Barack Obama plans to address the nation tomorrow night about the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.
The speech is scheduled to begin at 7 p.m. (Central), after Obama returns from a two–day visit to Alabama, Mississippi and Florida, the president's fourth trip to the region since the oil rig exploded in April and triggered the events with which Obama and the government's emergency responders have been trying to deal ever since. It is said Obama will speak for about 15 minutes about the disaster.
This is a pivotal moment in the Obama presidency.
After nearly eight weeks of this, Americans have a general idea what's happening, and they don't want to hear an update. Well, that isn't entirely true, I guess. They'd like it just fine if Obama could tell them exactly how much oil is pouring into the Gulf every day. There seems to be a distinct discrepancy between BP's figures and everyone else's.
Beyond that, though, they've got a pretty good handle on what's happening. What they want to know is the course of action that will be taken.
What sacrifice, if any, will be asked of them?
Personally, I feel that was one of the great failings of the Bush administration. After the attacks of September 11, the country was in a common cause frame of mind and would have been responsive to a presidential call for a shared sacrifice — but Bush told a few Americans to prepare for war, and he told the rest of us to go shopping.
Would it have been necessary for American troops to remain in Afghanistan as long as they have if all Americans, those at home as well as those in uniform, had been urged to make a common sacrifice for a common objective?
"Americans need to know that Mr. Obama, whose coolness can seem like detachment, is engaged. This is not a mere question of presentation or stagecraft, although the White House could do better at both. (We cringed when he told the 'Today' show that he had spent important time figuring out 'whose ass to kick' about the spill. Everyone knew that answer on Day 2.)"
New York Times
Perhaps in the early days of his presidency, when Obama's approval rating hovered at astonishing heights — and at a point in his term when, technically, there was nothing (or, at least, very little) of which to approve or disapprove — Americans, many of whom appeared weary after eight years of George W. Bush's mangled syntax, were content to listen in admiration, as they had during the presidential campaign, to Obama's smooth oratory.
But those days are gone. The bloom is off the rose. So, to borrow a phrase from Joe Friday, just give us the facts.
There is a symbolic quality to this that is hard to measure. When a president engages in straight talk with the American people about a particularly vexing problem, he enlists their service in solving it. There is an incalculable value in that, but what it comes down to is this: people like to feel like they are part of the process.
Actually, a character like Joe Friday, from a popular TV series, provides an apt analogy for the Obama administration — in truth, for any administration. Modern Americans see their president on TV every day. For a time, they are enthralled, but there comes a point when they become disenchanted. When that happens, the negative perception begins to harden, and it requires something really dramatic to alter the downward trajectory.
You could say that John F. Kennedy reached a similar point in 1962, the second year of his presidency, when U.S. surveillance revealed that the Soviet Union was installing nuclear missiles in Cuba. When Kennedy addressed the nation, he didn't offer flowery language. He didn't try to impress the voters with his vocabulary and his extensive education. He told the American people how dire the situation was and enlisted their cooperation.
Engage us, Mr. President.


Salon.com
Comments
Exactly. I am growing weary of his constant modifiers and verbose verbiage. Do you think he talked that way when he was a "community organizer"? I sure hope not. Now is the time for straight talk--as I have mentioned on more than one occasion--Obama needs to be more Truman and less Carter.
The one thing that might make a difference would be if Obama announced that the government would hire 500,000 unemployed people to clean up the beaches. That would be a nice signal of concern for both environment and unemployment.
Now, as far as I'm concerned, "mene mene tekel; upharsin!"
Less rhetoric any action at all. (R)
What a difference a few years make.
58 days of dragging his feat to the point it's interference.
58 days and Jindahl still has not gotten all the people he needs.
58 days and he still refuses foreign aid.
58 days of turning away the best help the world has to offer.
And now he's going to give a speech.
4 days and Bush hated black people.
58 days, Obama hates America.
Although, I don't expect anything dramatic.
If Mr. Obama does do anything than being upfront and telling the truth on this one, then he is seriously in the wrong job.
However, the facts are that this environmental catastrophe is not Obama's fault. Remember that GW Bush and Dick Cheney decided that a lot of government regulations were not necessary for offshore drilling, as this might interfere with the smooth workings of the free market. And I have to laugh at Sarah Palin's incoherent policy mix of "Drill, baby drill," "The President is in the pocket of the oil companies," and "We've got to nationalize BP."
Who has been saying this is Obama's fault? I haven't heard anyone blaming him for this.
You volunteer that he is innocent when no one (to my knowledge) has suggested that he is guilty of anything.
At a time when our efforts should be focused solely on resolving this matter, Obama worries about "whose ass to kick" and you fret that "the facts are that this environmental catastrophe is not Obama's fault."
But, as president, he is responsible for providing leadership. If he fails to do so, he should be impeached. Simple as that.
Blame can be assigned after they plug the damn hole.
By the way, please explain why you say, "Asking Obama to be 'more of a showman' is total BS." If anything, my post says he should be LESS of a showman when he speaks tonight.
What does leadership in this area mean? Does it mean taking the place of BP's operations 100%? So does that mean we should nationalize the American compenent of BP? I'm sorry. I don't understand.
Someone, please explain to me what kind of leadership President Obama should be showing in this situation.
That's a part of presidential leadership that he has yet to learn -- how to prioritize.