I find it hard to get the "point" of the authors piece. While slamming Cheney, he didn't do the President any favors.

A nuanced analysis of Obama and Cheney's respective speeches yesterday. However, it does fall victim 'horse race' style tactical analysis, rather than considering the substantive policy implications of the president and former VP.

I didn't understand how the point of this title was supported by the article. Obama didn't try to show anyone anything - he was being Obama. Change the subject matter and the time and place - and Obama performs the same reliable way. The premise of writer is lost on me. Whether I like the President and despise Dick Cheney doesn't have bearing on the article. It had little to speak of and no daring assertions. It seemed more like one of the fashion commentators on the red carpet of awards ceremony discussing gowns and who's going with who's ex and who said what about whom rather than a serious commentary about what just took place on Thursday. That Obama speaks to the country as citizens instead of subjects and with a ... More »

The short piece gives an overview from the perspective of political tactics. Short on substance. Dickerson again gives excess credit for Cheney's big claim that stupid and immoral policies have kept us from another attack. A rooster always trys to take credit for the sun rising in the morning, whether he had any causative effect or not.

So-so piece that mistakenly assumes Obama needs to be a "war president". The fact the Iraq and Afghan adventures are entirely elective wars that have largely been counter-productive apparently escapes the writer. Dick Cheney's attempt to frighten the public is worthy of contempt.