Well, I have to give the President a B+ for his first State of the Union. It contained the stylistic Obama oratory, and it was a bit more feisty (in delivery and in substance) than previous addresses of this magnitude. It was also smartly organized and deceptively leaked with good effect: the "budget freeze" leaks had become the lead story and the source of cranky criticism from the likes of Paul Krugman, Robert Reich and Robert Kuttner. The framing of the speech with jobs first and health care and, finally, an overdue declaration of the end of the Bush tax cuts stuff folded in as part of an "Eisenhower Republican" approach to the budget -- green jobs, energy conservation and renewable energy development (including "clean coal" and nuclear power) that was far less disappointing than the diminished expectations courtesy of the "budget freeze" leaks. I'm even curious, since the "freeze" leaks came several days ago, whether there might have been substantive changes after the cool reception to the leaks. Also noteworthy was the recurring references to what the House has passed but the Senate has not, about as close as Obama can get to a public callout or expression of displeasure. Will it move health care or climate change legislation when the filibuster is now in play? Doubtful.
The President's "won't quit" theme extends yet again rhetorically to a bipartisan appeal. On this he seems to me to be missing the point. Politics demands that presidents play hardball now and then. Obama needs a new strategy that communicates resolve and shines a far brighter light -- and less subtle, nuanced one -- on the implications of the Republican party's complete abandonment of its historical reputation as a fiscally-responsible advocate of balanced budgets and proud public service.
That's my take and I'm sticking to it. What did the rest of you think?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I would give President Obama a C- in the state of the union address. I felt he took advantage of the situation, calling out Republicans, and even the Supreme Court. This may be great for Democrats that wanted a “tough-guy” image from Obama in response to last week’s election in Massachusetts, but his defensive nature only legitimized the Democrats concerns about the lack of Republican cooperation Democrats can expect in the future.
ReplyDeleteI also questioned his tactics on blaming the previous administration for the problems his administration inherited a year ago. Last year at this time would have been the appropriate time to play this card, but using this excuse now, only shows a level of ignorance on his part.
Americans want the economy fixed, and playing the blame game works when one immediately takes over. Instead, I got the impression that Obama got caught up in his own hype last year and thought his unheard of popularity would automatically fix the economy, and he could reform health care with little to no opposition, but now realizes this wasn’t possible so now he has to blame the Bush Administration.
I don’t think this is going to generate much sympathy among the public, and instead many are going to question if he did anything productive his first year, or if he merely came to the conclusion that things were too hard and the change he promised was just too unobtainable.
I understand Obama needed to be on the offensive, even challenging Republicans, as Democrats are on their heels after Scott Brown got elected, but Democrats also need to promote cooperation, and his partisan stance in the address goes against what he promised in the campaign season and what the US needs right now to fix the economy.
I also heard a lot of people praising the confidence he displayed. To be honest, it reminded me of the polarizing cockiness that was present in the White House from 2001-2009. He pretty much said, we have a big majority in the House, we still have a majority in the Senate, and we are going to do what we want, although he sarcastically bothered to offer to hear suggestions from Republicans on health care reform.
One last thing while on health care, I was disappointed he all but abandoned health care reform. He manipulated his popularity to advance health care in his first year, when he should have been focusing on jobs in the first place. Many presidents use their first year to try to build off of the momentum from an election, but Obama was suppose to be a different type of President, more interested in people than politics.
People needed jobs last year, but even Obama got caught up in his hype and put this on the backburner until it became clear his health care revolution was unrealistic. Instead of seeing a new and improved Obama, I see a president hanging for his political life, regretting the past, and uncertain of the future.
Well, Obama spoke to a disunited United States. It was evident in the chamber where the GOPers were mere bystanders to mostly matters at the core of their party. But all the same, the first African American President gave a good speech, earning my B+. Whether he received but partial applause on the many issues he pointed out, doesn’t matter; the signs of the times read bad and this is not the time for accolades but action.
ReplyDeleteYes and as he spoke, I was bought to believe that Mr. Obama was charged for some action. His choice of words, the body language and the mode of delivery was so inviting to an American family sitting back at home watching the televised State of the Union address. It brought with it hope of a man whose promises would be there the following morning. And this is good coming from a president at a time when the state of the United States is fractured.
Besides giving hope, Obama rallied Americans to his court by reminding them of their role. In chastising Congress and slamming it for its ineptitude towards legislation, Mr. Obama was simply pointing to the Ameican public where the problem perhaps lies and calling on them to hold those men and women accountable at all times. He told members of Congress to address issues of Americans rather than choose the safety of the hills. This served well in subduing the Republicans who have been out to oppose his efforts more so on health-care.
Obama’s emphasis on jobs, was a prologue to retracing his lost path to the populist fold. As a person whose mother once relied on food stamps he must have been acutely reminded that Americans need money in their pockets and that hurting families had stretched their patience beyond limits waiting for jobs that were not forthcoming. It was time to act and some of his proposal made economic sense towards job creation. For instance, a program to increase lending to community banks and expand the country’s export base would bring more jobs near home.
But, as an Internationalist, I must say Obama’s foreign policy remained shrouded in mystery in his address. His promise to pull out of Iraq by year’s end sounded vague and he was so far from categorical on how he plans to deal with new insurgencies from countries that feed on terror-philosophy. If anything, a black kid with a funny seems to have zero agenda for Africa!