Does it seem to others that the liberal papers pretty uniformly have substantive criticism of Obama’s speech?

Question by DAR: Does it seem to others that the liberal papers pretty uniformly have substantive criticism of Obama’s speech?
I already posted a question with a NY Times response. Here is Washington Post: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2009/07/22/putting_obamas_news_conference.html?hpid=topnews

“Putting Obama’s News Conference Under the Microscope”

Here is part of it:

“Moments later, Obama was asked whether the bills’ provisions to reduce Medicare spending would mean any sacrifices for Medicare recipients. Obama said flatly that they would not. His proposal to empower a federal commission to reform Medicare reimbursement rates, he said, would not result in denials of desired care. “It’s not going to reduce Medicare benefits,” he said. “What it’s going to do is to change how those benefits are delivered so that they’re more efficient.”

In fact, part of the thinking behind empowering such a commission is because it would be in a better position to resist the entreaties of physicians and patient groups urging Medicare to cover a given treatment. Obama did not get into this, though. Instead, he segued to talking about pharmaceutical companies’ offer to reduce the cost of drugs offered through the Medicare prescription benefit — a feature that is separate from the debate over what the newly empowered commission will or will not approve.”

What do you think?

Best answer:

Answer by Water Over Gold
Yes, Obama should have stayed home.

He looked like an AMATEUR.

Give your answer to this question below!