Reviews Of Obama’s Speech
I took a quick look around the web this morning, curious to see the reactions to Obama’s speech last night. Some Fox commenters were critical in the post-speech analysis but all the reactions I saw were positive.
Here’s Rich Lowry from the National Review:
The pep-rally atmosphere was inappropriate and disconcerting, but President Obama turned in a magnificent performance. This was a non-accusatory, genuinely civil, case for civility, in stark contrast to what we’ve read and heard over the last few days. He subtly rebuked the Left’s finger-pointing, and rose above the rancor of both sides, exactly as a president should. Tonight, he re-captured some of the tone of his famous 2004 convention speech. Well done.
You have to look at the comments on this one. There’s a lot of bitter clingers in that comment section.
At sunrise in the east on Wednesday, Sarah Palin demonstrated that she has little interest—or capacity—in moving beyond her brand of grievance-based politics. And at sundown in the west, Barack Obama reminded even his critics of his ability to rally disparate Americans around a message of reconciliation.
Palin was defiant, making the case in a taped speech she posted online why the nation’s heated political debate should continue unabated even after Saturday’s tragedy in Tucson. And, seeming to
follow her own advice, she swung back at her opponents, deeming
the inflammatory notion that she was in any way responsible for the
shootings a “blood libel.”Obama, speaking at a memorial service at the University of Arizona, summoned the country to honor the victims, and especially nine-year-old Christina Taylor Green, by treating one another with more
respect. “I want America to be as good as Christina imaged it,” he
said.It’s difficult to imagine a starker contrast.
He’s got that right. I think Palin’s speech made her look small and petty. If she thought going first would help her win the PR battle,
she badly miscalculated.
Political Wire has a round-up of various reactions to the speech.
If you have not seen the President Obama’s speech, please do so. http://www.whitehouse.gov/photos-and-video/video/2011/01/12/president-obama-memorial-arizona
The wingnut reviews of the speech should start pouring in today after they receive their talking points from GOP operatives.
If you read the comments on the NRO post, you’ll find most of the negative comments come from people who refuse to accept the premise that there is any issue at all with current political discourse.
If wingnuts are writing negative reviews now, they’re too late to influence public perception much. Most of the media reaction has already been written. The only negatives coming in are the crowd reaction, which isn’t Obama’s doing.
Has Rich Lowery been fired from NR yet for darning so say something nice about The Evil One?
I agree with all the positive comments about the speech. Obama gave the perfect speech. We needed catharsis, and we got it. And he left Palin looking like the wack job she is.
My issue is not with the speech, but with what comes next.
I am longing to hear Obama say: “As long as I am President, there will be no political reward for violence or threatening rhetoric.” I am just not getting that message clearly enough. Instead I hear of him dealing behind closed doors to meet the demands of the death-threateners.
Remember teabaggers are patsies and shock troops for a wealthy elite that wishes to dismantle the New Deal. Things are going very well for them so far. Their threats have already prevented us from starting on the last plank of the New Deal, medical security.
During the Summer Of Spittle, teabaggers, some openly carrying guns, disrupted countless congressional town halls screaming their threats and demanding that public health care be defeated. Their threats were rewarded with success, as public health care came within a handful of votes in the Senate while Obama sat on his hands.
Now somehow, this year the rest of the New Deal is on the table, no longer immune to attack. Will the death-threatening teabaggers and their Republican front-men be rewarded again?
We’ve got “speaking softly” covered. Now we need to know Obama’s other hand is carrying a big stick.
Which Republican will be the first to say that what Christina really wanted was limited government and tax cuts for the rich?
I agree with all the positive comments about the speech. Obama gave the perfect speech. We needed catharsis, and we got it. And he left Palin looking like the wack job she is.
Agreed, and this is important. Obama’s speech drew a stark line between right and wrong, and he did it by speaking softly. Does anyone think that bringing a gun to a political rally, using crosshairs in ads, or speaking about Second Amendment remedies will now go unchallenged? I don’t think this bad behavior will get the pass it did before.
And, while I know the Tea Party will try and tear this speech down, the bar for civility has been set. Everyone – us included – will be measured by this bar.
It’s great to see that many of you have followed Obama’s call for civility (“threatening rhetoric, teabaggers, screaming their THREATS, carrying a big stick and wingnuts”)…jeez!
From Obama’s speech in Tucson, AZ:
“But at a time when our discourse has become so sharply polarized – at a time when we are far too eager to lay the blame for all that ails the world at the feet of those who think differently than we do – it’s important for us to pause for a moment and make sure that we are talking with each other in a way that heals, not a way that wounds.”
Newshound, if you are speaking of anon’s comments please point that out specifically. It’s as if you are painting us all based on the ramblings on a commenter. Why did you not choose to include Pandora’s comment?
anon, your sarcasm is noted and quite unappreciated. I’m speaking specifically of your comment, “Which Republican will be the first to say that what Christina really wanted was limited government and tax cuts for the rich?”
calling dirt, dirt is not uncivil or an insult. It is just pointing out facts. People who carry signs that say “we came unarmed THIS TIME” (or whatever other barbaric Tbag action you wanna use… because there are many) are factually dirt. Part of promoting civility is pointing out disapproving of the wingnuts every time they open their mouths.
For once, I’d like to see someone on here present a well-crafted, cogent argument as to why they blame/hate/revile those whose opinions or beliefs differ than their own opinions or beliefs instead of the lazy ad hominem attacks that get bandied about like cheap perfume.
Again, Obama in his Tucson, AZ speech:
“But what we can’t do is use this tragedy as one more occasion to turn on one another. As we discuss these issues, let each of us do so with a good dose of humility. Rather than pointing fingers or assigning blame, let us use this occasion to expand our moral imaginations, to listen to each other more carefully, to sharpen our instincts for empathy, and remind ourselves of all the ways our hopes and dreams are bound together.”
anon, your sarcasm is noted and quite unappreciated. I’m speaking specifically of your comment, “Which Republican will be the first to say that what Christina really wanted was limited government and tax cuts for the rich?”
OK, you have a point. I’ll dial it back and try to meet the standard of Obama’s speech. But remember, Republicans catch up to satire pretty quickly. I reserve the right to say “I told you so.”
Newshounds comment was posted one minute after mine. He probably didn’t see my comment.
Good point Pandora.
Newhound, I’m confused by what you would like to see. It reads as though you’d like to see a post defending people attacking other people. But I’m probably reading your comment wrong.
SB: As many commentators like to say: ‘You are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts.” Wow! That’s a first. People (i.e., Tea Party) are now relegated to being a natural resource? Priceless. I’m glad you tried your best to muster up that good ‘ole (EI) emotional intelligence in the name of Obama.
Obama made an excellent speech. His tone was good. He went with the unfortunate ‘flow’ of the sometimes inappropriate audience and delivered a resounding example of how not to react to an unecessarily polarized event with grace and leadership.
I’m confused by what Newshound is saying, as well. For someone upset with the lumping of all people together he employs the same tactic with us. I will only speak for myself, but I don’t think I’ve blamed, hated or reviled people who disagree with me.
Perhaps I have, and I trust Newshound will point out where this occurred.
Newshound, I would agree with statement that people are entitled to their own opinions but not their own facts.
Fact= 2+2=4
Opinion = 2+2=5
I still think the speech was the perfect speech. Unfortunately, it did help validate the “both sides do it” narrative, but this was probably unavoidable. It is the “s**t sandwich* we will have to eat, as I think Ben was saying the other day.
In return, we will hopefully make crosshairs and talk of “Second Amendment solutions” radioactive for a while at least. Hopefully long enough to prevent serious damage to Social Security this year.
And hopefully the protective effect will last long enough to cover the 2012 election.
Newshound, if you choose to lump all tea partiers with the ones calling for violence and intimidation, that is your failing.
Where did Newshound go?
I will play nice and change the subject a bit. Does anyone other than me see how Palin not only wants, but NEEDS to always be in the news cycle? She cannot go no more than 48 hours without some sort of tweet, FB response or commentary on cable news (exclusively Fox, of course).
In other words, she seemed to me to be more upset with the fact that she had to go out of her way to explain her cross-hair map in the wake of a tragedy (even though there’s no correlation between the two events), than being upset at the tragedy itself.
She had to endure a mind-boggling 5 days without being heard in the 24/7 news cycle. To her, that’s unacceptable.
Btw, who in God’s green earth is her speechwriter? Even if she did not know what ‘Blood Libel’ meant, she still ok’d the speech. Besides, the speech basically sucked, to use a more colloquial term. The anger, the tone, even the length was wrong (way too long, especially for a YouTube video). Juxtaposed with Obama’s speech?…well…you get the point.
I’m with you Newshound, on Palin. I do wonder who is advising her – it’s like her organization is run by rigjtwing bloggers and not media professionals. Besides the blood libel part, the rest of the speech was odd. Too long. I do think her speaking coach has done an excellent job though.
if you choose to lump all tea partiers with the ones calling for violence and intimidation, that is your failing.
I see your point Ben, but they will have to start sorting themselves out if they don’t want to be lumped together. The cheers still go up at the rallies when people talk about watering the tree of liberty – let’s see if that changes after Tucson. The non-violent will have to refudiate the violent. Until then I have to just call it as I see it.
Which makes me wonder – if the tea party movement successfully expels the people with the violent rhetoric – will they have enough energy and passion to survive on the remaining parts of their platform?
nope. they sure wont.
Those who want violent revolution… or rather, those who THINK they want violent revolution drive the movement.
And i say “think” because i dont think any of them have the stomach for actual revolution. That is not a dare, or a challenge… I say that as someone who HATES George W Bush. That administration is one of the worst things in the history of this country, but i would have NEVER killed or harmed to end it. The Baggers in general dont seem to have the mental capacity for anything other than blind obedience, or being violently and unnecessarily obstinate. All of them think they would be Neo, or Mel Gibson from “The Patriot”. … and for the record, when I say “all of them” I mean “the ones carrying guns to political rallies to show how big and tough and American” they are. Those are the people I simply write off when it comes to discussion. Those are the people who should never have a seat at the table because all then want to do is have a food fight. It doesn’t matter who they are disagreeing with, they are the ones who pick fights are disagreeable just for the hell of it. It is why they love $t $arah so much. She is their queen. The queen of the poorly behaved kid’s table.
anon, i was actually talking to newshound and it was meant to be sarcastic and snarky 🙂
Palin has become an industry and so needs to keep product in the supply chain or risk disappointing her customers. And the very fact that she is a multi-million dollar industry and is one small part of the multi-billion dollar industry that has grown up around making old people and dumb people angry, makes a mockery out of the “both sides do it” argument.
Sure the left has a few scattered mom and pop operations that profit from belligerent partisanship, but the right has all of the Fortune 500, blue chip operatios.
You haven’t heard from me in a while, although I have been keeping up with you on this page….since our last election, besides coming to grips with losing my job, I have been trying to regain my political fervor. Hasn’t happened. Disillusioned with the process, disgusted by rhetoric…I fully expected something this horrible to happen right here in our little state. What we’ve witnessed has not been discourse, that would require a dialogue. All we’ve had was shouting. And yes, I was a part of that.
The two speeches were indeed a stark contrast, but Obama’s version is exactly why I voted for him in the first place. Yes, intellectual…but don’t we want that in our president? But I never got the accusation that he was without empathy. It comes out clearly to me, just as clearly as the Palin approach presents itself as media-oriented sound bytes. Orchestrated to present her in a way that will appear as “presidential”, although without the intellect, without the substance. It takes more than a power suit, a podium and a red/white flag draped backdrop to run a country. It means rising above the petty finger pointing and uniting, not dividing. It’s that simple when discussing the contrasts in the two speeches. Obama united. Palin’s had nothing to do with the issue at hand, she still is divisive, and she still might just resign the presidency (god forbid) if a better deal came along.
I don’t think the left bears any responsibility for the fact there is no dialogue in the country.
sure we do. whatever the solution to the Baggers is, we are at fault for not figuring it out and doing it sooner.
I don’t think the left bears any responsibility for the fact there is no dialogue in the country.
Nobody could have tried harder than Obama to reach out to Republicans. I mean that in a sincere way and also in a snide way.
First, the sincere way: Remember the GOP Baltimore retreat when Obama schooled Repubs on the origins of the deficit, and the various charges of “socialism?” It was also one of his finest speeches – not just about hope and emotionalism, but with real Democratic policy content. He insisted on civility, and delivered it himself. It should have been a national tour. Obama’s approval and approval of HCR went up (and that was back when it included the public option!), and Republican approval polls went down even more. He should have kept it up until the election. Instead, it was pretty much a one-shot deal.
But then, the reaching out went over the top and achieved self-parody.
anon.
You have to seperate republicans and the baggers/traitors. The wingnuts have won because people make that identification. The goal was blur and that is what they have.
And the Republicans are now afraid of them. Moderate republicans don’t even make the news anymore.
I agee with you about Obama. The dem. leaders dropped the ball and failed to lead. Ried and Pelosi are fools. And Obama sat there and said I will sign a bill when it is presented to me, and I will let Congress do its job. And congress sat their letting the baggers create a meassage that stuck.
There are few times in history when a President has the majority, and the public support to make a change, and they squandered it.
Paratrooper, in keeping with the theme today, can we try to not call them traitors?
jason 330 wrote I don’t think the left bears any responsibility for the fact there is no dialogue in the country
Calling Republicans “Goat Fuckers” really didn’t help much.
LOL.
LG, i think people who happily talk about shooting the president are traitors. People who claim that “this time” they came unarmed are traitors because the insinuation is, NEXT TIME, they will be back to kill people who dont agree with what they think America should be.
At the very least we should call them wannabe traitors.
Not calling them goat fuckers would not have helped either. My point, as you know, is that there is no chance for dialogue as long as Republicans continue to be committed to their scorched earth, no compromise strategy.
Pretending that Democrats bear some responsibility for the current state of affairs is just silly. It does not help anything and it denies reality.
Truly. Can we have dialogue WITHOUT name-calling?
Another thought I keep having…I don’t think that Republicans and Tea Partiers are one and the same. My thought, and it is probably simplistic, is that Tea Partiers are a right wing minority, without the strength to make (their) change happen on their own, so they infiltrate the Republican Party to capture the voters who would simply vote along party lines. I say they should splinter off and stand by their own convictions. America can handle it. I truly do not believe that bitterness and fear is an epidemic here (which is what I think the TP base their platform on) and sooner or later they will shout themselves into oblivion. And the rest of us can get back to really talking to each other.
OpenMinded, They are already a speperate party, the Libetarians, who formulated this plan to hijack the rep party. Since they do not get any traction with their actual positions, they packaged slogans and don’t address any issue in depth.
My use of traitor is specifically targeted to the DE tea party, 9/12, and Libetarians. Who attacked me, it is not name calling, it is who they are. So to use it as a blanket label nationally is probably not right. So I will qualify it from now on.
It is not name calling. When a group who touts honor and respect for veterans and the military attack me, one of the few seriously disabled veterans in this state, over a simple question. They are traitors. To their cause and to the people they claim to honor.
And even worse they are cowards. I rarely go out, but I went out to confront them, and when they see me, they run and hide.
I will stop posting on this forum, that is fine since I am not a liberal and I am not here to offend. but calling them traitors is something they are, it is not
I know people take a clip out here and there, but I thought he was Presidential. I was proud of him. It was the first time in a while that I felt like he was my President too. He spoke to the heart of what it means to be an American and comforted the hurting. Reagan did that better than anyone. It is nice to see the tradtion of Chief of State comeback.
SB – seriously. If you call them traitors, then you are defining “them”, whoever they are, as criminals. In this case, “traitors” are a criminal that is commonly punished by death.
So I ask you, is calling someone a traitor helpful to the cause (any cause)?
LG has articulated something here which I have often thought: Calling someone a traitor is another form of death threat. It identifies the target as a person who ought to be executed. Depending on the context and who said it, it is a fatwa.
I disagree with tossing traitor around, but it is not a death threat. It means someone who is not loyal to their country or whatever object is betrayed. A threat means that you are speaking of taking or encouraging direct action. I think a murder in the first degree should be punished with execution. That is a policy. People can choose not to commit murder. If someone wants to advocate something is treason, they have a right to do so. The rest of us can vote them down if we choose.
I agree it is not useful. Still I agree that people who muse about killing the President are just plain wrong and playing with fire. That discourse also is not useful. I can actually understand Socialist Ben’s reaction to that type of extreme rhetoric. Not that I want to defend a socialist, but there has to be a line drawn somewhere that says it socially out of bounds. I think musing about killing our leaders or fellow citizens easily falls out of bounds. I actually have to give SB a pass on that one.
Paratrooper18’s use of traitor is much more problematic and incendiary. I hope he reconsiders.
I’m having trouble reconciling this:
If someone wants to advocate something is treason, they have a right to do so. A threat means that you are speaking of taking or encouraging direct action.
and this:
Paratrooper18’s use of traitor is much more problematic and incendiary.
I get that there is a distinction, but I’m finding the statements odd. If words and rhetoric aren’t responsible for violence then how can Para’s statement be problematic and incendiary? It looks like David wants it both ways as in… calling someone a traitor, while not nice, is okay, but not when it’s directed at a group I support – then it is problematic and incendiary.
I’m not defending the use of the word traitor, but, unlike what I think David is saying, I’m consistent in that viewpoint. To me, the term is very specific and shouldn’t be tossed around.
No inconsistency, I can distinguish between wanting to kill high government officials and having a different political point of view. That is the difference between Socialist Ben saying that people who fantasize about killing the President are traitors and Paratrooper calling people who merely oppose the President’s policies as horrible and destructive traitors.
I don’t preceive either as death threats. I do see one as an extreme verbal attack on half of America and an attempt to delegitimize political opposition. Taking violent action against high government officials is criminal. Taking political action against high government officials is Americanism. It is a big difference.
Now see… I think anyone who uses the word traitor in political debate is wrong. You are comfortable in writing the word this way:
Traitor*
*a term that is okay when I (RD) say it’s okay.
When it happens to be true, it should be used. If you had someone who wanted a violent overthrow of the government then subject it to a foreign power like the Communist cells in the 50’s, wouldn’t they be traitors? Words have meaning. Just tossing the term around is wrong. Just like tossing racism around should not be done, but if David Duke is running it would be malpractice not to say it. Either way, I think anon over stated the case. It is not a death threat. Though it may be implying the person’s actions are worthy of thatif used in the legal not the moral sense. By implication, it stands for a legal process not a mob rule.
I am just saying don’t go so hard on the Socialist guy. If you want to accuse him of issuing death threats, it’s your blog. I don’t care. I just thought he wasn’t being interpreted properly.
David, this isn’t about Ben. It’s about you and the distinctions you’re drawing. You defend Ben, but have a problem with Paratrooper.
I am not attacking Ben or Paratrooper. I enjoy reading their comments. And no one has accused them of “issuing death threats.” But I understand why you’re trying to make this about them and not you… and so does everyone else.
Just to get back to the subject, I loved the President’s remarks. All Americans can be proud, though some won’t be because he said it. Fair enough, that was true of Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush and as far as I can tell all the way back to Washington. Respect for dissent is what makes America unique.
I disagree with the analysis on Palin. It is like we didn’t watch the same address. It had a different purpose. She needed to pull a Bebe and defend free speech and dissent. He needed to comfort and sooth a hurting nation. Both did their jobs. I think he was masterful, but time will tell. Politically this is a blip. To the people affected it is life changing. We have to keep their feelings in mind when we deal with the politics of it.
Dodge noted.
David, you actually see my point. The only people who are traitors are the ones who gleefully talk about committing treason as a solution to their problems. The people who threaten to bring guns next time… fine, i will call them a traitor next time. I dont think $t $arah is a traitor. she is living the American dream. She has no useful skills, little education, no desire to learn, is abrasive, judgmental, and damn lucky she is pretty or she’d probably be a night shift waitress in some north Vegas diner… (no offense to night shift waitresses in North Vegas diners, it is just a very specific joke).
My point is, only in America can Sarah Palin exist the way she does and that is awesome.
David, while i agree with you that a voice needs to defend the 1st… and i cant believe im saying this… 2nd amendments at this time, she did it the wrong way. All I heard was “me me me, this is all about me, poor little me me me me me me me me”. Truth be told, it was all i EVER hear from her, but at a time when everyone needs to be evaluating what they say… not because it should be illegal, but because free speech is not without responsibility… she is the one who decided to say “keep putting up crosshairs and lockin and loadin!” ill timed at best, irresponsible at worst.
I’ve been reading this blog for a little while now. This is my first post. I had to write in to say how glad I am to see the new emphasis on civility as a means of honoring the president’s speech. I definitely think that treating people with respect is the way to go. And not just because it’s the right thing to do. It has always seemed to me that treating people respectfully is in my own self-interest.
When you are disrespectful to someone, let’s say in the context of a political discussion, at least two negative things happen. One, the other person(s) is much less likely to hear you and admit you might have a point. The other negative is that you have given them a basis for a legitimate complaint against you which they can use to weaken your position in the future. Especially if the issue under discussion is the tone of the dialogue! For example, think how annoying it is when someone starts with this false equivalency stuff and they are actually able to find a few good examples from the left side! If we were really careful about our language, it would be impossible to make the case that ‘both sides do it.’ The contrast would be even starker and our case would be even stronger.
We all know that old habits are hard to break and it takes time. I think reminding each other by quoting the president’s words is a great – and respectful – way to do it.
Welcome, Jane!
Thanks, Jane and welcome. Old habits are hard to break. When you have spent years thinking the other side is evil incarnate, it is a difficult u-turn to then treat them with respect, or at the very least stop with hyperbole and name calling.
And I will be honest, I am going to have to see some reciprocation from the Republicans for this endeavor to continue much past a month or so. For example, a very easy sign of respect from the other side would be to drop the references to “The Democrat Party” and “The Democrat Administration.” The proper name and adjective is “The Democratic Party” and the “Democratic Healthcare plan.”
David, David, David. Telling people they are using ugly rhetoric is not attacking their right to free speech. It is exercising ours. The “ideas” you want to war about amount to proclaiming your beliefs, and then proclaiming — without facts to support the contention — that your beliefs are ascendant.
You folks are not smart enough to see how far from smart you are.
Geezer, he is employing the same logic, and I use that word loosely, behind his notion that giving gays equal rights is infringing on his First Amendment right of free exercise of religion.