1.21.2009

Shades of Roosevelt in Obama's Address

Having slept on it, I'm still not terribly fond of Barack Obama's speech yesterday, which I thought could have been more joyous and celebratory. The nation knows that our economy is in trouble and that the next year or so (at least) is liable to be a fairly difficult one, but I'm not sure that we needed so many reminders of that on the day of Obama's inauguration itself.

Then again, it's not the President's job to make us feel good. Since the NBER began dating recessions in 1854, quite a few of the 44 Presidents have been sworn in during one, including Lincoln, Andrew Johnson, Hayes, Cleveland (both times), McKinley, Wilson, Harding, Coolidge, Roosevelt and Truman. Obama is the first President since Truman, however, to deliver an inaugural address during a recession. And Truman's case requires an asterisk, since he did not deliver an inaugural address after taking over for Roosevelt (although, the United States was also in recession when Truman was inaugurated to his first fullterm in 1949). So in some senses, Roosevelt offers the most recent parallel.

And there are certainly a lot of echoes of Roosevelt's speech in Obama's. Consider Roosevelt's opening:

I am certain that my fellow Americans expect that on my induction into the Presidency I will address them with a candor and a decision which the present situation of our Nation impels. This is preeminently the time to speak the truth, the whole truth, frankly and boldly. Nor need we shrink from honestly facing conditions in our country today. This great Nation will endure as it has endured, will revive and will prosper. So, first of all, let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself—nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance. In every dark hour of our national life a leadership of frankness and vigor has met with that understanding and support of the people themselves which is essential to victory. I am convinced that you will again give that support to leadership in these critical days.
Now consider Obama's:
Forty-four Americans have now taken the presidential oath. The words have been spoken during rising tides of prosperity and the still waters of peace. Yet, every so often the oath is taken amidst gathering clouds and raging storms. At these moments, America has carried on not simply because of the skill or vision of those in high office, but because We the People have remained faithful to the ideals of our forbearers, and true to our founding documents.
Stylistically, a bit different, but the sentiment expressed is the same.

Or consider this moment from Obama about 10 minutes into the speech:
This is the journey we continue today. We remain the most prosperous, powerful nation on Earth. Our workers are no less productive than when this crisis began. Our minds are no less inventive, our goods and services no less needed than they were last week or last month or last year. Our capacity remains undiminished. But our time of standing pat, of protecting narrow interests and putting off unpleasant decisions — that time has surely passed. Starting today, we must pick ourselves up, dust ourselves off, and begin again the work of remaking America.
And compare it to this phrasing from Roosevelt:
Yet our distress comes from no failure of substance. We are stricken by no plague of locusts. Compared with the perils which our forefathers conquered because they believed and were not afraid we have still much to be thankful for. Nature still offers her bounty and human efforts have multiplied it. Plenty is at our doorstep, but a generous use of it languishes in the very sight of the supply. Primarily this is because rulers of the exchange of mankind's goods have failed through their own stubbornness and their own incompetence, have admitted their failure, and have abdicated. Practices of the unscrupulous money changers stand indicted in the court of public opinion, rejected by the hearts and minds of men.
The parallels are striking enough that I'm sure they're intentional. Whether or not you think Obama's address "worked", we can see where he's coming from.

Closing thought: imagine if we looked at Roosevelt's first inaugural address now and it had been cheerily optimistic, seemingly unaware of the problems of the moment. Wouldn't that seem strange? Keep in mind that these things are written for history as well as for the present day.

115 comments

Edge said...

Sorry, Nate, but there is no reason to celebrate and be more joyous. The country is coming apart at the seams. Obama said so himself. Everything has gone to hell and a handbasket under Bush according to Obama and the incoming administration. To go back on their campaign theme - that there was this awful mess they had to clean up - and ignore the perils of the day for the sake of "celebration" would have been grossly hypocritical.

Either things weren't nearly as bad as the picture they painted (in which case, they lied), but they are free to celebrate all they want.

Or things truly are awful and they need to get to work immediately and not engage in too much navel-gazing in the meantime.

Statler N Waldorf said...

First!

The only thing we have to fear is the neocons themselves!

Jeff said...

Nate, after sleeping on it, I am even more impressed with the speech. I never thought I'd be more moved or impressed than I was from his convention speech, but his words yesterday were so serious and so inspiring, and I think, perfect for the moment. History will judge.

Edge said...

Yes, history will judge. And the Obama administration will likely rank in the bottom tier of presidencies when it's all said and done.

And Statler, you were not first. I was.


wv: womize - to chase around and fornicate with woms

Victoriansquid said...

Nate, another thing to consider: with his speech, I suspect part of President Obama's intentions are to continue to reach for the "47% of Americans" that didn't vote for him. For instance, I can say my mother (who voted for McCain) would far more respect this very sober assessment than more joy and celebration. This may be the only Obama speech for she may watch for a while, as well.

HoneyBearKelly said...

It was a good opportunity to get one last scold off at the departing crooks.

capt said...

Great piece Nate!

Thanks

Reminded me of the quote:

"When we got into office, the thing that surprised me the most was that things were as bad as we'd been saying they were."

~ John F. Kennedy

Brian Jenkins said...

The Squid et al are right- this was a somber speech for a somber time. It didn't really have a single overriding theme- it had some Roosevelt, some Keynes, some jabs at his predecessor, some Lincoln, and some other stuff. It's not a speech that will be quoted in the future. (Indeed, most of his speeches aare like that- well-delivered but otherwise unmemorable. Other than "Yes We Can!", have any Obama quotes made it into the public consciousness?)

That said, it's probably a good thing if he understands that making speeches is not a large part of his current job. Bill Clinton didn't deliver a lot of memorable speeches but gave us a solid and propserous Presidency. That should be his goal.

livemild said...

i couldnt have cared what obama said as long as bush was GONE.

I paid much more attention to the oath of office. What happened with Roberts? did he flub the oath intentionally or was it some variation of a Freudian slip?

Colin said...

Obama needs to brush up on his history. 43 Americans have taken the oath of office. Not 44.

Bruce M. said...

From whatever perch on which the Obama Presidency settles when "all is said and done", it assuredly will be looking far, far below it to see the Presidency of one George W. Bush.

A small, small man on a big stage. Never was that clearer than yesterday

STepper said...

As a writer and speech maker myself, I found most of the speech flat and pedestrian. I found this strange since Obama can turn a phrase nicely, and his professional speech writers, who generally polish for him, are good at their jobs, too.

The speech on race was masterful. This speech was a true disappointment. While it was sobering, it could also have been uplifting. To my mind it was just flat. A sadly perfect counterpoint to the revisions to the Presidential oath made by the strict constructionist Chief Justice.

It reminded me of McCain's failure to take advantage of all the time he had after he became the GOP nominee to prepare for the general campaign. Obama had 77 days to write this speech. The speech on race, which was written in a couple of days (or less), was so much better. Sometimes time is the enemy of style.

Off to a rocky start, but if that's the baptism under fire that he needs to get on with the task at hand, let's move forward.

Bryan said...

Obama needs to brush up on his history. 43 Americans have taken the oath of office. Not 44.

Well, Taft counts for double.

Jeff said...

Edge, you agree history will judge but you've already made up your mind? well, at least you gave him a whole day before passing judgment on his historical legacy.

Dan said...

A historical note: NBER did not start dating recessions in 1854 as NBER was founded in 1920. Recessions were retroactively imputed based on a lot of different data sources and should be taken with at least a grain of salt before the regular collection of data improves in the 1930s. Indeed, the federal government did not calculate official inflation figures before WWI, and did not begin calculations of national income (later converted into GNP) until 1934 in response to the Great Depression. I am not sure when business cycles were first calculated by anyone, but I believe even that does not begin until the end of the 19th century. So, Roosevelt may well have been the first president who knew he was being sworn in during a recession in something like the modern sense.

Citations available on request.

EmonOkari said...

Memorable Quote #1:
We remain a young nation, but in the words of Scripture, the time has come to set aside childish things. The time has come to reaffirm our enduring spirit; to choose our better history; to carry forward that precious gift, that noble idea, passed on from generation to generation: the God-given promise that all are equal, all are free and all deserve a chance to pursue their full measure of happiness.

Memorable Quote #2:
The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works...

Memorable Quote #3:
With hope and virtue, let us brave once more the icy currents, and endure what storms may come. Let it be said by our children's children that when we were tested we refused to let this journey end, that we did not turn back nor did we falter; and with eyes fixed on the horizon and God's grace upon us, we carried forth that great gift of freedom and delivered it safely to future generations.

Pragmatus said...

The 22nd president was Grover Cleveland and the 24th was his evil twin Grovel Cleveland.

:o)

The chief difference in the outgoing Bush and incoming Obama administrations is that for Bush, formal meetings were a joke. Policies were usually cooked up in back rooms by Dick Cheney and cronies and then presented as "topics for discussion" at Cabinet meetings, although, as many officials have testified, there wasn't even the semblance of a discussion. The meetings did not feature advisors expressing their views so that Bush could come to a decision, they were like meetings of the Soviet Politburo, where a few people would simply steer the talk the way it had been foreordained to go, until the decision, already made well in advance, was announced.

Obama will have honest-to-God Cabinet meetings, where issues will be discussed, debated, argued about and then decided upon. That for me is the most refreshing change that has taken place. For once in a very long time we will have a government that will actually be dealing directly with issues.

wv: fowee--Thank God Almighty we're fowee at last...

DCM in FL said...

DAMM - Blogger ate my post again...

I agree with Nate - the speech was less than compelling & wasted an opportunity to inspire the nation & world

as I posted late last night, where was the optimism that our best days are ahead of us ?

I felt that this speech was dumded down & pessimistic when least need that

BHO's countenance was a GRIM schoolmarm/librarian lowering expectations & shushing people

[like the childish admonition - that was really pathetic especially when he flexed his military muscles threatening those who are our 'enemies']

and with no energy coming back from the crowds, well

the speech was a C+ for content & delivery when we needed & deserved an A on this day

Nate was kind in his comparison of Obama's speech to Roosevelt's [ask Joe Biden about borrowing speeches as a template...]

I sure HOPE that BHO does better in performing his job than he did yesterday in that speech

liberal_defender_of_freedom said...

Throughout Obama's campaign, his Oratory skills did not coincide with many single memorable lines, rather themes that were covered in two or more paragraphs at a time.

Some of the more memorable moments of the speech for me were:

"know that your people will judge you on what you can build, not what you destroy"

I found this a very powerful message to citizens of the world to hold their leaders accountable. In this section he placed the burden of peace and reconciliation onto the leaders of the world hellbent on destruction.

Another piece of the speech I found encouraging was the following:

"Now, there are some who question the scale of our ambitions - who suggest that our system cannot tolerate too many big plans. Their memories are short. For they have forgotten what this country has already done; what free men and women can achieve when imagination is joined to common purpose, and necessity to courage."

This is a promise and a challenge to Americans that he intends to follow through with all of his large campaign pledges that many are now writing off because of the financial term moil we find ourselves in; energy policy, health care reform, and other bit item agendas.

Lastly, the paragraph beginning with:

"As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals. "

This was a direct jab at the use of torture and his pledge for America to once again take the moral high ground.

It's a shame so many were looking for the one or two little catch phrases to shape his entire vision on but, we've got about half a dozen big problems we face right now and there was no one phrase that could have captured this moment that I could think of.

DCM in FL said...

Geithner on TV today comes across as a petulant snob & seems insincere about apologizing for how he as a financial wizard could be so reckless in paying his own taxes, etc

plus on his own complicity while at the NY FED while the financial sector imploded around him

and he should get the keys to the Treasury & TARP ?

I had no problem with him until today

Juris said...

I think Obama views himself as a wartime president -- not just because of the Iraq and Afghanistan situations but because of the global economic crisis.

Furthermore, unlike previous presidents-elect, he has been knee deep already in the thinking through and in some cases helping to design strategies for addressing several crises.

Thus he judged being celebratory inappropriate. And basically, he probably didn't feel much like partying yesterday -- at least prior to the balls.

I've reread and relistened to the speech, and each time I hear it again I am more impressed by its cogency and clear messages -- as well as my Obama's sharp criticism of the previous administration, which in effect amounted to saying that Bush fiddled while Rome was burning.

goatdan said...

@ EmonOkari -- While I don't know how memorable #1 or #2 will be, even when I heard it the second sentence of your third quote is the one that I thought that people would really focus on.

--

As for people looking for the speech to be really positive, with the country having all the issues that is said that we do, I think it would be the complete wrong choice to have stood up and basically said, "We need to rejoice today, we've all made it!" Instead, Obama delivered a speech that was tailored to recognize that the road ahead would be long, lay out some achievable policy differences that he would definitely be doing, and give some hope to the future.

It didn't seem delusional in grandeur, but it also didn't seem impossible in scope. Considering the different forces at play already, I think this was a perfect introduction for now, and for history.

Nick said...

EmonOkari, your quote #2 is the big one for me.

DCM in FL said...

NATE

waiting for your analysis on whether BHO should redo the OATH that was mangled

apparently constitutional scholars are starting to suggest that just in case he should retake it as written, and at least 2 previous POTUS in similar situations have done so [Coolidge & Arthur]

'Experts say Obama should retake the oath"

@ http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/01/20/MNAF15E20I.DTL

The Policy Boy said...

I thought Obama's address was wonderful. The hype and expectations were so high—he had to hit a grand slam to even come close—and I thought Obama hit a homer. The address was sober—asking us to take on some responsibility is the right thing to do. I think Obama knows that government alone can't solve the problems that are out there, and thinking/hoping that government can is wrong.

Justin said...

If Obama retakes the oath, maybe they can invite all of us with purple and blue tickets who weren't allowed in yesterday to attend.

Juris said...

Re: my previous comment. "Rome" was burning in (a) our failure to address clear dysfunctions of the financial markets, (b) our failure to address the energy crisis with clear emphasis on renewable energy, (c) our failure to ask the American people as a whole to address our fiscal insolvency, (d) our failure to address global warming, (e) our failure to address the health insurance problem, (f) our failure to achieve any gains in education, (g) our failure to adequately appreciate and support science and technology research, especially in areas that would advance us toward more secure enery resoures, (h) our failure to build stable alliances and deal with the "hearts and minds" of people abroad, (i) our failure to adhere to and promote the rule of law and individual rights, including the most fundamental habeas corpus guaranty.

All of these crises were referred to in Obama's speech. We can expect concrete measures to address them in the months and years to come.

Bruce M. said...

Liked the speech. Several nice turns of phrase. If it had a theme, it was "we will no longer be Bush's America", and that is fine by me.

Shockingly, there is a highly positive correlation between negative reviews of the speech and voting for McCain. Which is not to say that there aren't exceptions, even among self-declared "conservatives". But Obama clearly stands convicted by some before he has been tried.

Pragmatus said...

@STepper--

I like your analysis, and the way you write is clear, forceful and direct. But couldn't you have taken a hatchet to at least two of the metaphors in your last sentence?

Off to a rocky start, but if that's the baptism under fire that he needs to get on with the task at hand, let's move forward.

That sentence is like a bag of wildcats...

:o)

wv: balls--I kid you not, the word is "balls". I'll let each of you come up with your own definition.

Ezzie said...

This is shrewd expectations management. People feel particularly bad when they lose something they expected to get.

A celebratory and joyous speech runs the risk of raising people's expectations too high, and causing a backlash in two years.

This is one of the strongest reasons for why the public turned against the Iraq War, even though our casualty numbers are very low by historical standards. They thought it was going to be a cakewalk.

Justin said...

Perhaps the one thing missing from the speech was a commitment to prosecute war criminals from the Iraq War, including the two that were on stage.

liberal_defender_of_freedom said...

Regarding the constitutional scholars...

World Net Daily still doesn't think he's eligible so no matter what happens, the coo coos that follow that site as scripture, will still challenge any piece of paper Obama signs off on, note the illegitimacy of document its self.

JMNorris said...

A bit off topic. Does anyone know why the DC police motorcycles all had sidecars? Maybe it was for stability given that they were driving so slowly??? I doubt the were really expecting that the Obamas were going to get out and a rides in the sidecars. :-)

Justin said...

I think the side cars are used with motorcades because they do a better job of clearing a path through traffic. But that's just a guess.

DCM in FL said...

JUSTIN

that had to suck to have a ticket & stand in queue for 4 hours then not to be allowed onto the mall...

seems that many silver ticketholders also got locked out & even some of the celebs never made it in

I feel terrible for those thousnads of folks who spent thousands to come cross country just for the event & had 'tickets', then got treated so shabbily at the amll & parade route

STepper said...

@Pragmatus - I may mix my metaphors, but I do not indulge in malapropisms. (That way I am not misunderestimated.)

DCM in FL said...

BHO apparently has issued 2 orders that I think are a great start on governing after 8 years of Bush/Cheney abuse...

- freeze on admin pay for those earning over 100K

- no admin can leave government & lobby the Obama admin

a good start anyway

"public service is a privelege"

indeed !

liberal_defender_of_freedom said...

O's on cnn right now HERE

He just cut his staffs pay. haha

Mikkel04 said...
This post has been removed by the author.
liberal_defender_of_freedom said...

haha. Joe there making himself useful and picking up the signed pieces of documents was hilarious.

DCM in FL said...

well Joe Biden is swearing in the senior admin staff right now

and at least he has the good sense to read the script so he gets the OATH correct

and he made light that Roberts flubbed his - but Obama did not even crack a smile...

hopefully the start of a new days with real ethical behaviour in the elected/appointed government

now maybe the military could get on board...

DCM in FL said...

NATE

another Roosevelt model used by Obama today on the admin pay issue

apparently Roosevelt rolled back his pay back in the day, and now Obama chooses a freeze...

BHO must be really channeling FDR [more so than Kennedy or Reagan]

Opus 132 said...

Off topic:

Clinton will probably be confirmed today.What is Governor Paterson waiting for? Where's the announcement of his choice?

liberal_defender_of_freedom said...

Both the House and Senate should take an across the board 5% pay cut and do a similar freeze. If what you say is true that FDR did the same, you would think if Congress was smart, they would at least follow suit of the freeze to show a sign of good will and a promise to do their share to get this economy going again.

DCM in FL said...

LIBERAL

actually, FDR took a 15% pay cut

doubt that BHO will go that far - unless things get worse or this drags on until 20212

Charles said...

To Stepper and those who expressed similar sentiments, it is beyond presumptuous to claim to know how posterity will view Obama's speech. A lot will depend on the accuracy of his assessment of the state of the Union at the time he made his speech and how successful he was in dealing with the problems he identified. We know that Obama is perfectly capable of soaring oratory. He concluded that the occasion called for something else.

It was revealing listening to the pundits who were less than enthusiastic about the speech (especially on CNN). After expressing their disappointment, they returned again and again to specific language in the speech as they discussed Obama's ideas. What this suggested to me is that the new President achieved his goal in tailoring his speech to the concerns of the moment.

Alpha.dk said...

Why do people say only 43 americans have taken that oath? BHO had taken it as of saying that line....

Or are they saying BHO isn't american... again?

Jeff said...

I'm confused: if "quite a few of the 44 Presidents have been sworn in during" a recession, how can Obama be the first to deliver an inaugural address during one? They all delivered inaugural addresses.

DCM in FL said...

CHARLES

very few people take the time or make the effort to listen to any speech after it has been delivered

same for reading the text, that is reserved primarily for analysts, reporters & academics

so the DELIVERY of the speech itself is what is important in this context in so far as how the public will discern it immediately & what impact it will have NOW

ask on the street today - the consensus of regular folks is 'was that all there is to Obama' ? - maybe not disappointed but certainly not memorable [the speech itself] or inspiring call to action

now historians may parse it out by mulling over the content in the future to see how things play out later [which we have no way of knowing today]

but the 'instant' impact of the speech as delivered was overwhelmingly sobering & grim & scolding

that is what the public heard & saw for themselves on TV

the REAL excitement yesterday was generated by how bad both Bush & Cheney came across [as well as what a dolt Roberts was] - and the PARTY was as much or more for booting out Bush as for anything else for many people

this is reflected by the low approval of Bush which inversely matches the high approval of BHO

but that gives an opening for BHO & so the honeymoon has officially begun

today, so far looking good ! [except for Geitner who is floundering imho]

mhz said...

BHO is probably going to take the pay cut thing in steps- He'll use the repeated pay cuts to boost goodwill periodically. He is too smart to shoot the whole wad at once-

He is a smart man, an excellent player, and yet his moral compass seems quite true.

I am still puzzling over why he felt the need to say "We will not apologize for our way of life " when he spent so much time telling us we need to change our way of life?

Just in case you missed it this one is from Michael on the last thread: It is your turn

loner said...

Obama gave the speech he wanted to give and that he wanted everyone (including the Congress) to hear. Bottom line: I intend to govern and I intend to do so responsibly.

It's been, in my opinion, fourteen years since last that happened at the federal level, at least when it concerned office-holders elected by the people. I thought it, overall, an excellent speech.

DCM in FL said...

more on trying to compare Inaugural speeches

Kennedy's was probably the first to get wide real time TV viewership

prior to that, there was no instant analysis or even ability for most to watch or hear a speech live

FDR's speech would have been heard by some on radio - but that is different indeed than watching it on TV with pre & post analysis

comparing them is apples to oranges, and as far as content well that does not register at the moment

people in 1961 did not instantly latch onto 'ask not what your country can do for you' - it was the historic nature, persoanlity, delivery & countenance of JFK that resonated then as it also does now

again, BHO rated a C+ from my on the ground survey & feedback of regular folk

bootin' Bush back to TX rated an A+ fwiw [that is the comparison that really matters in the end]

Sinda said...

Nate,

I also think you need to take into consideration the state of the man himself. Is he joyous and celebratory? Should he be? I think his speech accurately reflected the status of not only the nation but of the president.

Watching him yesterday, I thought back to Clinton, and how he reveled - still does - in that kind of adulation and attention. Obama, however, seemed to me to recognize that yesterday was for the American people, not for himself, and I had the sense that he'd much rather be working than posing.

DCM in FL said...

SINDA

valid comparison re: Clinton

BUT, on 11/4 Obama had a similar opportunity in Grant Park to send a message

and he sent it with reserve & humilty & optimism & inclusion

that sppech made it clear that this was about US - yesterday ? meh

yesterday imho we NEEDED more of the 'this is our time/moment' & to seize the opportunity

what we heard yesterday fell flat & was overly deflating rather than uplifting - even if the text content conveys a reasonable sober message, the delivery & his countenance was a grim buzzkill for many especially those among us who need HOPE & real change we can believe in

stephanie said...

Alpha.dk said: Why do people say only 43 americans have taken that oath? BHO had taken it as of saying that line.... Or are they saying BHO isn't american... again?

Because Grover Cleveland was elected to two separate terms. He was both the 22nd and 24th President. So even though he took the oath twice, he was only one person. So we have really, technically, only had 43 Presidents.

Fivetree said...

It was a good speech but will probably not go down in history as memorable in the sense that Lincoln's 2 addresses, Roosevelt's 1st and Kennedy's one and only. I am going to also toss in FDR's 2nd Inaugural as well ("I see one third a nation, ill-housed, ill-clad, ill-nourished."). That said, I think Obama intentionally shied away from the "money quote" and really, the very fact of him taking the oath was in and of itself extraordinary. As a speech, I agree that it had more parallels with FDR's 1st and am surprised that more people are not picking up on that, going for the Lincoln analogies instead. Perhaps, in time, it will take on more lustre. At the present, Obama seems to be saying "judge me by my actions" and placing less emphasis on the words.

Counter-revolutionary said...

What I find interesting is the comments seem to be designed to reach out to conservatives in the classical sense of the word. One may not realize this, but ideological rigidity, cheap polemicism, and anti-statist populism is precisely the kind of thing Conservatism was concieved of to counter. Obama has embraced a Burkean Liberalism to counter Robespierean Neoconservatism.

How sucessful this will be is debatable. Burke was right about some things, but was not a particularily popular politician in his day. The Robespieres of today are much more vocal and have a much bigger listening audience. Still, Obama's homework assignment is at least once during his presidency, if he genuinely screws up, to admit it frankly and move on.

Edge said...

It's still on the back burner for the moment and something we likely won't see until Obama's second term - depending, of course, on how the first goes. And that's term limits.

There's a behind-the-scenes groundswell of support to remove term limits for the Presidency that will only grow over the next few years by the frightening masses who unfailingly support this man to keep him in the Oval Office for as long as he'd like and essentially make him their king.

As I said, it's not in the mainstream yet, but it will be, and I'm laying strong odds it at least becomes a topic in the mainstream (media or otherwise) and slightly lower odds that there is a fervent push to actually remove term limits.

Obama himself is not a fan of term limits and certainly has stated his opinion on the matter with regards to Congress:

U.S. Term Limits President Labels Obama Attack on Congressional
Term Limits “Utter Nonsense”


This is scary stuff, folks. I want a president, not a king or dictator.

Edge said...

Hail King Obama: President for Life

More stuff about eliminating term limits. I don't like this one bit.

Jack-be-nimble said...

It was a very pedestrian and uninspiring speech. Maybe he really did write it himself.

I think if libs would take their hands out of their pants while they watch Obama, they will see what a hack he is.

It looks like SCOTUS lib justices aren't ready to step down yet. It would be too bad if they wait until the end of Obama's rein
(2012) and the other party gets to name a successor.

liberal_defender_of_freedom said...

Surely the forty-four issue wasn't overlooked as it was being written. Maybe it had been poorly edited near the end to cause this error.

I suspect at one point, the line may have read, Forty-four moments in history, Americans have now taken the presidential oath.

If he had said 43 Americans 95% of the crowd would have been left scratching their heads probably.

Anyways, ce la vie.

Kennyb said...

Interesting stuff from Josh Kraushaar at Politico on Mel Martinez's seat, Beau Biden, and Norm Coleman.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/scorecard/

loner said...

Counter-revolutionary—

Still, Obama's homework assignment is at least once during his presidency, if he genuinely screws up, to admit it frankly and move on.

I couldn't agree more and this moment during the campaign (2/26 at Cleveland State) is when I knew I wouldn't mind if he became President:

RUSSERT: Senator Obama, any statements or vote you'd like to take back?

OBAMA: Well, you know, when I first arrived in the Senate that first year, we had a situation surrounding Terri Schiavo. And I remember how we adjourned with a unanimous agreement that eventually allowed Congress to interject itself into that decision-making process of the families.

It wasn't something I was comfortable with, but it was not something that I stood on the floor and stopped. And I think that was a mistake, and I think the American people understood that that was a mistake. And as a constitutional law professor, I knew better.

And so that's an example I think of where inaction...

RUSSERT: This is the young woman with the feeding tube...

OBAMA: That's exactly right.

RUSSERT: ... and the family disagreed as to whether it should be removed or not.

OBAMA: And I think that's an example of inaction, and sometimes that can be as costly as action.

Rita said...

I wound up hearing the speech three times. The first time I thought it was kind of a mish mash and a little too much of a downer. I mean Valley Forge? Things aren't that bad. Then I watched it with my boys when they got home from school and thought that there were some great lines and I started seeing it as a call to action.

Then my daughter watched it when she got home and I found myself standing in the kitchen motionless listening to his vision of the obligations of a mature country and people.

The whole thing, every last piece related to this theme. In 20 minutes he laid out his vision of the role a mature democracy needs to play in the world and the role its citizens need to play in that Democracy.

Stylistically it may not have been great but I think time and repeated hearings will place it in the pantheon of great American speeches.

goatdan said...

@ DCM -- "BUT, on 11/4 Obama had a similar opportunity in Grant Park to send a message

and he sent it with reserve & humilty & optimism & inclusion"

Not like this will change your opinion, but the victory speech on 11/4 I thought was completely disappointing. I felt like the "read and reply" audience parts seemed to forced to try to get people to talk along with his 'catchlines', and I was hoping for a President that didn't rely on catchphrases but instead on actions.

I got the President I wanted with yesterday's speech. Having said that, the person that attracted so many wasn't what was on display yesterday, so I can understand the disappointment of some.

Jim said...

It looks like SCOTUS lib justices aren't ready to step down yet. It would be too bad if they wait until the end of Obama's rein
(2012) and the other party gets to name a successor.


Why step down right now? They have lots of time, and if they wait until after 2010 then they can be certain that Obama will have a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate and can name any successor he wants without needing to pull out the "nuclear" option that Bush Republicans used to get Roberts in...

Kennyb said...

Very interesting maneuvering in the Franken-Coleman race:

http://www.politico.com/blogs/scorecard/0109/Coleman_wants_thousands_more_ballots_counted.html?showall

"Coleman’s campaign is calling for all of the 12,000 rejected absentee ballots to be sorted, and for the three-judge panel overseeing the election contest to adopt a liberal standard for accepting them into the overall count."

"Coleman campaign officials privately believe that Franken’s legal team outmaneuvered them in identifying absentee ballots favorable to them, and is seeking to remedy that in their challenge."

JF Isher said...

I think the main difference between now and then is that now the main problem, above everything else, is the mentality of our current times; toxic consumerism will not go away if you smile at it and gloss over it.

Also - Roosevelt took over years into a depression; Obama's taking over months into this one. We need to be reminded about how bad it is, we can't allow ourselves to think that a new POTUS automatically means change. The bar's just way too high right now.

mhz said...

Coleman's is probably right about the Franken's team having better voter ID mechanisms, but if more absentee ballots are included in the count Franken's lead is only going to increase. Again he is just playing for time. I hope that the MNSC ends this thing on Monday by accepting Franken's motion to reject Colman's contest.

goatdan said...

@ Edge -- Term limits for Congress versus term limits on Presidents are two completely different beasts altogether, and Obama's statement that the elections should act as a term limit for people in Congress and the Senate isn't radical at all.

Yes, those people do have a larger funding advantage when running for additional terms, but if the person has served the particular area they are from well, that doesn't even necessarily play. If, however, they mess up and their district doesn't like the decisions or the policy that they have enacted, there is always a chance of them not being re-elected.

Term limits on the President were started because Washington didn't want to be the face of the country for too long. Later term limits on Presidents were written into law.

But unlike Presidents, Representatives are not the face of the country, and they are not even the face of their areas often. I would tend to recognize my mayor or governor as the leader in our area before the Congressmen and Senators from our state. There is no way, no matter how popular Obama is, that he could get term limits removed for Presidents, and there is no way that he would considering it would greatly damage his credibility and do absolutely nothing in furthering his agenda and living up to his pledge to have his administration work within the law.

The Bush administration changed laws to do what they wanted to do. Obama ran on a platform of changing that. Do you think he would be very popular if he suddenly decides to go back on his word completely?

mhz said...

@JF ISher-

I totally agree on the toxic consumerism- so tell me how do you understand Obama's line that

"We will not apologize for our way of life?"

and how did you reconcile it with his many statement like "We need to use energy differently" or ""It is time to put childish things aside" which seems like a call on the American people to change their ways of life?

Edge said...

...the "nuclear" option that Bush Republicans used to get Roberts in...

You obviously have a different recollection of history than I do. If I remember correctly, the Gang of 14 struck a deal and the "nuclear option" was left off the table for the Roberts nomination.

He then passed overwhelmingly by a 78-22 vote. Please quit trying to press sour grapes and serve us bitter whine. It's not tasty.

Pragmatus said...

STepper...

I wasn't trying to misunderestimate you... :o)

One thing I will truly miss is the contorted, illogical albeit hilarious verbiage that has come from Shrub over the past eight years. It was so bad, and there was a such a sheep mentality in the White House, that when Shrub persisted in pronouncing the word nuclear as nucular gradually his aides, as well as many other administration officials who certainly must have known better, felt they had to follow suit.

goatdan said...

@ mhz -- Did you listen to the speech, or just pluck those two sentences without any regard to context? The full first sentence is:

"We will not apologize for our way of life, nor will we waver in its defense, and for those who seek to advance their aims by inducing terror and slaughtering innocents, we say to you now that our spirit is stronger and cannot be broken; you cannot outlast us, and we will defeat you."

Which has to do with the democratic way our country is founded and lead, not with how we consume oil.

If our "way of life" is defined by driving our economy into the ground and failure to innovate, then we are in much worse trouble than anyone could have imagined.

Pragmatus said...

Term Limits

This is yet another tool the right is using to try and whip up hysteria. First, the tradition is that any change in the presidential term would take effect after the current president's term(s) expire, and second, it would have to be done by Constitutional amendment, not by an Act of Congress. That has an almost zero chance of happening.

Congressional term limits was an idea cooked up most forcefully by Newt Gingrich, who in the 1970s realized it would be a neat tool to dislodge some of the Democrats in Congress who had been in office for decades. The hypocrisy was apparently lost on Gingrich however, who saw nothing wrong in serving term after term after term in Congress. If his own party hadn't forced him to walk the plank he'd probably still be there.

mirrormirror said...

Re. the 'we will not apologise for our way of life'

Given the context, I took that to mean a defence of things like civil liberties, freedom of speech, equal rights for women, sexual freedoms etc. which are often roundly criticised by Islamic nations and others.

Edge said...

This is yet another tool the right is using to try and whip up hysteria.

Then they're just balancing the numerous tools being used by the left to whip up mass hysteria - i.e. posting of Ten Commandments on federal buildings is trying to impose religion, giving as many rights to unborn children is putting women's rights in chains and shackles and sending us back to the stone ages, neo-con interventionism is a conspiracy to institute a New World Order, etc.

First, the tradition is that any change in the presidential term would take effect after the current president's term(s) expire

Doesn't what "tradition" is. The tradtion was to accept public financing. Obama didn't do that. Loose example, I realize, but this is the candidate of change. I think a break from "tradition" would be nothing for him. If it becomes law via the Constitution, then it takes effect immediately. So long as it's before the end of his second term, then I don't see any reason why he wouldn't take full advantage.

and second, it would have to be done by Constitutional amendment, not by an Act of Congress. That has an almost zero chance of happening.

Yes, it would have to be an amendment - a repeal or reworking of some kind of the 22nd amendment. There have been, what, 17 amendments since the initial Bill of Rights? Slim chance, I grant you, but not Lloyd Christmas-Mary Swanson "so you're saying there's a chance" slim. It would have resistance but getting 2/3rds of both houses of Congress and 3/4 of the state legislature is in reach if his seductive oration grips the nation like an iron fist in his thirst for power.

Congressional term limits was an idea cooked up most forcefully by Newt Gingrich, who in the 1970s realized it would be a neat tool to dislodge some of the Democrats in Congress who had been in office for decades. The hypocrisy was apparently lost on Gingrich however, who saw nothing wrong in serving term after term after term in Congress. If his own party hadn't forced him to walk the plank he'd probably still be there.

I don't disagree that there's hypocrisy in a politician seeking term limits to "dislodge" the other party. And I agree that Newt championed that cause. That's not the issue, and dragging up stuff from days gone by is obfuscating the point. And the point is, there will be a grassroots movement that will grow into a more mainstream one to keep him in office as long as he likes.

It's almost a given.

Jeff NYC Dem said...

That people already believe that history will judge Obama among the lower-tier of presidents is presumptious, to say the least. I see many signs that point to him potentially being a top-tier president, but I'm not willing to declare that as fact.

Conspiracy theories abound, and Edge is yet another that tries to further their aims.

In response to the 10 commandments, abortion rights, etc. Both are religious matters that people should take up with their family and their faith. The ten commandments should not be displayed anyplace where it's purchase and/or display are supported with taxpayer funds. It's a violation of the separation between church and state.

The abortion issue is a hot button for the Judeo-christian crowd who seek to impose their belief of when an embryo becomes a person that is protected under the constitution. For the purpose of laws, the government should use SCIENCE, not theology, to determine when abortions should be deemed legally permissable and in what very rare instances abortion should be made illegal.

It's time to stop mixing up the word of god with the word of law.

mhz said...

@mirrormirror and goadan

I am sure different people heard very different things in that statement- I would like to believe that Obama was referring to those aspects of "our way of life" that I cherish- civil liberties, freedom of speech, freedom of thought, and the freedom of association that leads to such a productive "patchwork". And I was very impressed with his declaration that leaders of the world would be judged for what they "can build, not what they destroy."

But I cannot help believing that there are many who heard that line "we will not apologize for our way of life" and experienced something other than a renewed sense of commitment to the ideals of human equality and freedom.

The rhetoric of that line was at best ambiguous and at worse intentionally misleading.

I understand the desire by Obama and other to reclaim patriotism- but that does not mean I am entirely comfortable with the idea. Patriotism can come very close Nationalism so I am extremely wary of that kind of rhetoric.

BTW gdan- no worries I did listen to the whole speech, and I have read it as well. I cheered at

"each day brings further evidence that the ways we use energy strengthen our adversaries and threaten our planet." In fact that whole paragraph is excellent-imho

can8tiv2000 said...

Pres. Obama's most convincing eloquence will be in his actions, not his words. Yesterday's speech was his first official action in that regard.

There was no need to reiterate the situation as it's presently understood; he said that much work has to be done, both nuts-and-bolts as well as redesign of policies in place that are inhibiting recovery as well as replacing those which fomented the problems in the first place.

This was "straight talk" and necessary. The first step in restoring confidence is to establish that the leader gets it and can chart a path forward, a leader who can adjust or tack somewhat differently as the need becomes apparent.

Pres. Obama has established that he's on our side, the side of the many as opposed to the few.

He has said the job is huge and he needs input from those of differing views.

He is accumulating citizens' confidence by showing that change is not just a buzzword but that listening, having a measure of humility along with the necessary gray matter, he can put the country's best foot forward.

Jeff NYC Dem said...

Another thing, Edge, There is a difference between a conspiracy theory designed to whip someone into mass hysteria (paraphrasing - "libs will make obama a king to serve as long as he pleases") and actual truth, i.e.

Posting of the ten commandments IS an imposition of religion that may be harmless, but for the sake of preserving our rule of law via the constitution these symbols need to be taken down.

and

Giving rights to unborn children who are not yet medically classifed as a person IS taking away rights from women, plain and simple. Now, we could get into the partial-birth lie that is spread to whip up outrage around abortion, but the term doesn't medically exist, and such procedures have been so insanely rare in this country, that a law for or against abortion wouldn't likely have an effect on the number of those procedures performed.

goatdan said...

@ mhz -- Like I said, without the context you can take that line to mean "we will not apologize for running our economy into the ground, it is our way," which clearly wasn't what he had intended it to mean. Because he was in the middle of discussing terrorism at that point in time, its tough to read it as any other way. The posts (mostly on other sites) that I have seen about it claim that he said it while talking about energy, and that it made no sense because of that. He didn't.

Pragmatus said...

Edge

Here is the 22nd Amendment, for your edification. I spoke of "tradition" because only once has the term of office of the presidency been changed, and if you read the words below carefully they establish a precedent but make no case for any future amendments.

"Section 1. No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. But this article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term.

Section 2. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years from the date of its submission to the States by the Congress."

goatdan said...

@ Edge -- no, the term limits thing isn't balancing the left.

The difference between the two parties in this regard is that the left tends to bring up things based on an idealistic (sometimes overly so) view of everything. The religious debate at the heart of both of your inquires goes to the division of church and state, and what our forefathers meant by that.

It is debatable if the original intent of the Constitution applied just to the federal government or all wings of government. Considering that some states initially had 'state churches' it could be argued that the intent was to allow each state to determine what their role was.

But since that point, the Supreme Court has listened to cases involving Church and State and decided the separation of the two applies to all governments in most cases. So, the questions of should a courthouse remove the 10 Commandments or not is more of a democrat idealogical question. It isn't the rallying point of the party, and in fact is often used as the rallying point of Republicans about how "bad" the Democrats are.

In the same way, the question of womens rights versus fetuses rights goes along the same lines. And if you can point me to one Democrat who has positioned him or herself as the "pro-abortion" runner, I'd love to hear about it. Democrats tend to be "pro-choice", based on the furthering of womens rights, again, based on their interpretation of the constitution.

At the end of the day, Republicans are the ones who try to pull at people's heart strings to get their way, while Democrats try to win them over intelligently.

I know, for instance, that an abortion for me would have never been an option. I also know that I could never take away the right for someone else to have one.

I also know that Obama is smart enough to know what a huge political backlash he would get if he tried to remove term limits for himself not to do it. I also know that Republicans will use this as a rallying cry to pull at unintelligent people's heartstrings to make them support the new President less.

It's the classic Republican playbook, and the election proved that it is vastly flawed... but if they want to continue using it instead of reverting to the intelligent counterpoint that they once held, I'm sure the Democrats will be fine with continuing to hold power until the Republicans decide to change.

mhz said...

@gdan

You are absolutely right context does matter. But that statement was still problematic because it was too ambiguous and rhetorical.

Many people probably did not even think about what he meant when he said it- rather they may have experienced a sense of thoughtless superiority and nationalistic pride.

I am confident Obama is successfully working toward increasing thoughtful, responsible participation in civic affairs. Nevertheless the BHO does take shortcuts in reaching out to people who are actively advancing an agenda that is directly contrary to the one he is pursuing and promoting.
That line was a very deliberate attempt to communicate at least two very different and potentially conflicting messages.

wv-dedegg- I'll give this issue up as a dedegg. I promise not to post on that line again on this thread- as much as it haunts me!!

Mike in Maryland said...

DCM in FL said...
people in 1961 did not instantly latch onto 'ask not what your country can do for you' - it was the historic nature, persoanlity, delivery & countenance of JFK that resonated then as it also does now

Were you around in 1961 when Kennedy gave that inaugural speech was given?

Apparently not. Or is so, you were not paying attention.

I was (I was age 10 at the time), and it was the thing that most people IMMEDIATELY commented on, and KEPT commenting on, even die-hard Republicans.

Jeremy said...

I find it difficult to have a rousing speech like you said. I thought the address was excellent. We all do have to acknowledge that we need to get to work to solve these challenges. That we cannot rely on government alone. That we are the change that we seek.

Metaphorically, Obama picked us up, slapped us in the face and
said "what is going on?? Wake up and let's fix this together!" We are the change that we seek!

Isn't this the first wartime transfer of power in our history?

Mike in Maryland said...

Edge said...
It's still on the back burner for the moment and something we likely won't see until Obama's second term - depending, of course, on how the first goes. And that's term limits.

There's a behind-the-scenes groundswell of support to remove term limits for the Presidency that will only grow over the next few years by the frightening masses who unfailingly support this man to keep him in the Oval Office for as long as he'd like and essentially make him their king.


Apparently you weren't around in the mid-1980s, or not very aware of things, but there was a HUGE push by many Republicans to overturn the 22nd Amendment then, so that term limits would not apply to their saint Ronnie Ray-gun.

There also was a huge push while Ray-gun was still alive to have his bust put up on the Mount Rushmore National Memorial in South Dakota. I always laughed at that one, since the space chosen by the right-wingers was on the right as you face the monument - an area found to have so many cracks and 'bad' stone that any work put up there would start to deteriorate within 10 years, and would completely fail within 75-100 years.

PeteKent said...

This was not atypical of Obama's speeches: it was dreary and dark, conjuring up a bleak state of affairs.

During the campaign Obama was thematically consistent with what he delivered yesterday -- he wanted Americans to feel threatened so that they would take the leap and vote for him. How could things be worse, after all?

Since his election, Obama has been sounding the same negative clarion call as he tries to manage expectations and plan for the days of double digit unemployment that will be here before you know it and which will last far longer than most can imagine. He wants to be able to tell us, "I told you so."

Obama's reputation as a great speechmaker is overblown. His delivery skills are non pareil, but his speech themselves are not memorable. (Unlike McCain's "Stand up and fight -- this is America, we are not victims of history, we make history!" speech at the RNC). Other than his line about his grandmother in the "More Perfect Union (the beginning of the Lincoln hagiography!), what do you remember about what he said in his that day in Philadelphia?

I think the media was captivated with his address after the Iowa caucus not so much for what he said (Line, please?), but for the moment. Just like with the race speech.

"Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this Wall!" No such moment for Obama yet!

I think you must stand for something before you can have such a moment. Obama has yet to reveal his true self. Perhaps when he does he can make us all sit up and listen.

Berkeley Bear in Illinois said...

I don't know where all you downers were, but in my circle (admittedly small, but pretty hardcore consumers of politics) it was a homerun. It had at least 4 moments that can only be described as "thrilling" and that was beyond the sheer sight of over a million Americans turning out to see the transition of power.

Anyone who gives an instant grade for a speech is foolish in the extreme (myself included). The Gettysburg Address barely got acknowledged in most coverage of the day, as it came after a much lengthier, classic harangue. Lincoln's 2d Inaugural was controversial at the time, failing to celebrate the victory of the North at the expense of the defeated South. While networks covered Kennedy, most people got their version of it in a wrap up with Walter Cronkite picking the best line for the evening news. By comparison, most people didn't digest Obama's speech through the lens of radio, newspaper cover writers or even talking heads filtering out the noise. We are all our own editors, and we generally are the worst of critics. Folks who get paid to be talking heads on cable come in a close second.

I personally thought it had a bunch of memorable lines, but they will only be truly memorable if Obama's actions are consonant with them. The prompt orders on Gitmo suggest he will be truer to our ideals in keeping with rejecting a "false choice", which now has Cornyn freaking out over Holder and torture. The push on stimulus and a government accountability officer both suggest he will be bold and judge government by "whether it works." Sticking by his Cabinet picks through the noise on various silly issues suggests he has no time for "childish things." Perhaps the lack of a single line to distill the essence of President Obama (god that looks good in type) will be the ultimate measure of the greatness of the man and the speech. Rather like Teddy Roosevelt's "Man in the Arena" speech, which doesn't have a single go to line, but as a whole is pretty darn moving.

Susan Weston said...

The core message: a grown-up America can and will achieve great things, starting with cleaning up the current wreckage.

The subtext: The previous administration did not address the real dangers, and they did not bring real strength. They misunderstood history and breached our core values. They were not grown-ups.

The medium to match that message: sober prose, well written but without flights of poetry.

He got it right.

For those of us who came for soaring joy, we get Aretha! Air and Simple Gifts! 2 million on the mall! The first lady dancing in the parade stand! Beyonce! White tie! White Dress! At last!

But the President got the speech right.

Mike in Maryland said...

Susan Weston said...
He got it right.

I totally agree.

If the speech by President Barack Hussein Obama (get over it trolls) had been joyous and soaring, the fascist right would right now be saying 'he doesn't get it'. That comment would either be that they finally admit little bush's Presidency was a failure (unlikely to the utmost), or setting everyone up for their future argument that he came in with a fancy speech, not realizing that the fascists will blame every current and future calamity (be it economic, terrorism, etc.) on him not being prepared to be President.

By being sober, and pointing out a lot of the problems we currently face, President Barack Hussein Obama (you heard me trolls - GET OVER IT) let everyone know he realizes the mess we're in, and is a realist that government is not the total answer, but that the citizens of the US must also participate in getting us out of all these messes.

President Barack Hussein Obama (trolls, see above) also warned others who might want to do harm on the US (or certain sectors of the US) while we appear to be down (and some would say almost out, aka trolls) that although we have some problems, anyone who thinks they can take advantage of those problems should reconsider. And that warning was not just to foreign foes, but to domestic and internal foes.

lojasmo said...

This speech was a B+

Not Obama's best speech. I much preferred his race in America speech (which he did write himself)

FWIW, Barack took the oath of office a second time in the map room.

Roberts: "are you ready to take the oath, Mr. President?"

Obama: "Yes I am, and we're going to go very slowly."

:D

spabeachresorts said...

yep!! wish and pray God that our efforts could get the spirit of US back!!

polls_apart said...

Regarding Presidential term limits: when Republicans were proposing repeal of the 22nd amendment in the 1980's, I was of the mind that amending it to a three-term (or 14 year) limit would be reasonable. I thought it then, and I still think so now. It would be good for a president who is elected to a second term not to be considered a lame duck. The demands of the office and the difficulty in maintaining popularity for eight years would still cause most presidents to step down after two terms.
Given Reagan's failing health, Clinton's scandal and W's failures, I'm not sure any of them would have run for a third term. Clinton would have been the most likely of those three to have tried.

Bernard said...

It was very funny to watch the evolution of Edge's conspiracy theory from

>>"It's still on the back burner for the moment and something we likely won't see until Obama's second term ... There's a behind-the-scenes groundswell of support"
to
>>"More stuff about eliminating term limits. I don't like this one bit." [5 minutes later]
to
>>"It's almost a given."
all in the space of less than two hours. My goodness but the vast left-wing conspiracy moves fast!

Of course, despite what Edge says
>>"If it becomes law via the Constitution, then it takes effect immediately."
when the amendment takes effect is generally spelled out in the Amendment... see for example, the 20th and the 22nd, which are two of the ones that have modified Presidential succession.

David Parker said...

Nate--
Totally disagree with you. For one, sober moments call for sober messages. Second, tough times call for us to be told that we are, as Winston Churchill said it, "not made of sugar candy". Obama, in short, said it is a tough time, but we are Americans and we can do it.

There was only a little FDR--see the part about money changers in the Temple (also in the Bible). Much more striking is how closely related the speech was to Reagan's in 1981. Same tough economic times, same call to action, same call that we can do it because we are Americans. The main difference, of course, was who was to blame: government (RR) or us and the money changers (FDR and Obama). But both called for us to be responsible and to get the j-done.

I thought, all in all, a tremendous speech that had accomplish a lot and did so.

Michael said...

Clinton would have beaten GW Bush into a pulp. Can you imagine him debating GW?

I consider term limits undemocratic. People should be able to choose the candidate of their choice, even if s/he has already served for two terms. Long service doesn't make a president a dictator; a supine Congress, as in the last 8 years, does that.

Taft said...

I was extremely impressed with Obama's speech. He wasn't just trying to rally or thank the faithful any more. Those who have supported him thus far don't need any more inspiration. Instead, he was enumerating his beliefs and positions as succinctly as possible so that history will know where he stands and what his goals are.
If the speech sounded too much like a laundry list to some people, maybe that's because we've just suffered through one of the dirtiest administrations in history.

DCM in FL said...

GALLUP pollingon the speech was mixed...

60% of the population watched it live - but they included everyone in the results so that dilutes the appraisal but:

46% rated it 'excellent'
47% rated it either 'good' or 'just ok'

but 20% more of the population watched in 2009 as compared to 2005 when:

25% rated Bush's as 'excellent' [can you imagine ?]
57% rated Bush's as 'good' or 'just OK'

so that extra 20% this year all seemed to end up in the 'excellent' category...

but these #'s are marginal in value imo since the population was not controlled

apples & orangutans

Taft said...

How about a poll of those who didn't vote for Obama?

I'm not sure it matters what anybody else thinks about it. It's about how many people are willing to give change a chance, as opposed to those who would go down with the ship out of misplaced loyalty to the death machine (as embodied by Dick "Dr. Strangelove" Cheney).

DCM in FL said...

TAFT

the poll results are @

http://www.gallup.com/poll/113920/Tuned-Inauguration-Happened.aspx

------------------------------------
'Democratic Enthusiasm'

Democrats show an extraordinarily high degree of enthusiasm around this year's inauguration, with 74% saying they watched or heard it live, 71% rating Obama's speech "excellent,"

and 91% reporting that the day's events made them feel more hopeful about the next four years...

GOPers

Today, while Republicans are decidedly less positive than are Democrats about the 2009 inauguration, few Republicans are negative in their reactions.

Half of Republicans watched or heard the inauguration live.

And while just 14% of Republicans who heard or saw Obama's speech rate it "excellent," another 41% consider it "good."

Also, slightly more Republicans say they are more hopeful than less hopeful about the next four years, 31% vs. 27%.

INDS

Independents generally fall between the two partisan groups in their reactions to this year's inauguration, although they are no more likely than Republicans to report having tuned in live.

Fifty-two percent of independents say they watched or heard the inauguration ceremony as it happened, 36% rate Obama's speech "excellent," and 57% are more hopeful about the future.
------------------------------------

there is some of the partisan demo data that shows quite a gap as expected

but wish they had split out those who really watched the event from those who saw some of it later or read about it, etc...

Taft said...

DCM

Thank you.

31% more hopeful R's and 57% more hopeful Indies sounds like a good number for Obama. You'd expect a fair number of R's to claim to be less hopeful every time Obama opens his mouth, regardless of what he says. Take Edge, for instance... please.

Personally I'm hopeful that 1% of the population are less hopeful that they'll be able to control more of everything than they already do. If that's what they thought they heard Obama say, I think they're right and I couldn't agree more.

DCM in FL said...

TAFT

I agree about that. The IND #'s are really what is important to track since this election once again proved that in the end the party base stays at home with their candidate [about 40%] and the real play is where do the INDs swing to ?

sad part is the truth that Obama knows that even a slightly disappointed DEM base [like me] will almost be guaranteed to vote for the top of the ticket regardless of enthusiasm when it comes right down to it

so he is playing to what he sees as the mushy centrist middle/INDs rather than the liberal progressive base

smart politics IF he can hold onto them - but they are extremely fickle & their support is 'soft'

Michael said...

Taft, great line!

"If the speech sounded too much like a laundry list to some people, maybe that's because we've just suffered through one of the dirtiest administrations in history."

Yes, it's time to wash all the dirt away with very strong cleansers and hang the laundry up to dry under the wholesome disinfectant of direct sunlight.

Jeff NYC Dem said...

In my mind, the biggest pro and con of term limits at the national level is this.

Pro: No lame-duck syndrome. A presidnt can govern effectively and with legitimacy for nearly his entire term. He's also motivated by the fact that he can't get a free ride and has to earn reelection again.

Con: In the age of knock-em-down, drag-em-out bonanza campaigns, a president would be campaigning every two years, possibly undermining his effectiveness.

In large national elections, where the stakes are so high, term limits don't make as much sense as they do in smaller offices where people don't know much about the candidates that are available. People know the president, his accomplishments and failures are oftentimes tangible and more than any other office, the people would be most effective as the defacto term limit for the office of the president.

davids said...

Hearing the President say, "true to our founding documents" is enough for me feel joyous and celebrate.

kankan said...

I know it may not make 20 somethings thrill but he referred to founding principles in way not common these days, I especially liked the use of the old-school word "virtue" and the quote about rule of law and our "charter expanded by the blood of generations" as nod to the limitations of founders (such as slavery) but still, they left us something that could be expanded to others. And "Those ideals still light the world..."

I think these are important departures or should I say, returns, to themes that were prevalent in our founders quotes, especially the word virtue. Previously the founders use of the word virtue was so contrary to today's politics, but now its back.

In entertainment value, this speech was lacking, and I believe so many people were excited given the historic and thrilling nature of his swearing in, but I think Obama reveling in that with the crowd would have been wrong. Sorry guys, Obama can't take the oath and then start spraying champagne on everybody like the Red Sox Nation when they finally won.

I think the people that waited so long for an Obama to be president that may have dissapointed by the speech not hyping that aspect of the moment enough will be pleased in the long-term that Obama proceeded with dignity and responsibility of position, admitting our problems while still inspiring and call us to action, not by repeating how great it was he was elected but rather in a solid, workman, practical and still profound way that will be enduring.

I have never been thrilled with most of Obama speeches, especially disliked his 2004 Dem Convention speech as it seemed chiding and he does tend throw black people under the bus when pushing railing on themes like homophobia, personal responsibility... But this speech, I liked, it will wear well. The only lack was no nod to Hawaii or Native American people, in no direct or vague way, while he refereed to settling the west. He covered other things really well.

Jane said...

Obama’s speech was much better than I expected or hoped. With the exception of his speech on race, I have been more inspired by Obama's executive skills (yes, EXECUTIVE, Ms. Palin) in running a masterful campaign, than his speechifying, which I’ve found more flowery than substantive. But I was moved to tears when Obama told a giddy nation that come tomorrow the celebration would be over and the sleeves rolled up, and most important, that the Republicans are on notice that their era is definitively over. One of the criticisms of Obama is that he may be too conciliatory, too much of a pleaser (a la Bill Clinton) and that, as a result, his promise of change will become a pale, watered down version. What his inaugural speech said to me is that the Reagan revolution has gasped its last breath. Ken Burns’ analysis is my favorite. He said, “America’s history is entering its third act; the first was Thomas Jefferson who said all men are created equal, but really meant all white men who own property and are free of debt. The second act came in 4 score years when Abraham Lincoln said, ‘Look we really mean it.’ And it took another 100 years to begin the third act when Obama took the oath of office. When Obama talked about Hope during the campaign it was a passive idea, but in his inauguration speech that was transformed into a call for Virtue, which is the insistence of now, of action.” For me, Obama’s speech was a badly needed call for the nation to snap out of our destructive behaviors that became entrenched in the Reagan years.

Abby said...

I wasn't wowed by Obama's speech either but thought much more highly of it after hearing this commentary by Geoff Nunberg on NPR this evening...

http://tinyurl.com/dho7cf

markymark said...

I know I am a bit late on this, but I think that in a lot of ways the speech was the least important part of the inaugaration. I think it wasn't the soaring rhetoric of the DNC 2004, or Iowa Caucus night, but I think that this was not the time for that, perhaps. I don't always agree with the 'campaign in poetry, govern in prose' cliche, but I think that maybe this was a moment for sober realism and let the obvious symbolism of the moment deal with the enthusiasm bit. I think in his first few days in office he has done a pretty good job of showing what 'change' means.

And after all, Lincoln's second inaugural was the famous one, and FDR's 2nd inaugural was, save from the 'the only thing we have to fear is fear itself' line, much more memorable, in terms of setting out what the New Deal was all about.

markymark said...

And veryt quickly on term limits, I am against them generally, and view that amendment as a mistake, but I think overturning it is troublesome. You would need the agreement of the sitting President that he would follow Washington's example and only stand for two terms. However I think FDR was right to run for a third term, as the time was not right for a change of leader, with the world plunging into war. If a similar moment was replicated now the sitting President would have no choice, and at a moment of international crisis would be pushed into electing an inexperienced and untested leader. (Which might or might not work, there is not always an Obama available.)

信次 said...

情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,美國aneros,rudeboy,英國rudeboy,英國Rocksoff,德國Fun Factory,Fun Factory,英國甜筒造型按摩座,甜筒造型按摩座,英國Rock Chic ,瑞典 Lelo ,英國Emotional Bliss,英國 E.B,荷蘭 Natural Contours,荷蘭 N C,美國 OhMiBod,美國 OMB,Naughti Nano ,音樂按摩棒,ipod按摩棒,美國 The Screaming O,美國TSO,美國TOPCO,美國Doc Johnson,美國CA Exotic,美國CEN,美國Nasstoy,美國Tonguejoy,英國Je Joue,美國Pipe Dream,美國California Exotic,美國NassToys,美國Vibropod,美國Penthouse,仿真按摩棒,矽膠按摩棒,猛男倒模,真人倒模,仿真倒模,PJUR,Zestra,適趣液,穿戴套具,日本NPG,雙頭龍,FANCARNAL,日本NIPPORI,日本GEL,日本Aqua Style,美國WET,費洛蒙,費洛蒙香水,仿真名器,av女優,打炮,做愛,性愛,口交,吹喇叭,肛交,魔女訓練大師,無線跳蛋,有線跳蛋,震動棒,震動保險套,震動套,TOY-情趣用品,情趣用品網,情趣購物網,成人用品網,情趣用品討論,成人購物網,鎖精套,鎖精環,持久環,持久套,拉珠,逼真按摩棒,名器,超名器,逼真老二,電動自慰,自慰,打手槍,仿真女郎,SM道具,SM,性感內褲,仿真按摩棒,pornograph,hunter系列,h動畫,成人動畫,成人卡通,情色動畫,情色卡通,色情動畫,色情卡通,無修正,禁斷,人妻,極悪調教,姦淫,近親相姦,顏射,盜攝,偷拍,本土自拍,素人自拍,公園露出,街道露出,野外露出,誘姦,迷姦,輪姦,凌辱,痴漢,痴女,素人娘,中出,巨乳,調教,潮吹,av,a片,成人影片,成人影音,線上影片,成人光碟,成人無碼,成人dvd,情色影音,情色影片,情色dvd,情色光碟,航空版,薄碼,色情dvd,色情影音,色情光碟,線上A片,免費A片,A片下載,成人電影,色情電影,TOKYO HOT,SKY ANGEL,一本道,SOD,S1,ALICE JAPAN,皇冠系列,老虎系列,東京熱,亞熱,武士系列,新潮館,情趣用品,約定金生,約定金生,情趣,情趣商品,約定金生,情趣網站,跳蛋, 約定金生,按摩棒,充氣娃娃,約定金生,自慰套,G點,性感內衣,約定金生,情趣內衣,約定金生,角色扮演,生日禮物,生日精品,約定金生,自慰,打手槍,約定金生,潮吹,高潮,後庭,約定金生,情色論譠,影片下載,約定金生,遊戲下載,手機鈴聲,約定金生,音樂下載, 約定金生,約定金生,開獎號碼,統一發票號碼,夜市,統一發票對獎,保險套, 約定金生,約定金生,做愛,約定金生,減肥,美容,瘦身,約定金生,當舖,軟體下載,汽車,機車, 約定金生,手機,來電答鈴, 約定金生,週年慶,美食,約定金生,徵信社,網頁設計,網站設計, 約定金生,室內設計, 約定金生,靈異照片,約定金生,同志,約定金生,聊天室,運動彩券,大樂透,約定金生,威力彩,搬家公司,除蟲,偷拍,自拍, 約定金生,無名破解,av女優, 約定金生,小說,約定金生,民宿,大樂透開獎號碼,大樂透中獎號碼,威力彩開獎號碼,約定金生,討論區,痴漢,懷孕, 約定金生,約定金生,美女交友,約定金生,交友,日本av,日本,機票, 約定金生,香水,股市, 約定金生,股市行情, 股市分析,租房子,成人影片,約定金生,免費影片,醫學美容, 約定金生,免費算命,算命,約定金生,姓名配對,姓名學,約定金生,姓名學免費,遊戲, 約定金生,好玩遊戲,好玩遊戲區,約定金生,線上遊戲,新遊戲,漫畫,約定金生,線上漫畫,動畫,成人圖片, 約定金生,桌布,桌布下載,電視節目表, 約定金生,線上電視,約定金生,線上a片,約定金生,線上掃毒,線上翻譯,購物車,約定金生,身分證製造機,身分證產生器,手機,二手車,中古車, 約定金生,約定金生,法拍屋,約定金生,歌詞,音樂,音樂網,火車,房屋,情趣用品,約定金生,情趣,情趣商品,情趣網站,跳蛋,約定金生,按摩棒,充氣娃娃,自慰套, 約定金生, G點,性感內衣,約定金生,情趣內衣,約定金生,角色扮演,生日禮物,精品,禮品,約定金生,自慰,打手槍,潮吹,高潮,約定金生,後庭,情色論譠,約定金生,影片下載,約定金生,遊戲下載,手機鈴聲,音樂下載,開獎號碼,統一發票,夜市,保險套,做愛,約定金生,減肥,美容,瘦身,當舖,約定金生,軟體下載,約定金生,汽車,機車,手機,來電答鈴,約定金生,週年慶,美食,徵信社,網頁設計,網站設計,室內設計,靈異照片, 約定金生,同志,聊天室,約定金生,運動彩券,,大樂透,約定金生,威力彩,搬家公司,除蟲,偷拍,自拍, 約定金生,無名破解, av女優,小說,民宿,約定金生,大樂透開獎號碼,大樂透中獎號碼,威力彩開獎號碼,討論區,痴漢, 約定金生,懷孕,約定金生,美女交友,約定金生,交友,日本av ,日本,機票, 約定金生,香水,股市, 約定金生,股市行情,股市分析,租房子,約定金生,成人影片,免費影片,醫學美容,免費算命,算命, 約定金生,姓名配對,姓名學, 約定金生,姓名學免費,遊戲,約定金生,好玩遊戲,約定金生,好玩遊戲區,線上遊戲,新遊戲,漫畫,線上漫畫,動畫,成人圖片,桌布,約定金生,桌布下載,電視節目表,線上電視, 約定金生,線上a片,線上a片,線上翻譯, 約定金生,購物車,身分證製造機,約定金生,身分證產生器,手機,二手車,中古車,法拍屋,歌詞,音樂,音樂網, 約定金生,借錢,房屋,街頭籃球,找工作,旅行社,約定金生,六合彩,整型論壇,整型論壇,珠海,雷射溶脂,婚紗,網頁設計,水噹噹論壇,台中隆鼻,果凍隆乳,改運整型,自體脂肪移植,新娘造型,婚禮顧問,下川島,常平,常平,珠海,澳門機票,香港機票,貸款,貸款,信用貸款,宜蘭民宿,花蓮民宿,未婚聯誼,網路購物,婚友,婚友社,未婚聯誼,交友,婚友,婚友社,單身聯誼,未婚聯誼,未婚聯誼, 婚友社,婚友,婚友社,單身聯誼,婚友,未婚聯誼,婚友社,未婚聯誼,單身聯誼,單身聯誼,白蟻,白蟻,除蟲,老鼠,減肥,減肥,在家工作,在家工作,

YoYo said...

豆豆聊天室 aio交友愛情館 2008真情寫真 2009真情寫真 aa片免費看 捷克論壇 微風論壇 大眾論壇 plus論壇 080視訊聊天室 情色視訊交友90739 美女交友-成人聊天室 色情小說 做愛成人圖片區 豆豆色情聊天室 080豆豆聊天室 小辣妹影音交友網 台中情人聊天室 桃園星願聊天室 高雄網友聊天室 新中台灣聊天室 中部網友聊天室 嘉義之光聊天室 基隆海岸聊天室 中壢網友聊天室 南台灣聊天室 南部聊坊聊天室 台南不夜城聊天室 南部網友聊天室 屏東網友聊天室 台南網友聊天室 屏東聊坊聊天室 雲林網友聊天室 大學生BBS聊天室 網路學院聊天室 屏東夜語聊天室 孤男寡女聊天室 一網情深聊天室 心靈饗宴聊天室 流星花園聊天室 食色男女色情聊天室 真愛宣言交友聊天室 情人皇朝聊天室 上班族成人聊天室 上班族f1影音視訊聊天室 哈雷視訊聊天室 080影音視訊聊天室 38不夜城聊天室 援交聊天室080 080哈啦聊天室 台北已婚聊天室 已婚廣場聊天室 夢幻家族聊天室 摸摸扣扣同學會聊天室 520情色聊天室 QQ成人交友聊天室 免費視訊網愛聊天室 愛情公寓免費聊天室 拉子性愛聊天室 柔情網友聊天室 哈啦影音交友網 哈啦影音視訊聊天室 櫻井莉亞三點全露寫真集 123上班族聊天室 尋夢園上班族聊天室 成人聊天室上班族 080上班族聊天室 6k聊天室 粉紅豆豆聊天室 080豆豆聊天網 新豆豆聊天室 080聊天室 免費音樂試聽 流行音樂試聽 免費aa片試看免費a長片線上看 色情貼影片 免費a長片 本土成人貼圖站 大台灣情色網 台灣男人幫論壇 A圖網 嘟嘟成人電影網 火辣春夢貼圖網 情色貼圖俱樂部 台灣成人電影 絲襪美腿樂園 18美女貼圖區 柔情聊天網 707網愛聊天室聯盟 台北69色情貼圖區 38女孩情色網 台灣映像館 波波成人情色網站 美女成人貼圖區 無碼貼圖力量 色妹妹性愛貼圖區 日本女優貼圖網 日本美少女貼圖區 亞洲風暴情色貼圖網 哈啦聊天室 美少女自拍貼圖 辣妹成人情色網 台北女孩情色網 辣手貼圖情色網 AV無碼女優影片 男女情色寫真貼圖 a片天使俱樂部 萍水相逢遊戲區 平水相逢遊戲區 免費視訊交友90739 免費視訊聊天 辣妹視訊 - 影音聊天網 080視訊聊天室 日本美女肛交 美女工廠貼圖區 百分百貼圖區 亞洲成人電影情色網 台灣本土自拍貼圖網 麻辣貼圖情色網 好色客成人圖片貼圖區 711成人AV貼圖區 台灣美女貼圖區 筱萱成人論壇 咪咪情色貼圖區 momokoko同學會視訊 kk272視訊 情色文學小站 成人情色貼圖區 嘟嘟成人網 嘟嘟情人色網 - 貼圖區 免費色情a片下載 台灣情色論壇 成人影片分享 免費視訊聊天區 微風 成人 論壇 kiss文學區 taiwankiss文學區

freefun0616 said...

酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店經紀,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店工作,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,

,