President-elect Barack Obama's First Weekly Address To The Nation
Watch President-elect Barack Obama's first weekly address to the nation. He discusses such issues as national unemployment, green energy, affordable health care and education. In this short but sweet address, Obama expressed his goals for the week, which revolve around his economic Rescue Plan. The President-elect will host weekly addresses on his website, change.gov, in an effort to remain connected to the American public much like President Franklin D. Roosevelt's "fireside chat" radio broadcasts. I just have one question, who signed that basketball to his left?
13 comments:
Am I the only one who's bothered by the fact that he's slightly off-center?
Change my butt. Has anyone noticed that more than 70% of his transition team is made up of seasoned Washington insiders and Clintonites, starting with Rham Emanual and John Podesta - both consummate Beltway tools. You can say, "Well Clinton was good!" but that's not the point. It's not change. It's just more of the same. He's playing us. Just like every other politician.
"Has anyone noticed that more than 70% of his ...."
Nope, nobody's noticed, it's just all the papers have been screaming it since the day after he got elected.
Barack Obama is a politician. Even politicians who give really nice speeches are still politicians.
He is not going to usher in some American utopia in which all sides agree on every issue, the recession magically becomes a matter of debate for historians, and every man, woman, and child in America receives a free pet unicorn to love and cherish.
I hate to be the skeptic when most around me are blindly infatuated with the man or what he supposedly represents, but I hope we all begin to judge President-Elect Obama by his actions instead of by his rhetoric or some preconceived notion of his being a mythical, game-changing figure.
That said, if he can get Congress to give all of us unicorns, maybe I'd become a believer.
ok, so maybe his first few steps have been unoriginal. He can't change stuff before he gets into office. He is the president-elect and whining about him not being what he says is before we give him at least a trial period is juvenile. Tell me in a year how little he has changed and I will start considering your arguments.
Don't expect too much, and you won't be let down.
Barack Obama will disappoint you. He'll have to make difficult decisions, and will probably do things differently than you would. Probably more often that you'd like.
But I doubt he will do so as often as Bush.
So, if you are willing to set the bar that low...maybe you won't be disappointed.
bush also has a weekly radio address.
you can subscribe to the podcast.
change is here
http://jumpinginpools.blogspot.com/2008/11/shock-as-obama-declares-dinars-american.html
why are people upset over his transition team and appointed officials?? it would be stupid to only hire people who have not had any work experience for private firms or lobbyists or whatever because that would exclude some of the brightest people. he's making a good effort to minimize the role of interests while still being able to choose from among some of the most qualified people.
That reeks of socialism.
Meaningful change comes through policies, not from staffing decisions.
The reality is that any Democrat qualified to hold a high office in the current administration will have to have connections to the Clinton White House. That was just the he only Democratic President recently. Given the choice between unqualified people and employees of a president I regarded as divisive, I'd always take the latter.
Frankly, if Obama's going to make the changes he intends to, he's going to need class-A assholes like Rahm Emmanuel dril them up congress's ass as hard as possible.
@ Justin, a heads-up on your communication style:
"I hate to be the skeptic when most around me are blindly infatuated with the man or what he supposedly represents, but I hope we all begin to judge President-Elect Obama by his actions instead of by his rhetoric or some preconceived notion of his being a mythical, game-changing figure."
Though your point is good, your delivery and the assumptions/accusations you make in the process are rather off-putting. That you accuse those who presume to follow the man (or at least "most of [them]") of blind infatuation is to discount not just their reasons (which I doubt you've engaged with "most of the people around you") but also their very ability or tendency to even use reason. Perhaps you can see how I find this offensive.
Also, assuming your point was that we should judge him by his actions, the following counterpoint you make--that we shouldn't judge him by "preconceived notions" or his rhetoric--is not only moot, but it really only serves to further degrade the intelligence you assign to "most of the people around you."
Maybe that's really how you see the situation here at wes: a bunch of mindless, blind sheep who function on the promise of unicorns. If so, thanks for the reminder that we should judge politicians by their actions, not just assume (or as you say, "believe") that they rock; I see that you're only trying to help. In response I say give us a bit more credit; I would respect such commentary even more if you were able to make it without being so caustic in the process. Less pigeon-holing = more substance.
Otherwise I second you, and a bit of skepticism is a good thing.
Post a Comment