News Stories

[Vexx]

Originally Posted by Kamui4356

So short sighted. Not only does this kill the US manned space program for the foreseeable future, it's also going to cost jobs. People need to build the things after all and now those people will be looking for work. Why is NASA always one of the first government agencies on the chopping block when the government is looking to save some cash? Reform military procurement policies and you can probably save more money than NASA's entire budget without negatively impacting anything besides the bank accounts of corrupt executives. I'm not just talking about weapons there, also things like tools, food, and other logistical concerns as well.

NASA's benefit to society and technology has been long documented... it simply doesn't matter to grandstanding idiots and the masses who can't connect the dots.

Ah well... some people are getting a clue - the fastest growing and soon to be largest foreign language instruction in K-12 is Mandarin Chinese. The college students with science/engineering degrees are interviewing and taking jobs outside of the US at the largest rates ever seen.

Space will be Firefly but with all the Chinese people we didn't ever see in the series. The US will be Bladerunner-esque corporacracy, tipping point environment, and 99% of the population just trying to get through the day.

[Haruka_Kitten]

It's like privatisation of...everything else. Public Transport, Utilities...it shows a government seriously in need of help, or just unwilling to spend just so the board can go home with an extra million in the pocket. Shame, we give them a paycut of 1 buck and they'll still be furious.

[Tsuyoshi]

Originally Posted by Nosauz

Uh during world war I the united states general sentiment was of isolationist tendencies, it was because of Wilson and the forcing of American troops to the european theatre that America got invovled. FDR had to fight tooth and nail to get "our" boys into the war against hitler due to the bad taste of WWI in the american publics mouth. I mean it took the sinking of a majority of the pacific fleet to rouse Americans in a call to action. For the most part US democracy is more or less tied into western thinking, because in that case the brits, spanish, portugeese, french, dutch all had the notion of spreading "democracy" although at the time under the name of republics, which America has since cast of and claimed the name Democracy instead.

My bad. I'll have to revise my history dates I guess

Originally Posted by TinyRedLeaf

No regrets, no remorse — Tony Blair's last stand


In the end, Blair will be judged by history

See also:

• Key quotes from Blair testimony (CNN)
• How did Blair do? (Channel 4 News)

I saw this on the news today. Tbh, the entire war on Iraq was a farce. I suppose Blair is trying to save face by standing by most of what he claimed when this "war on terror" first began. The truth is that Saddam posed no threat at all towards anyone, and he had no contacts with anybody except for backward middle eastern countries. Now and then, people should've been more concerned with Iran's continuing WMD program, which is a true threat and a true danger to people worldwide. I find it Ironic how these major powers chose to take out a man they put in power themselves.

Originally Posted by TinyRedLeaf

The irony is that even the most massive organisations are made up of just that: many individuals; each with very strong opinions, and all very vocal if they want to be.

The idea that any one media organisation operates like a hive mind, deviously scheming as one, to fleece gullible laymen of their pennies — while making for terrific Hollywood fare — is at best only half true and, at worst, no better informed than some of the supposedly learned opinion in the West on how best to tackle difficult social, political and economic issues of multi-layered problems like those in, say, the Middle East.

Can media organisations be deceptive? Of course! Do they sometimes get their facts wrong? Of course! Are they all part of a grand conspiracy to brainwash the people? Hmm...

Yes, these organizations are also made up of individuals like you and me. Except those people who work for the mass media are paid to say things they normally wouldn't say. That's the difference between people on NBC and Phil De Franco. Phil doesn't get paid to express his opinions. He's free to say whatever he wants. He's not pressured to create interesting stories for the people to hear, regardless of whether they're true or not. The people on NBC are paid to say certain things. It's therefore more profitable for them to do that rather than do as they wish. They work for a collective, as you said, and not for themselves.

[mg1942]

Russia unveils 5th generation fighter.

[Kamui4356]

Originally Posted by mg1942

Russia unveils 5th generation fighter.

Looks more like a gen 4.5 fighter to me. It's definitely less stealthy than an F-22, and doesn't seem to have all aspect stealth at all judging from the engine exhausts. It's probably more comparable to an F-35 with having just front aspect stealth. Even then those big intakes don't look very stealthy.

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by Kamui4356

Looks more like a gen 4.5 fighter to me. It's definitely less stealthy than an F-22, and doesn't seem to have all aspect stealth at all judging from the engine exhausts. It's probably more comparable to an F-35 with having just front aspect stealth. Even then those big intakes don't look very stealthy.

It looks like a cross between an F117 and F16/15 to me.

My guess is its lift. To carry more bombs, albeit bigger ones. Another hazard guess would be "tactical" "thermobaric" weapons, i.e a compacted MOAB.

Loop a self-destruct system into it and I doubt an F-22 pilot would dare shoot it down.

[bbqsauced]

Originally Posted by Vexx

NASA's benefit to society and technology has been long documented... it simply doesn't matter to grandstanding idiots and the masses who can't connect the dots.

Ah well... some people are getting a clue - the fastest growing and soon to be largest foreign language instruction in K-12 is Mandarin Chinese. The college students with science/engineering degrees are interviewing and taking jobs outside of the US at the largest rates ever seen.

Space will be Firefly but with all the Chinese people we didn't ever see in the series. The US will be Bladerunner-esque corporacracy, tipping point environment, and 99% of the population just trying to get through the day.

While it's sad to see NASA's plans go down the drain, I don't think it's the end for America's ventures into space.

There are already several private companies competing at creating a shuttle system to provide transportation to the ISS. I think Obama's decision is based primarily on funding here, since these private companies can offer much, much cheaper prices than NASA ever could. If you haven't, definitely take a look and see what they're doing. (I don't remember any of their names offhand, but they are there.)

This is a good hint that NASA's role in the future is going to be probing the far reaches of space and staying one step ahead. They've already proven they can put a man on the moon, why do it over 10 times again? We should be taking over that role and doing it ourselves. Hopefully, these private space transportation companies look to expand what they can offer as technology and resources come better available for them, and they venture out from just shuttling people to the ISS. NASA won't be completely detached either, I know they mentioned that they want to help assist these companies, which could be very profitable for them if the private shuttling business turns out to be successful.

So, yeah, America might not be the first to put a base on the moon, but I guarantee you we have men and women who would be interested in going up there once there is one, regardless of who puts it there.

[Vexx]

Originally Posted by bbqsauced

While it's sad to see NASA's plans go down the drain, I don't think it's the end for America's ventures into space.

There are already several private companies competing at creating a shuttle system to provide transportation to the ISS. I think Obama's decision is based primarily on funding here, since these private companies can offer much, much cheaper prices than NASA ever could. If you haven't, definitely take a look and see what they're doing. (I don't remember any of their names offhand, but they are there.)

This is a good hint that NASA's role in the future is going to be probing the far reaches of space and staying one step ahead. They've already proven they can put a man on the moon, why do it over 10 times again? We should be taking over that role and doing it ourselves. Hopefully, these private space transportation companies look to expand what they can offer as technology and resources come better available for them, and they venture out from just shuttling people to the ISS. NASA won't be completely detached either, I know they mentioned that they want to help assist these companies, which could be very profitable for them if the private shuttling business turns out to be successful.

So, yeah, America might not be the first to put a base on the moon, but I guarantee you we have men and women who would be interested in going up there once there is one, regardless of who puts it there.

Aye, I keep an eye on the private ventures... however, so far none have actually *put* anything in orbit and the actual costs are still unknown.

Going to the moon... isn't a stunt. There's a lot of science to do on the moon (e.g. farside radio telescopy... big ones). Its excellent practice for going farther (like Mars/asteroids/Titan but with some possible of recovering from errors while testing technologies). It is true that there's little point in climbing out of one gravity well to drop into another... but its a much cheaper gravity well for launching large deep space craft.

The rest of the world is appalled that we're considering shutting down the ISS... something they've ALL contributed to - our first real multi-nation experience - just as we're finishing the main construction.

Not the end.... but definitely not a good moment and there's something to be said for loss of momentum.

[Xellos-_^]

Originally Posted by bbqsauced

While it's sad to see NASA's plans go down the drain, I don't think it's the end for America's ventures into space.

There are already several private companies competing at creating a shuttle system to provide transportation to the ISS. I think Obama's decision is based primarily on funding here, since these private companies can offer much, much cheaper prices than NASA ever could. If you haven't, definitely take a look and see what they're doing. (I don't remember any of their names offhand, but they are there.)

This is a good hint that NASA's role in the future is going to be probing the far reaches of space and staying one step ahead. They've already proven they can put a man on the moon, why do it over 10 times again? We should be taking over that role and doing it ourselves. Hopefully, these private space transportation companies look to expand what they can offer as technology and resources come better available for them, and they venture out from just shuttling people to the ISS. NASA won't be completely detached either, I know they mentioned that they want to help assist these companies, which could be very profitable for them if the private shuttling business turns out to be successful.

So, yeah, America might not be the first to put a base on the moon, but I guarantee you we have men and women who would be interested in going up there once there is one, regardless of who puts it there.

so are you also in favor of private companies selling piece of real estate on the moon? that is what is going to happen if a private company gets base setup first vs the government.

[mg1942]

Originally Posted by Kamui4356

Looks more like a gen 4.5 fighter to me. It's definitely less stealthy than an F-22, and doesn't seem to have all aspect stealth at all judging from the engine exhausts. It's probably more comparable to an F-35 with having just front aspect stealth. Even then those big intakes don't look very stealthy.

What is going to be odd I think about the Sukhoi PAK-FA is maintenance. Stealth is a ton of work and needs highly specialized infrastructure to maintain. How the hell are the Russians supposed to pull that off in any numbers?

[Nosauz]

http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/01/28/...ex.html?hpt=T1

STORY HIGHLIGHTS

* Scott Roeder convicted of first-degree murder
* Jury reaches verdict after about 40 minutes of deliberation
* Roeder testified he does not regret killing Dr. George Tiller
* Tiller ran a women's clinic where he performed abortions in Wichita, Kansas

(CNN) -- A Kansas jury deliberated just 37 minutes before convicting an anti-abortion activist of first-degree murder in the fatal shooting of an abortion provider.

The jury found Scott Roeder, 51, guilty of gunning down Dr. George Tiller, who operated a clinic in Wichita where late-term abortions were performed. Roeder, 51, faces life in prison when he is sentenced on March 9.

Tiller's family said the jury reached a "just" verdict.

"At this time we hope that George can be remembered for his legacy of service to women, the help he provided for those who needed it and the love and happiness he provided us as a husband, father and grandfather," the family said in a written statement.

A day earlier, Roeder told jurors he had shot Tiller in the foyer of Reformation Lutheran Church as Sunday services began. Testifying as his only defense witness, he said he believed he had to kill Tiller to save lives. He said he had no regrets.

"There was nothing being done, and the legal process had been exhausted, and these babies were dying every day," Roeder said. "I felt that if someone did not do something, he was going to continue."

"His testimony was delivered very matter-of-factly, but its contents were chillingly horrific," prosecutor Ann Swengel said in her closing argument. "He carried out a planned assassination, and there can be no other verdict in this case ... other than guilty."

Prosecutors initially fought to keep abortion out of the trial, claiming that Tiller's death was a straightforward case of premeditated murder.

Eventually, the abortion issue took center stage as prosecutors portrayed Tiller as a target of Roeder's anti-abortion agenda, and defense lawyers attempted to mitigate his culpability under the theory that he believed Tiller's death was justified to save the lives of others.

Defense attorney Mark Rudy told jurors in his closing argument that Roeder "thought that the babies kept on dying" and he had to stop Tiller from "killing more babies."

Another defense attorney, Steve Osburn, said Roeder was "disappointed," with the verdict. But he added, "He's known that this day was going to come, I think."

Osburn said his client "feels remorse toward the family, but not for what he did."

The trial drew activists from both sides of the abortion debate to the courtroom, and a van plastered with slogans and photographs of fetuses was parked in a prominent spot in front of the courthouse.

Among the attendees were the Rev. Michael Bray, whose history in the anti-abortion movement includes 1985 conspiracy convictions in connection with a string of clinic bombings, and Katherine Spillar, executive vice president of the Feminist Majority Foundation.

Congregants from Reformation Lutheran testified that they had seen Roeder at church several times before the day he killed Tiller by shooting him at point-blank range in the head.

Jurors heard emotional testimony from church-goers who rushed to Tiller's side and attempted to administer mouth-to-mouth resuscitation as he lay in a pool of blood. Others, meanwhile, followed Roeder into the church parking lot, where he threatened to shoot them.

Roeder also was convicted of aggravated assault in connection with threats he made to two ushers, Gary Hoepner and Keith Martin.

As Roeder pulled away in his car, Martin testified, something moved him to throw the coffee cup he was holding at the vehicle. "Frustration, I guess, lack of accomplishment, nothing else to do."

Prosecutors also called employees of the pawn shop where Roeder purchased the .22-caliber Taurus pistol believed to have been used to shoot Tiller. The gun was never found, but surveillance video and receipts showed that he purchased the gun on May 18 and received it on May 23, the week before he shot Tiller.

Roeder's defense team did not dispute much of the factual evidence. Roeder testified that he chose to target Tiller at church because it presented the best "window of opportunity" to attack Tiller, who traveled in an armored vehicle and whose clinic was a "fortress."

He admitted bringing the pistol with him to Lutheran Reformation on May 24 with the intention of shooting Tiller, but the physician did not attend services that day. So, Roeder testified, he returned the following week.

"Do you feel as though you've successfully completed your mission?" Sedgwick County District Attorney Nola Foulston asked Roeder on Thursday.

"He's been stopped," Roeder answered.

His testimony was intended just as much for the jury as it was to convince Judge Warren Wilbert that evidence existed to support a possible conviction of voluntary manslaughter. A conviction on the lesser offense, which is defined as "an unreasonable but honest belief that circumstances existed that justified deadly force," would have set Roeder free from prison after five years.

Earlier in the trial, Wilbert said he would rule after hearing evidence in the case, acknowledging that he felt the defense faced "an uphill battle." Ultimately, he rejected the theory, saying testimony did not support the defense claim that Roeder's beliefs justified using deadly force against Tiller.

"There is no imminence of danger on a Sunday morning in the back of a church, let alone any unlawful conduct, given that what Tiller did at his clinic Monday through Friday is lawful in Kansas," the judge said.

In Session's Lena Jakobsson and CNN's Emanuella Grinberg contributed to this story.

At least people in America still understand somethings. My Dr. Tiller rest in peace.

[JMvS]

Originally Posted by mg1942

What is going to be odd I think about the Sukhoi PAK-FA is maintenance. Stealth is a ton of work and needs highly specialized infrastructure to maintain. How the hell are the Russians supposed to pull that off in any numbers?

My guess is that they went for a balanced compromise, hence the less stealthy look. I suppose that learning from the American example, they decided to make it rather a fighter with the finest avionic, high specs and a design fit for rough airbases, as well as a decent stealth capacity, than an invisible yet extremely expensive, complicated (and almost unusable) jet fighter.

[justinstrife]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_us_taiwan_arms_sales

Spoiler:

WASHINGTON – In a move sure to aggravate China, the Obama administration on Friday announced plans for more than $6 billion in arms sales to Taiwan, the self-governing island the Chinese claim as their own.

The sale would include Black Hawk helicopters, Patriot missiles, mine-hunting ships and information technology. Lawmakers have 30 days to comment before the plan proceeds; senior lawmakers have traditionally supported arms sales to Taiwan.

Taiwan is the most sensitive matter in already-tense relations between the U.S. and China, two powers increasingly linked by security and economic issues. The sale could spark a temporary break in U.S.-China military ties.

The United States, which only told China of the sale hours before the announcement, acknowledged Friday that Beijing may retaliate by cutting off military talks with Washington, which happened after a multibillion dollar U.S. sale to Taiwan in 2008.

Wang Baodong, a spokesman for the Chinese Embassy in Washington, said Beijing will lodge a formal protest against the U.S. decision. Asked if China would cut off military ties, he said, "Let's wait and see."

President Barack Obama's national security adviser, Jim Jones, said Friday that Washington and Beijing both do things "periodically that may not make everybody completely happy."

But Jones told an audience at the Center for Strategic and International Studies think tank the U.S. is "bent toward a new relationship with China as a rising power in the world."

China vehemently opposes U.S. arms sales to Taiwan. It has threatened to invade Taiwan should the island ever formalize its de facto independence.

The United States is Taiwan's most important ally and largest arms supplier.

The package, posted on a Pentagon Web site, dodges one thorny issue: The F-16 fighter jets that Taiwan covets are not included.

The sale satisfies parts of an $11 billion arms package originally pledged to Taiwan by former President George W. Bush in 2001, which has been provided in stages because of political and budgetary considerations in Taiwan and the United States.

The arms sale will test the Obama administration's China policy, which U.S. officials say is meant to improve trust between the countries, so that the inevitable disagreements over Taiwan or Tibet don't reverse efforts to cooperate on nuclear standoffs in Iran and North Korea and other issues.

China aims more than 1,000 ballistic missiles at Taiwan; the U.S. government is bound by law to ensure the island is able to respond to Chinese threats.

The package includes 114 Patriot missiles designed to shoot down other missiles, 60 Black Hawk helicopters, and two mine-hunting ships.

___

Associated Press writers Robert Burns, Desmond Butler and Lolita C. Baldor contributed to this report.

I have to say I agree with the Obama administration here. Good for you President Obama. I pray that this works out the best way possible.

[Nosauz]

Originally Posted by justinstrife

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_us_taiwan_arms_sales

Spoiler:

WASHINGTON – In a move sure to aggravate China, the Obama administration on Friday announced plans for more than $6 billion in arms sales to Taiwan, the self-governing island the Chinese claim as their own.

The sale would include Black Hawk helicopters, Patriot missiles, mine-hunting ships and information technology. Lawmakers have 30 days to comment before the plan proceeds; senior lawmakers have traditionally supported arms sales to Taiwan.

Taiwan is the most sensitive matter in already-tense relations between the U.S. and China, two powers increasingly linked by security and economic issues. The sale could spark a temporary break in U.S.-China military ties.

The United States, which only told China of the sale hours before the announcement, acknowledged Friday that Beijing may retaliate by cutting off military talks with Washington, which happened after a multibillion dollar U.S. sale to Taiwan in 2008.

Wang Baodong, a spokesman for the Chinese Embassy in Washington, said Beijing will lodge a formal protest against the U.S. decision. Asked if China would cut off military ties, he said, "Let's wait and see."

President Barack Obama's national security adviser, Jim Jones, said Friday that Washington and Beijing both do things "periodically that may not make everybody completely happy."

But Jones told an audience at the Center for Strategic and International Studies think tank the U.S. is "bent toward a new relationship with China as a rising power in the world."

China vehemently opposes U.S. arms sales to Taiwan. It has threatened to invade Taiwan should the island ever formalize its de facto independence.

The United States is Taiwan's most important ally and largest arms supplier.

The package, posted on a Pentagon Web site, dodges one thorny issue: The F-16 fighter jets that Taiwan covets are not included.

The sale satisfies parts of an $11 billion arms package originally pledged to Taiwan by former President George W. Bush in 2001, which has been provided in stages because of political and budgetary considerations in Taiwan and the United States.

The arms sale will test the Obama administration's China policy, which U.S. officials say is meant to improve trust between the countries, so that the inevitable disagreements over Taiwan or Tibet don't reverse efforts to cooperate on nuclear standoffs in Iran and North Korea and other issues.

China aims more than 1,000 ballistic missiles at Taiwan; the U.S. government is bound by law to ensure the island is able to respond to Chinese threats.

The package includes 114 Patriot missiles designed to shoot down other missiles, 60 Black Hawk helicopters, and two mine-hunting ships.

___

Associated Press writers Robert Burns, Desmond Butler and Lolita C. Baldor contributed to this report.

I have to say I agree with the Obama administration here. Good for you President Obama. I pray that this works out the best way possible.

Are you kidding... you call for a balanced budget.. you cut the space program for this??? Wow talk about irony, and ridiculousness. This isn't time to start up another cold war, considering how severe the recession is. There is no way to cut bills when you go spend money like this.

[justinstrife]

Originally Posted by Nosauz

Are you kidding... you call for a balanced budget.. you cut the space program for this??? Wow talk about irony, and ridiculousness. This isn't time to start up another cold war, considering how severe the recession is. There is no way to cut bills when you go spend money like this.

Did you even read the article? They're selling $6 billion in arms to Taiwan. Not giving it to them.

-epic facepalm-

[Nosauz]

Originally Posted by justinstrife

Did you even read the article? They're selling $6 billion in arms to Taiwan. Not giving it to them.

-epic facepalm-

still doesn't account for the $5 billion part of the package... In a time when people are calling for less expenditures, just seems stupid.

[justinstrife]

Originally Posted by Nosauz

still doesn't account for the $5 billion part of the package... In a time when people are calling for less expenditures, just seems stupid.

Say what?

We're not giving them weaponry. We are SELLING it to them.

Sure beats the tens of billions in foreign aid we send every single year and have nothing to show for.

[Nosauz]

Originally Posted by justinstrife

Say what?

We're not giving them weaponry. We are SELLING it to them.

Simple math here... 6 billion sold 11 billion promised... therefore 5 billion free, not hard. This action is because the Japanese are starting to voice their dissent with America's role in their government, and America's power in south east asia. Imperialism is not befitting of an "enlightened" society.

[justinstrife]

Originally Posted by Nosauz

Simple math here... 6 billion sold 11 billion promised... therefore 5 billion free, not hard. This action is because the Japanese are starting to voice their dissent with America's role in their government, and America's power in south east asia. Imperialism is not befitting of an "enlightened" society.

11 billion worth of arms is what Taiwan and the U.S. had agreed upon in 2001. It's been divided into parts due to budgetary constraints on Taiwan's side. We didn't GIVE THEM ANYTHING FOR FREE.

The sale satisfies parts of an $11 billion arms package originally pledged to Taiwan by former President George W. Bush in 2001, which has been provided in stages because of political and budgetary considerations in Taiwan and the United States.

[Knight Hawk]

Surprised this wasn't put up yet, with all the talk.

Obama Goes To GOP Lions' Den -- And Mauls The Lions

President Obama traveled to a House Republican retreat in Baltimore on Friday and delivered a performance that was at once defiant, substantive and engaging. For roughly an hour and a half, Obama lectured GOP leaders and, in a protracted, nationally-televised question-and-answer session, deflected their policy critiques, corrected their misstatements and scolded them for playing petty politics. (Full video and transcript available HERE.)

White House officials told the Huffington Post they were absolutely ecstatic. MSNBC's Luke Russert, who was on the scene in Baltimore, relayed that a Republican official and other GOP aides had confided to him that allowing the "cameras to roll like that" was a "mistake."

So effective was the president that Fox News cut away from the broadcast 20 minutes before it ended.

It was the type of performance that Obama's supporters have long demanded and that his own aides have been eager to deliver. The question-and-answer session at the end wasn't initially supposed to be broadcast, but the White House pressured GOP leadership to bring the cameras in. They knew the optics it would generate, a source with knowledge of the planning relayed. Hours before the event began, Republican leaders finally relented.

What resulted was what one Democratic strategist described as "amazing theater" -- certainly for cable news. Standing on a stage, looking down at his Republican questioners, Obama assumed the role of responsible adult to the GOP children, or, at the very least, of a college professor teaching and lecturing a room full of students.

He chastised Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.) for calling his economic agenda radical and poked fun at the GOP's own platform. "I am not an ideologue, I'm not," he said. "It doesn't make sense if somebody could tell me, 'You could do this cheaper and get increased results,' then I would say, 'Great.' The problem is, I couldn't find credible economists who could back up the claims that you just made."

He rebuked a questioner who insisted that the monthly deficit is higher now than Bush's annual deficit. "That's factually just not true," he said. "And you know it's not true." He lampooned Republican lawmakers seated in front of him for portraying his health care legislation as "some Bolshevik plot." He mocked Republicans for railing against the stimulus package and then showing up at "the ribbon-cuttings for some of these important projects in your communities." And he did it all while calling for "a tone of civility instead of slash and burn will be helpful."

Whether it was chutzpah, political savvy, or both, it certainly was refreshing. Reporters were thrilled with the British Parliament-style exchange between president and lawmakers. The Atlantic's Marc Ambinder asked that forums like these be held monthly. The Nation's Chris Hayes suggested Obama next go before the progressive caucus. Ezra Klein of the Washington Post labeled it "the most compelling political television I've seen...maybe ever. NBC's Chuck Todd added: "The president should hold Congressional 'town halls' more often. Public needs to see this if they'll ever trust Washington again."


From the narrower vantage point of the White House, the event also made for effective politics, spurring some comparisons to the type of political engagement relished by former President Bill Clinton.

"Most people thinking about this would have thought 'ooh Obama is going into the lion's den," said Dee Dee Myers, Clinton's former press secretary. "But there was a great opportunity to jujitsu that. On one level it looked brave but on another he was the substitute teacher there, lecturing the audience.

"A lot of us have been waiting for that moment, a little more fight, a little more politics," she added. "He is in a political business and he has to pay attention to not just the substance but the politics."