Where’s the excitement? It’s all too polished, too conforming, too contrived. It’s like the SNL sketch… we want to see him get angry… pound the podium once in awhile… show that he’s not just the reader in chief, but that he has emotion towards what he’s talking about.