RUSH: David ‘Rodham’ Gergen, CNN last night, panel discussion after the Obama memorial.
GERGEN: A lot of us did come tonight thinking this would be more of a solemn memorial service and we would have the kind of words that President Clinton used at Oklahoma City, or that President Reagan did after the Challenger blew up. But instead it turned into much more of a pep rally and almost at times it seemed like a campaign rally.
RUSH: Hmm. David ‘Rodham’ Gergen not happy, doesn’t sound like David ‘Rodham’ Gergen’s expectations were met. Anderson Cooper said, ‘Mr. (Rodham Gergen), did the president do what he needed to do tonight? So much rising vitriol over the reaction to the shooting, do you think he cooled things down?’
GERGEN: He may have helped cool things down. As terms of a Oklahoma City moment that we talked about before, a speech that would transform his presidency, I have a hard time saying that that happened tonight. I think just the context, because it seemed so much like a campaign rally that may have worked well within the hall, but I’m not sure it worked as well with a national audience. I think probably did not lift the speech into the annals of great oratory where you find moments that do transform presidencies.
RUSH: David ‘Rodham’ Gergen desperately wanting that, though, can we all agree? David ‘Rodham’ Gergen desperately wanting this to be a transformative speech along the lines of Clinton and Oklahoma City. It mighta done well within the hall but not as well with the national audience. In the annals of great oratory, probably not. However, Charles Krauthammer on Fox:
KRAUTHAMMER: I thought the president’s speech was a remarkable display of oratory and of oratorical skill, both in terms of the tone and the content. In tone, the president faced a very difficult problem not of his making. The audience, mostly students, was reacting with a lot of cheers and yells in what was supposed to be, intended to be a very solemn memorial service and at a time of great suffering and grief. The president very skillfully then in the second half of the speech, which was about inspiration, which was about the good that would emerge from here invited those cheers and applause which at the beginning had been inappropriate and I think it lent energy and strength to his speech. I think he did end in a very skillful way.
RUSH: Well, what are we to make of this? David ‘Rodham’ Gergen was hoping this would be what Krauthammer says it was. David ‘Rodham’ Gergen on the very liberal CNN disappointed, obviously, had high hopes, was expecting much, much more, a transformative, great oratorical speech, a rare moment. But he failed. But to Krauthammer the president’s speech was a remarkable display of oratory and of oratorical skill, both in terms of the tone and content. Hmm. Hmm. What to make of this? And in fact if you stick with CNN, The Forehead, Paul Begala, grab sound bite 15. This is Paul Begala, who is sort of on the same page here as David ‘Rodham’ Gergen.
BEGALA: Ronald Reagan’s Challenger speech was four and a half minutes. Bill Clinton’s speech in Oklahoma was nine minutes. This was over 30.
COOPER: The applause, too, oftentimes lengthy, added to the time more than — made the speech longer than it actually was.
RUSH: There’s Anderson Cooper 225 trying to cover for the fact the speech went long. So here you have The Forehead and David ‘Rodham’ Gergen, didn’t meet our expectations. He just didn’t get there. Charles Krauthammer and all the gang at Fox in their analysis thought just the opposite. The Fox people went overboard in how wonderful, great, fabulous, skillful, on and on and on, the speech was.