Obama's speech was remarkable, a synthesis of ideas and particular policy proposals. The AP, however, seems to have been watching some other guys talk as Keith Olbermann just pointed out:

But instead of dwelling on specifics, he laced the crowning speech
of his long campaign with the type of rhetorical flourishes that
Republicans mock and the attacks on John McCain that Democrats cheer.
The country saw a candidate confident in his existing campaign formula:
tie McCain tightly to President Bush, and remind voters why they are
unhappy with the incumbent.

Mostly, however, he touched on major issues quickly and lightly. It's an approach that may intrigue and satisfy millions of viewers just starting to tune in to the campaign seriously. The crowd at Invesco Field cheered deliriously, but Republicans almost surely will decry the lack of specifics.

And then the story goes on to highlight places Obama ... talked about details. Then it says this:

Even if Obama had talked for three hours, of course, he could not have detailed enough proposals to quiet all his critics. But that's not the strategy.

Allies such as Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano will doubtlessly defend his approach. A few hours before the speech, she said: "What he should not do is what he will be criticized for not doing: Give a detailed policy speech. This is not the place for that."

She said Republicans will criticize him no matter what. They will argue that his lofty speeches lack substance and details, she said, and a detailed speech that scrimps on soaring rhetoric will prove "he has lost his gift."

"They will try to Catch-22 his speech," Napolitano said.

To summarize: Obama's critics say he doesn't talk about details. He gave a speech in which he mentioned some details but didn't get to others ("He said he would 'cut taxes for 95 percent of all working families,' but did not say how" -- does the guy want a bracket-by-bracket breakdown?). Even if he'd talked for longer (Olbermann pointed out he understates the length of the speech by at least 7 minutes) he couldn't have gotten in all the detail. Republicans will criticize him anyway.

What?! The entire "analysis" is completely nonsensical, but seems designed to leave a casual reader with an impression that Obama lacked substance. It admits he provided details, but then ignores its own admission. And, of course, this is only the latest in a long series of egregiously biased pieces of "analysis" form the AP.

--Sam Boyd