Inauguration Address
Before the speech:
As usual, the inauguration address is an important barometer in assessing the priorities of an incoming president. Of course, in the spirit of unity and celebration, nothing gets terribly specific. The most we’ll get are clues.
The clues I’m hoping for are these:
- A repeal of don’t ask/don’t tell in the very near future. This won’t require much courage on the part of Obama because of the shift in public opinion on the issue since Clinton reneged on his pledge.
- A clear indication that his agenda will be paramount, not that of certain pathetic Congressional leaders such as Pelosi, Reid, Dodd, and Frank. These old timers have been testing the waters with some fairly bold statements. They will undoubtedly continue to try to pull rank on the rookie, but the rookie would be well advised to note that he does not have the lowest public approval rating in recent years and that he was elected by all the people, not only a relatively few fringers from far out and away places like San Francisco.
- A clear indication that he will not tolerate any efforts to destroy the country by considering “war crimes” prosecutions in the Bush Administration. This issue, more than any other, separates mainstream Americans from leftist loonies who are so overcome by hatred for Bush that their vision on everything else is tainted. Obama can indicate his sanity on the issue by acknowledging and reciprocating the graciousness of Bush during the transition period.
I think it’s overly optimistic to hope that he’ll take a clear position on the Israel/Gaza imbroglio. But if he at least commits himself to the eradication of terrorism, it pretty much amounts to supporting Israel.
I think he’ll probably punt on his weaker administration appointees.
If he lightens up on the populist message of need and wealth distribution, it will confirm that he knows what the true engines of our country are.
Also in the hope, but not expected, department: a more measured approach to oratory and less of the angled profiles in search of coinage.
After the speech:
95% soaring rhetoric, but some interesting indications:
Several references to terrorism should give Israel and the rest of the civilized world some comfort. And the reference to build v. destroy was devastating to the radical Islamic cause.
The reference to putting aside childish things should take care of the pro-prosecution nutballs.
His dedication to eliminate government waste was reassuring.
The giving service to a cause greater than oneself is almost a direct from McCain—an appropriate tribute.
It’s too bad it was too late to do a last minute edit. I’m sure Obama would have loved to soften early references to the oath of office on which he stumbled.
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
baltimore aureole
David McClain
Bruce Majors
Arthur Louis
Stephen Guy Hardin
natalia pizano
Salon.com
Comments
By the way "the man" was John Roberts, the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court.
Thanks for your comment.
Whatever the reason... President Obama handled it with grace.
Being an absolutely seminal influence on American popular music, Aretha Franklin was an obvious choice for keynote singer. No matter that the voice is in shards. Only the crooners can sing well into their later years, and Aretha is clearly no crooner. I couldn't help compare, however, her gospel version of My Country 'Tis of Thee, to Ray Charles' version of America the Beautiful. The latter is a classic and was quite revolutionary at the time.
I thought the multiethnic quartet was sublime, both in the planning and the execution. In that "hall," the acoustic fidelity was remarkable.
Monte
However, my title is unassailable because it doesn't identify who did the stumbling. I think my final sentence is still sub judice, but, as I noted earlier, I could have made a mistake.
I would only take the trouble to make these fine points because your earlier posts indicate that you will appreciate them.
I have a staff of writers who are online constantly. They have been given clear instructions to delete any comments of yours on my posts because we have come to a collective judgment that they are illiterate, intemperate, or intellectually barren. Usually, they are a blend of all of the above.
My staff tells me that they have spent much too much time today deleting repeated, obnoxious , and foul-mouthed comments on this thread from the prince of peace and the king of feel good.
I know that you suffer from depression (I would too if I were you) and maybe you're just in your manic phase, but please, give it and my staff a rest. Repeating these comments will avail you not.
If you have something to say, and you rarely don't, start your own blog. Neither I nor my staff will be reading it.
Please stop being a flea in my ear. We non-timecard-punchers have better things to do than indulge your off-hour hobbies.
Your approach to finding “clues” by enumerating the set of things you hope to find is suspect from the start, even on the parts that I myself agree with politically; if you're trying to understand someone's thoughts you need to first clear your mind of your own and listen for what they're saying. But at the point where you're making advanced notice of planned ad hominem attacks on any outcome of a certain class, I don't think the outcome of the rest of your analysis is likely to be fairly rendered and I decided not to leave myself wondering. There are other analyses that will probably take up this question in more neutral fashion.
So, go.
Whatever gave you the impression that I was interested, even for a moment, in winning "'em" over?
The gratifying thing for people who are secure in their philosophy and positions is that they don't require popular validation. Frankly, I feel sorry for those who are not so secure and look at the opinions of others in order to form their own. I suspect you are in that group.
By the way, idiot child, it's copy and paste, not cut and paste.
But this proves that on top of having a bias, you have no problem misrepresenting the facts.
And I just love the fact that you've had no problem stalking Greg in the past and writing whatever you pleased on his blog, but have now decided not to afford him the same courtesy on your blog.
Calling him an idiot child is much more mature.
Putting away childish things reference was certainly NOT to that issue at all. It was to internecine fighting among our government. He made clear reference to policy NOT as it was done during the last eight years.
John McCain was certainly not the one who first called for service to causes greater than one's self, nor will he be the last. McCain ran an ugly campaign and offered nothing for the majority of the public to cling to but fear--which is why he was not the one innaugurated today.
Clearly you were not moved by the speech. I hope you will be moved to get over your cynicism and anger and work toward something positive instead of penning more criticism. Obama inspires people, something Bush never did. If that helps turn things around, then that will be no small accomplishment.
You might try and give him a chance to at least undo some of the damage that the last administration had done.
The stumble was not the President's, yet your title throws a strong implication that is was.
I am sorry that I have disappointed you in my post. I have already confessed to possibly misinterpreting the oath thing, but that was clearly not the major thrust of my post.
A while ago, the estimable Mr. Thomas apologized to me for his bad behavior. I thought at the time that it was yet another attempt to attract attention (and now I know it was) but nevertheless was happy to enter into a cease fire.
Now this post has so inflamed Mr. Thomas that he posts and reposts his unique brand of senseless abuse, which I feel obliged to delete for reasons more fully described in my Invitation to a Picky Party post. I create posts carefully and with attention to the conventions of the language we celebrate. I will not have them polluted by illiterate invective.
In addition, I receive pathetic outpourings from Mr. Thomas in the form of private messages which from now on I am going also to delete without reading. His mental challenges are not my concern.
As you can see from reading this thread, I do not delete comments with which I disagree. Indeed, in some cases, I respond as I am to yours. But on the basis of prolonged exposure, I have no interest in anything that Mr. Thomas has to say on this subject or on any other. That is my right--a right that I hope even Mr. Thomas with his severly limited powers of perception may come to understand.
I'm with Kent on this. There should at least be a preliminary investigation to see if a full investigation is in order. If no laws were broken, fine. If laws were broken then people should held accountable.
Otherwise we would be in effect saying that a presidential administration can to whatever it wants with impunity, as long as it can claim that it had "good intentions."
I certainly did not use the mishap as any knock on Obama's inaugural presentation which was as smooth and slick as he usually is when equipped with a script. Similarly, I think that people who use the event as a reason to attack the bona fides of the Chief Justice are impurely partisan.