wbur.org
support wbur today!
Cheney v. Obama highlights

President Obama and former Vice President Cheney offered up some high political drama today with what have quickly been dubbed “dueling speeches.” (Obama  transcript; Cheney transcript.)   Last week we looked at Cheney’s very public challenges to Obama, with guests Bart Gellman of The Washington Post, Jane Mayer of The New Yorker, and columnist Mona Charen. If you missed it, it’s an hour that’s still worth a listen, if you’re interested in the high-stakes spectacle of Cheney v. Obama.

Here are highlights of today’s speeches (from Politico):

We’ll be sure to talk about the substance and politics of the speeches in tomorrow’s news roundtable, with the Financial Times’ Chrystia Freeland, Politico’s Gebe Martinez, and Jack Beatty. Hope you’ll join us, and share your thoughts.

 
 
Listener comments
  • why is the media giving 20percent of the population that was rejected 80 percent of the media coverage, and dont u fine it funny that chenney speech for invitation only and non-tranferable, and was set after obama speech along with michael steele and most of the failed republican party backing him.

    yet the repubs want to investigate nacy p for what she may have known yet do no such thing for bush officals.
    if u going to cover chenney so much call him on about the failure before 9/11 and the 4k plus troops killed for a illegal war, along with using fake intellegences with(waterboarding) info to tie saddam to al’queada to invade iraq.

    Posted by Mike, on May 21st, 2009 at 4:48 pm EDT
  • Mike,

    You might have sounded a bit more convincing, if you comments hadn’t consisted of incoherent rambling with absolutely no attention paid to simple grammar, spelling and punctuation.

    Instead, you just come across as an illiterate moron.

    Posted by Todd, on May 22nd, 2009 at 12:51 pm EDT
  • I am shocked that none of your commentators has pointed out the numerous misleading, if not downright false, statements Cheney made to make his case.

    The Boston Herald today has a very interesting piece that points Cheney’s “inconsistencies” such as quoting Director of national intelligence Admiral Blair as saying “harsh interrogation” techniques gave the US deeper understanding of Al Qaeda but failed to mention Admiral Blair ALSO said the “the damage they (torture) have done to our interestes far outways whatever benefit they gave us…”. And FBI director Muller, in direct contradiction to the Cheney mantra that their policies stopped attacks, said he didn’t think the torture prevented any attacks. For goodness sake! Why aren’t your reporting on the military and conservatives who disagree with Cheney?

    And, why is no one asking how the Aphganistan policies of the last administration may have contributed greatly to the recent Taliban surge.

    I know you guys are trying to fair but, come on, re-read what Cheney actually said and you’ll see it is his speech is riddled with falsehoods. It is fear mongering at it’s worst; Joe MCCarthy’s ghost raising his ugly head.

    I wish someone at NPR could find the gumption to say it like it rather than talk as though Cheney and Obama’s speeches even remotely deserved equal attention.

    Posted by Barbara, on May 24th, 2009 at 1:04 pm EDT
  • Wow, I am also amazed at the unbelievable grammar and spelling from “Mike’s” post. Hard to figure out what he’s trying to say. Anyway, I have always thought that when it comes to dealing with terrorists, Cheney sounds much more convincing than Obama. Obama sounds wet behind the ears. He scares me.

    Posted by imhere, on May 25th, 2009 at 8:11 pm EDT
  • Obama looked defensive, nervous, and unsure as to the efficacy of his actions. Obama has not convinced me that he has the necessary attributes to be a competent commander in chief.

    Posted by Joe B., on May 26th, 2009 at 9:07 am EDT
  • why is the media giving 20percent of the population that was rejected 80 percent of the media coverage, and dont u fine it funny that chenney speech for invitation only and non-tranferable, and was set after obama speech along with michael steele and most of the failed republican party backing him.

    yet the repubs want to investigate nacy p for what she may have known yet do no such thing for bush officals.
    if u going to cover chenney so much call him on about the failure before 9/11 and the 4k plus troops killed for a illegal war, along with using fake intellegences with(waterboarding) info to tie saddam to al’queada to invade iraq.

    Posted by MIke, on May 29th, 2009 at 8:57 am EDT
  • disregard the prior post.

    in simple since it not allowing me to post what i revised.

    why is the media giving 80% to a known lier who represents 20% of the population? who sacrifice our liberties for a little security or perceived security.

    The world was not safer now because of him, we loss our moral high grounds, world opinions, there were still terrorist attacks in the U.K. and Spain, we lose 4k troops plus in iraq, and 20k to 30k injured. Not to mention the 100k people killed in iraq and 2million displaced just in iraq.

    Information just came out that this vital information he stated he got was done though normal means, and before he was water boarded.(CIA officals) and yet he states that water boarding worked, it worked so well he had to do it over 80 times.

    Logic says he is lieing

    also there information coming out that they water boarding another suspect to link iraq and Al’ Quada for politcal reasons.

    If you believe what Cheney is say your either foolish and just plain dumb.

    Posted by Mike, on May 29th, 2009 at 9:11 am EDT
Recent Shows
Poker: America’s Game
Thursday, November 19, 2009 image

Poker and American history. How the game of presidents, cowboys, gangsters, and online gamblers helped shape America.

Comments [10]
 
Google vs. Murdoch
Thursday, November 19, 2009 image

Rupert Murdoch wants to block the search giant from scooping free content from his newspapers. We’ll look at the staredown.

Comments [134]
On Point Blog
Michael Wolff and Jeff Jarvis on Murdoch v. Google

We had a rousing discussion about Google vs. Murdoch, and what it says about the whole future of news, with Michael Wolff, Jeff Jarvis, and Steven Brill. Here’s what Wolff and Jarvis had to say about the delusions of both Murdoch and Google.

More » | Comments [20]
 
Video: Google CEO Eric Schmidt

Last week, host Tom Ashbrook was on stage with Google CEO Eric Schmidt, asking him about some of the biggest technology and business issues of our time.
It was part of an MIT event held on Thursday, Nov. 5, to commemorate computer science professor Michael Hammer, who died last year. Here’s video of the full interview, courtesy of WBUR.org:

Among other things, Schmidt said the possibilities [...]

More » | Comments [4]
 
California, here we come! And we need your questions!

On Point is headed west!
No, no. Not for good. Only for one show. But it’s a very special show!  The NPR station in Thousand Oaks, California – KCLU – is celebrating their 15th anniversary. We’re lucky to have been on their airwaves for nearly seven years, and they invited us out west to host a live [...]

More » | Comments [10]