What I Loved (And Didn’t) About Obama’s Inaugural Address

[Time for change]

Overall, I was quite pleased with Obama’s speech. I’d rate it a B+. That’s pretty damn good because in order for me to rate it any higher, he would have had to say some very controversial things that would have risked getting his Presidency off to a shaky start.

I’m not terribly concerned about the parts of his speech that I reacted negatively to, since they were pretty much expected, and perhaps somewhat necessary from a political standpoint. I’ll start with what I considered the negative parts of his speech:

Tough talk against terrorism

We will not apologize for our way of life… and for those who seek to advance their aims by inducing terror and slaughtering innocents, we say to you now that our spirit is stronger and cannot be broken; you cannot outlast us, and we will defeat you.

I think that no U.S. President could be expected to leave out tough talk against terrorism from his inaugural address. Nevertheless, I’m sickened by that kind of talk, given that our country is by far the biggest purveyor of terrorism in the world. Since the 9/11 attacks on our country that killed about 3,000 American citizens and spawned George Bush’s endless war, we have responded by killing hundreds of times that many people, with no regard to their guilt or innocence. Therefore, as far as I’m concerned, this kind of talk is blatant hypocrisy when spoken without acknowledging our own role in terror and the slaughtering of innocents.

Too much mention of God
Though Obama’s speech did contain some admirable advocacy of religious tolerance, I nevertheless felt that his frequent mentioning of God was slightly inappropriate for an inaugural address in a nation where the separation of church and state is one of its most valued features.

I suppose it’s politically necessary, or at least useful to do that, and it can also be partially excused on the basis of Obama’s own personal beliefs. But still, I think it sends the wrong message.

Praise for George W. Bush

I thank President Bush for his service to our nation.

Oh, please! Service? Oh well, another one of those politically necessary statements. At least he mercifully kept it brief, without going into any specifics – which would have required outright lying.

Stifling of criticism

On this day, we come to proclaim an end to the petty grievances… the recriminations… that for far too long have strangled our politics….the time has come to set aside childish things.

It’s possible that I would not have reacted negatively to that statement had I not previously been quite disappointed by what I see as Obama’s excessive tendency towards “bipartisanship”.

Who could be against “petty grievances” or “strangled politics”? But the fact of the matter is that our nation has tons of very serious grievances that many millions of our citizens are hungering to see addressed. Let’s just say that I don’t know what Obama meant by the “petty grievances” that he referred to in his speech. But if he intended that phrase to include the war crimes of the past administration, then I will find that statement to be very upsetting.


PARTS OF OBAMA’S SPEECH THAT I LOVED

Tribute to our Constitution and the rule of law as the foundation of our society

America has carried on not simply because of the skill or vision of those in high office, but because we the people have remained faithful to the ideals of our forebears, and true to our founding documents. So it has been. So it must be with this generation of Americans…

This statement is a flat out acknowledgement of the necessity of faithful adherence to our Constitution in order to preserve the promise of our nation.

And those of us who manage the public's dollars will be held to account…because only then can we restore the vital trust between a people and their government…

Am I being too hopeful in hoping that this statement could contain a hint that President Obama will allow the prosecution of the previous administration for their many crimes against the American people and our Constitution? If that’s not what he means by this, then he shouldn’t have said it, because it has no meaning, and it’s a lie.

As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals. Our founding fathers, faced with perils we can scarcely imagine, drafted a charter to assure the rule of law and the rights of man, a charter expanded by the blood of generations. Those ideals still light the world, and we will not give them up for expedience's sake.

This statement is a flat out rejection of the shredding of our Constitution by the Bush/Cheney administration, and a solid indication that President Obama intends to repair the damage. Let us hope that that includes the intention to hold the Bush administration accountable for their crimes.


Tribute to our Declaration of Independence as the foundation of our moral values

The time has come to reaffirm our enduring spirit… to carry forward that precious gift, that noble idea, passed on from generation to generation: the God-given promise that all are equal, all are free and all deserve a chance to pursue their full measure of happiness.

This is an idea that has been totally rejected for the past 8 years. Obama became more specific (and serious) about this philosophy with the following statement:

The success of our economy has always depended not just on the size of our gross domestic product, but on the reach of our prosperity; on our ability to extend opportunity to every willing heart – not out of charity, but because it is the surest route to our common good.

Acknowledgement of the importance of government to achieve the promise of our nation

The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works – whether it helps families find jobs at a decent wage, care they can afford, a retirement that is dignified. Where the answer is yes, we intend to move forward. Where the answer is no, programs will end.

This is a direct refutation of the utterly stupid and false philosophy that held sway for more than a generation, beginning in 1980 with the election of Ronald Reagan, and which is known as the Reagan Revolution. Obama’s statement is also a great improvement over President Clinton’s statement, “The era of big government is over”, which was a partial and unnecessary surrender to the propaganda of the Reagan Revolution. Let us hope that President Obama is able to put an end to those stupid ideas for at least as long as the half century which FDR’s New Deal did. Obama also gave evidence of his belief in the positive role of government through other statements in his speech:

For everywhere we look, there is work to be done. The state of the economy calls for action, bold and swift, and we will act – not only to create new jobs, but to lay a new foundation for growth. We will build the roads and bridges… and wield technology's wonders to raise health care's quality and lower its cost…. And we will transform our schools and colleges and universities to meet the demands of a new age…

Commitment to world peace

Recall that earlier generations faced down fascism and communism not just with missiles and tanks, but with sturdy alliances and enduring convictions. They understood that our power alone cannot protect us, nor does it entitle us to do as we please. Instead, they knew that our power grows through its prudent use; our security emanates from the justness of our cause, the force of our example, the tempering qualities of humility and restraint….

We can meet those new threats that demand even greater effort – even greater cooperation and understanding between nations. We will begin to responsibly leave Iraq to its people, and forge a hard-earned peace in Afghanistan. With old friends and former foes, we will work tirelessly to lessen the nuclear threat…

As the world grows smaller, our common humanity shall reveal itself; and that America must play its role in ushering in a new era of peace.

Wow! What a 180 degree turn from the past 8 years. With these statements, Obama affirmed the importance of adherence to international law, his intentions to give up our imperial ambitions in Iraq, and even (possibly) his intention to seek peace in Afghanistan, rather than to escalate our war there, which many of us inferred from his earlier statements.


Religious and racial tolerance

We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus – and non-believers. We are shaped by every language and culture… and because we have tasted the bitter swill of civil war and segregation, and emerged from that dark chapter stronger and more united, we cannot help but believe that the old hatreds shall someday pass; that the lines of tribe shall soon dissolve… To the Muslim world, we seek a new way forward, based on mutual interest and mutual respect.

That sounds to me pretty much like a rejections of the Christian Right’s idea of a Christian nation. Obama’s inclusion of Muslims in his statement is especially important, and even courageous, given the contempt in which Muslims are held today by a large minority of Americans.


The need to reign in unbridled greed

As a result of the Reagan/Bush/Bush economic policies, we have now reached record levels of economic inequality, which many believe are responsible for our current severe recession. Obama’s speech fully recognized the role of government policies in creating these conditions, as well as the role of government in getting us back on track:

Our economy is badly weakened, a consequence of greed and irresponsibility on the part of some, but also our collective failure to make hard choices and prepare the nation for a new age. Homes have been lost; jobs shed; businesses shuttered. Our health care is too costly; our schools fail too many…

But our time of standing pat, of protecting narrow interests and putting off unpleasant decisions – that time has surely passed…

This crisis has reminded us that without a watchful eye, the market can spin out of control – and that a nation cannot prosper long when it favors only the prosperous.

Acknowledgement of our over-consumption and the need to contribute to a sustainable world

We will restore science to its rightful place…

Each day brings further evidence that the ways we use energy strengthen our adversaries and threaten our planet. These are the indicators of crisis, subject to data and statistics…

Nor can we consume the world's resources without regard to effect. For the world has changed, and we must change with it…

We will harness the sun and the winds and the soil to fuel our cars and run our factories… and roll back the specter of a warming planet.

Can there be any doubt that President Obama intends to join the Kyoto protocol and to work with the other nations of the world to create a sustainable planet?


Commitment to play an active role in the community of nations

And so to all other peoples and governments who are watching today, from the grandest capitals to the small village where my father was born: know that America is a friend of each nation and every man, woman, and child who seeks a future of peace and dignity, and that we are ready to lead once more…

To the people of poor nations, we pledge to work alongside you to make your farms flourish and let clean waters flow; to nourish starved bodies and feed hungry minds.
And to those nations like ours that enjoy relative plenty, we say we can no longer afford indifference to suffering outside our borders…

With these statements, Obama not only confirmed his commitment to reverse course from a rogue terrorist nation to a law-abiding active participant in the community of nations, but also acknowledged that this will represent a major change from the past 8 years. And he even hinted that, like Jimmy Carter, he just might cease the long-standing U.S. policy of helping out friendly tyrants as co-conspirators in our efforts to plunder other nations:

To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history; but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist.

Recognition that Americans must be prepared to play an active and difficult role

This reminds me of John F. Kennedy’s “Ask not what your country can do for you…” speech:

Starting today, we must pick ourselves up, dust ourselves off, and begin again the work of remaking America…

What is required of us now is a new era of responsibility – a recognition, on the part of every American, that we have duties to ourselves, our nation, and the world, duties that we do not grudgingly accept but rather seize gladly, firm in the knowledge that there is nothing so satisfying to the spirit, so defining of our character, than giving our all to a difficult task… This is the price and the promise of citizenship…

And most important, a little bit of humility

In reaffirming the greatness of our nation, we understand that greatness is never a given. It must be earned…

What a world of difference from George W. Bush!

That statement by Obama reminds me of a quote I recently read about the difference between right wing (false) patriotism and liberal (real) patriotism. I can’t find the exact quote, but the essence of it is this: The one type of patriotism maintains that one’s country is “great”, no matter what it does. The other type is much more concerned with helping one’s country to become great than with merely proclaiming its greatness to be a self-evident fact.

I will add that the greatness of a country should be measured by how it benefits its people and the rest of humanity, rather than by how much it bullies them.

If Obama’s inaugural address turns out to be a good indication of how he governs, we should have a very good 8 years in front of us.

[ananda]

1. I think of Obama's speech..

.. as the most powerful, intelligent,
and charismatic speech since JFK's.

JFK -- A plus

Obama - A

[LynnTheDem]

2. Dontcha hate when someone posts an "I agree"?

But hey, I agree with you. A very well-thought out and well-typed OP.

[Time for change]

35. No, I don't hate it at all.

I like it when people agree with me. Thank you.

[K Gardner]

3. Excellent as usual, TfC. Bookmarking. Thanks again.

[Time for change]

33. Thank you very much

[anonymous171]

4. Basically, the era of shitty government is over.

That's what I got out of it.

[Peace Patriot]

5. Excellent analysis! You caught a lot of the nuances. I was particularly struck by

how much implied criticism there was of the Bush junta--like maybe Obama may be seething a bit, beneath that smooth, calm exterior, and feels some kinship with most Americans, many of whom are more open about their disgust and rage at this evil regime.

There was one propagandistic lie in this speech. It really jumped out at me, when he said it, and it is this:

"Recall that earlier generations faced down fascism and communism not just with missiles and tanks, but with sturdy alliances and enduring convictions. They understood that our power alone cannot protect us, nor does it entitle us to do as we please. Instead, they knew that our power grows through its prudent use; our security emanates from the justness of our cause, the force of our example, the tempering qualities of humility and restraint…."

There was never a bigger pack of lies thrown at the American people than the lies about communism and the Vietnam War. TWO MILLION people in Southeast Asia, and over 55,000 U.S. soldiers, died horrible deaths, because of that goddamn lie. The truth is that the U.S. nixed democratic elections in Vietnam--which Ho Chi Minh would have won--and the CIA created a war that never should have been.

"Faced down communism," my ass. It was a war profiteer project from start to finish. The "justness of our cause," my ass! There has never been a more unjust cause!

This young president was an infant and young child during the Vietnam War, and doesn't remember those stinking lies, and that bloody-awful carnage in the 'cause' of "anti-communism." Or he wouldn't be able to say this, "our security emanates from the justness of our cause" in relation to the Cold War and the dreadful U.S. aggression connected to it. TWO HUNDRED THOUSAND Mayan villagers slaughtered in Guatemala, with Reagan's direct complicity, in the 1980s, in the name of "anti-communism." Tens of thousands more slaughtered in Nicaragua, in El Salvador, in Chile, in Argentina, in African countries--in addition to the ten-year atrocity that was Vietnam.

We had NO JUST CAUSE--none!--to slaughter all those innocent people, some in unbelievably horrible ways, who only wanted social justice and self-determination.

I found this item in his speech remarkably off-base, inaccurate and offensive. It surprised me, since he is known to be a reader of history. The Vietnam War was also when the U.S. presidency began to go very, very wrong on presidential war powers. It was the beginning of the wreckage of our Constitution that we have seen so blatantly furthered under the Bush junta. 'Communism' was a shibboleth, a bogeyman, a scapegoat and a war profiteering necessity. 'Anti-communism' was not a "just cause." It was a horrible lie!

The rest of the speech had some very fine statements in it--recognition of just how battered our country is, and a heartening expression of faith that we can pull out of this nosedive. I thought his line, "our patchwork culture is our strength," and other sentiments, such as "the false choice between our safety and our ideals" were both brave and well-said. It wasn't a great speech, though. I think he needs a Ted Sorensen to start writing his speeches. A president just can't do it himself. He has too much heavy responsibility, and lives in too much of a 'bubble' (even as PE).

[ro1942]

6. speech

on god, the fact that religious people think that they know what appends when you die is a problem for me. the native Americans call it the great mystery and i believe it is. plus the belief that god looks after one nation and not another. when are we going to accept that your foreign policies are the reason for terrorism. thanks for your post very good points.

[bertman]

10. Peace Patriot, I took Obama's allusion to facing down communism as more of a generic

description than a specific reference to Vietnam. If he had said "facing down communism in Vietnam" I would agree with you. However, I think he was accurate in describing the U.S. and its allies' stand against communism in Europe and Asia as worth the fighting for. North Korea and West Germany come to mind. I don't think the Czecks, Hungarians, Rumanians, Poles, etc. would find your argument very persuasive.

Your description of the horrible and unnecessary waste of human life and resources in the Vietnam war are totally accurate, as are the atrocities committed in the name of anti-communism (actually in favor of corporatism) in Central and South America.

[Time for change]

24. Thank you Peace Patriot -- I hadn't consciously considered the idea that Obama was

seething beneath the surface about the Bush/Cheney regime, but now that you mention it, it does make sense in the context of his speech. There was indeed a great deal of implied criticism, at least that's the way it seemed to me. And I hope you're right about the seething.

I completely agree with you about the Vietnam War, as you may know. In fact I wrote about the tragedy of our long anti-Communism/Socialism crusade in another post:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x834963

But I hadn't picked up on that statement the way that you did. I was focused more on the "power alone cannot protect us" and "humility and restraint" part, which is quite an improvement over the past 8 years.

The Communism thing is another one of those things that our politicians are rarely willing to go out on a limb for. I would certainly think that Obama knows enough history to know that we were completely in the wrong regarding our war in Vietnam. But of course, the phrase "faced down Communism" is very broad, and notwithstanding the many tragic excesses of our Cold War activities, there was a point early in the Cold War, especially when Stalin was in charge, when it was reasonable to fear that the USSR posed a very serious military threat to us and the world, even on the order of Hitler. So, one could make the excuse that that was what Obama was referring to (to give him a large benefit of the doubt). But, had I thought of that before I posted my OP, I probably would have listed that as another negative aspect of his speech (though maybe not, since the Cold War is nearly two decades in the past).

[Peace Patriot]

53. I urge you to read "JFK and the Unspeakable: Why he died and why it matters,"

by James Douglass, recently published by the Maryknoll fathers. (Douglass is a Catholic Worker--radical "liberation theology" type Catholic.)

There has been so much blood spilt, and torture and oppression inflicted, in the name of "anti-communism," with quite direct connections to the Horrors just departed, and having just read the case for John F. Kennedy's determination to END the Cold War, then and there, in 1964--a very compelling case, indeed--this Obama reference to "communism" and "our just cause" was like a raw wound being scraped. I have no tolerance for it any more. The fuckwad war profiteers in the CIA and the "military-industrial complex" deliberately PROLONGED the Cold War into the 1980s. There needn't have been a "Cold War" at all, if Douglass is correct--and I think he is, and he thoroughly backs it up with very current research--if there hadn't be SO MUCH MONEY to be made by demonizing communism--an economic system that vast populations of extremely poor people turned to out of desperation. Stalin died in 1953. Ten years later, after facing Armageddon during the Cuban Missile Crisis, JFK opened a backchannel to Krushchev--a moderate leader who was no tyrant--and tried to END it, and was making very good progress on the goal, starting with the first Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (with only his brother Robert really behind him), when he was assassinated by our own secret government, which had laid a trail from Oswald to Russia and Cuba, in order to blame them and trigger WW III*, which they thought they could win. They were willing to sacrifice a third of the U.S. population to do so. That is how insane the anti-communists in our own government were.

The Berlin Wall would have come down. The doors would have been opened. And our "military-industrial complex" would have lost their reason to rob us blind for generations to come (and counting). It would have all happened two decades earlier.

That's the story Douglass tells (along with awesome research on the assassination itself), and it is one that we all need to know, given the out-of-control "military-industrial complex" of today. The fact that Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld had the biggest military in the world at their fingertips, to conduct a corporate resource war, is directly related to the bogeyman of 'communism' back in the 1960s-1980s. What is this aggressive war machine for? It is a standing temptation to fascists and tyrants. And we are not out of the woods yet, on Armageddon.

Anyway, Obama tossing "communism" in there--as if that had been a "just cause"--riled me, even though I understand better than ever, after reading Douglass' book, why he feels compelled to say things like that, and what dangers a U.S. president with peaceful intentions has to deal with. I just want the record to be set straight, for future generations. I want people to know that pregnant women had their babies torn out of their wombs, and were skinned alive in front of their families, in Guatemalan villages, in the 1980s, with Reagan's direct complicity, on suspicion that they were 'communists.' Two-hundred thousand villagers--men, women and many, many children--died horrible deaths to serve our corporate masters and war profiteers. It is not a thing that I can regard as idle political pandering. That is what the "fight" against "communism" was--horror after horror, inflicted on innocent people. It had nothing to do with "freeing" Russians or eastern Europeans. In any case, they are not "free" today--they are overrun with gangsters and fascist tyrants. At least, under communism, they all had decent jobs, food on the table and shelter from the cold. Was it worth it, to set the Bush gang up for their oil war? I don't think so. Our military budget is nuts. A democracy becoming the Roman Empire is nuts. And it is all traceable back to the peace treaty that wasn't, in 1964.

--------------

*(How we avoided the Armageddon that the CIA had set up, post-assassination, is an eye-opener. LBJ (who opposed nuking Russia for the same reason that Kennedy did--the unthinkable casualties) was apprised, shortly after the assassination, that the CIA had laid the trail to Russia and Cuba, and why they had done so--to start a nuclear war--and ordered the really blatant coverup of details of the assassination, in order to, a) cover for the CIA (not have the country in rebellion), but also to, b) prevent being cornered into retaliation and triggering a nuclear war with Russia. This is well documented by Douglass. Two days after the assassination, LBJ reversed all of Kennedy's directives that were aimed at a U.S. withdrawal from Vietnam, with the words, "Now they can have their war." (--"they" being the CIA, the generals and the "military-industrial complex.") "Anti-communism" was a concoction of the war profiteers. The bloody irony, of course, is that 2 million Southeast Asians died, as a tradeoff for 30 million Americans and even more Russians, and very likely, the entire planet and all of its people (given what we now know about even a limited nuclear exchange). Bitter, bloody irony that should have never been, that should never be, and that we seem unable to prevent.)

[Time for change]

55. It sounds like a book well worth reading -- Thank you

[slipslidingaway]

7. K&R thanks n/t

[bertman]

8. Recommend. I share your concerns and your hopes as stated. Excellent post.

[Time for change]

38. Thank you -- We should have a much better idea of how our concerns will be addressed in a month or 2

[MadMaddie]

9. The fact that he could speak a complete and coherant sentence

is a huge improvement over the last 8 years.

We know he won't embarrass us in front of world leaders. We know he won't make unnecessary confrontational statement that do nothing more than incite the idiots in the world...

All in all it was a good speech!

[PinkyisBlue]

49. Ha ha, you're right. It was nice to hear a President who speaks with intelligence and dignity.

After eight years of listening to the buffoon, I bet a lot of Americans would rather have had that beer with Al Gore after all.

I appreciate that President Obama didn't roll up his sleeves and talk about the "hard work" ahead of us.

[avaistheone1]

11. Good speech.

:kick:

[il_lilac]

12. you captured it beautifully

right down to the nuances- I gave it an A tho for the inspiration

[TeamJordan23]

13. I would have liked a reference to MLK. nm

[Uzybone]

14. The "petty grieviances" part is boiler pate for Obama

he has talked about the partisan quibbling that accomplishes nothing ever since he entered politics. To say he may be referring to prosecuting war crimes is a hell of a stretch.

When I hear Obama talk about petty grievances and strangled politics, I think about Terry Schaivo and government shutdowns and Clinton impeachment. How you could come up with stifling criticism ifs a bit weird. Obama has never been one to stifle criticism.

Apart from that you have a fine post which I mostly agree with.

[Time for change]

16. What was mostly on my mind when I said that was

his past talk that gives the impression that he is unlikely to prosecute Bush administration war crimes -- especially as when he says in response to questions on that subject, something to the effect... "However, it is important to look towards the future".

I don't know, with respect to his reference to "petty grievances" in his speech today, whether he had the Bush war crimes in mind or not. But when he gives any hint that he is unlikely to pursue them because it is important to look towards the future, I feel that he is greatly minimizing their importance, and I find that very upsetting.

[Holton]

21. I took it as a signal that way, too.

Looking at the fact that Bush was unimpeachable; and in the Bush family history, how the idea of criminal charges against him and his brother for their financial shenanigans just didn't come up -- I'm thinking Obama would prefer to stay with the crowd, and NOT look behind that curtain...

[MadMaddie]

50. I think that once the crimes start getting revealed there will be

no choice but to prosecute!

[Time for change]

52. I sure do hope you're right about that

[Hippo_Tron]

58. I think of Saxby Chambliss running the ads that he did against Max Cleland in 2002

And how most Democrats, myself included, will hold a grudge against Chambliss because of that no matter what he does or doesn't do during his time as a US Senator. Obama believes that such things should be left in the past which means that he's a bigger man than I am. I am partisan and I do indeed hold grudges against Republicans. But I'm glad Obama doesn't feel the need to do that. That's what he pays Rahm for, anyway.

[leftofthedial]

15. he echoed Douglass (generational responsibility, gifts of forefathers)

and King (equality, civil rights)

I was totally gawd-weary about a third of the way through, but all-in-all a good speech.

I look forward with great interest to his first 100 days.

[DFW]

17. I'm just amazed that Bush made it to his helicopter alive

With all the barbs Obama stuck in him in that speech, it's
a wonder Bush didn't bleed to death before he made it halfway.

[roody]

18. God Schmod. Dog bless the whole world.

Otherwise, good speech.

[defendandprotect]

19. Agree --- BTW . . . has Obama picked anyone for UN yet? Carter, maybe????

GOP has been working for decades to destroy UN --

We need to strengthen it --

[Time for change]

40. I don't know -- I would love it if he picked Carter, but I don't think he will

We certainly do need to strengthen the UN. We need to strengthen it so much that it won't allow any more wars for profit.

[defendandprotect]

41. I'm amazed that even at this late date in its destruction that the

Secretary Generals -- while not really effective -- have tried to speak out in

truth -- especially re Israel.

The GOP at one point in their rising voted to tell the UN to get out of NYC-!!!

Bolton I'm sure was wiring the place for demolition while he was there --- !!!

So -- I'm really amazed that anything of the spirit which led to the United Nations

still exists there!! PEACE -- HUMAN RIGHTS --


I'm also sure they did kill Dag Hammarskjold ---

and that political violence in America and vote stealing in America has been all that

has permitted the right wing takeover!

The opportunities that existed after WWII to create peace, I fear have been destroyed.

[Time for change]

44. Not destroyed -- Just severely repressed

The drive of the human soul for truth and peace will never be destroyed. It is a small minority that are mostly responsible for the repression. The rest of us need to wise up and figure out how to defeat them.

[defendandprotect]

56. Agree with you completely . . .

though much damage has been done -- Gaza!!!

Isn't the question how we control the violent among us -- ???

Or is there another question that leads to the answer we're looking for -- ???

An old favorite movie of my is "The Day The Earth Stood Still" --- sci/fi

Aliens visiting earth -- they have robotic like response to any aggressor.

I think it was some kind of a machine!

[Uzybone]

43. Susan Rice is UN Ambassador

unless you are talking about another position.

[PurityOfEssence]

20. Waaaay too much God; other points, in order:

If we're going to continually present ourselves to the world as motivated by God (MEN and WOMEN came up with the concept of equality and forced it on people, it was MORTALS who did this) then it's going to be very difficult to deal with the Muslim World as Obama claims. If we're talking from a humanist stance, we have a chance, but if it springs from "our" version of God, there's going to be insurmountable resistance.

If you truly think he's going to prosecute the Bushies, then I hope you channel your disappointment constructively. You're smart, insightful and decent, and I don't want this to cause you too much pain. Perhaps he'll duck it and allow Congress to make some moves, but I sincerely think he'll stay out of it himself and work to quash it behind the scenes. I see him, once again, trying to please everyone, but with a clear intention to NOT prosecute. Stay tuned.

Many people seem to think that his too big or too small line about government signals an end to Reaganitis, but I hear the "programs will end" a little louder. If effectiveness is the overriding metric, then I'll be very pleased, but this is a classic bit of triangulating appeasement, throwing raw meat to the gummint-haters while soothing the lefties. This is a red herring in my book; what's important is REGULATION. At least he calls for transparency, which is its kissing cousin, so there's hope here. We shall see.

We're escalating Afghanistan. Why there's confusion about this is amazing; he's literally said it and has been doing so for a year. He's got something to prove, and he's stubbornly on the wrong track here. I predict that, in consistent fashion, he will increase the involvement just enough so it's not seen as a crazy and full-blown war, but enough to please the reactionaries and supposedly impress the Islamists. If there's one thing where candy-ass "third-wayism" doesn't do well, it's war. The APPEARANCE of the action and level of involvement will be so important to them that it will repeatedly trump strategic sense. Also, since nobody seems to mention it, it's an idiotic and unwinnable proposition, even IF some description of "victory" could be made, and even if it HAS been imagined in any but the vaguest, airy terms.

Much as religious inclusiveness is nice, and the mention of us non-believers is not to be dismissed, and I truly appreciate it. Nevertheless, I have to say it again: the more he continually lards his speech with God talk, the more resistance he'll get from the Muslim World.

The repeated praise of science recently and here is the most reassuring thing I've heard from this group, and I don't take that lightly. It shows some humility and willingness to accept reality and coexist.

I didn't comment on most of what you've written because we're largely in accord. Thank you very much for such a well thought-out and meticulous analysis; much of the appeal of this candidacy has been emotional, and harsh reality is about to smack us all hard in the face. I hope I'm wrong in my skepticism of their willingness to take an obvious stand for or against certain things and their seeming need to curry such endless favor with the reactionaries, but at least he's smart, engaged and has a heart.

Once again, thank you for the good work.

[Brucie Kibbutz]

26. enjoyed reading your analysis

Thanks for taking the time to write it and post it here. K&R

[Brucie Kibbutz]

27. lol sorry

I meant that for the OP, not that I didn't like your post, too. lol :crazy:

[Time for change]

45. My pleasure, thank you.

[Uzybone]

28. the more he continually lards his speech with God talk, the more resistance from the Muslim world"

You know little about the Muslim world then. They talk more about God than any American politician. As long as he doesn't go all Jesus in his speeches, thats the last thing Muslims are worried about.

[PurityOfEssence]

39. That goes both ways; I completely disagree

The argument that resistance to any Muslim nation or its policies is in reality a crusade against Islam is a very old one that's used by Muslim extremists. The more our government is identified as a religiously-driven one, the more ammunition they have to claim that we're fighting their faith.

Not only is this an old problem it's a problem that the United States has specifically addressed by treaty, as seen in the 1797 treaty with the Bey of Tripoli when they were using the excuse of us being Christian thugs out to destroy their faith when they were actually being fought for seizing our shipping as pirates. Here's article 11 from that treaty:

"Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."

This was negotiated in the Washington Administration and signed under Adams', with a unanimous vote in the Senate. We should listen to our founders; they REALLY understood the extreme danger of religion in government.

One of the big problems with Islam is that there's no real tradition of secularism in government; the faith is a rapacious proselytizing one that expects abject fealty from all under its sway. Although lip service is paid to getting along with other religions, their's something wrong with them in the eyes of the faithful.

For us to portray ourselves as godly is going to be a mixed blessing with them, but the more we identify ourselves as driven by our version of this God guy, the more excuse they'll have to excoriate us as infidels and out to destroy their religion. If you think this won't be used, I think you need to think again. One of the hallmarks of religion is that it doesn't play fair. It doesn't have to; it's right and everything else is WRONG.

If they're approached from the vantage of sensible and logical policy, there will be no excuse to brand us as infidels and Jews and Christian Crusaders on a bloodthirsty quest to crush them.

[Time for change]

42. I see that we agree on a great deal

I WILL be disappointed if he doesn't prosecute the Bushies, even though I don't think he will. I'll try to channel it as constructively as I can, but that doesn't me that I'll hold my tongue in check.

I too felt a little uneasy about the idea of ending programs. But it's pretty hard to argue about ending problems that don't work. I hope that's what he really meant, rather than it being an effort at triangulation.

I have always hoped that his tough talk about Afghanistan was just part of his effort to win the election. But it's hard to reverse course. Hopefully he is intelligent enough to see that escalating into a large scale guerilla war in Afghanistan is not going to help his chances for a second term or help our country.

Though I didn't like his frequent references to God, I thought that the part of his speech about religious tolerance made up for that.

I'm probably just a little bit more optimistic than you about him. After all, he was one of the few to originally oppose the war in Iraq.

He certainly is a masterful politician. It will be very interesting to see what happens.

[olegramps]

22. Seems to me that you found very little to be disappointed in.

I for one was very pleased concerning his statement about the petty grievances. This has been a Republican tactic that has been taken to the extreme by their "talk radio" propagandists and several members of congress. It has been totally counterproductive and he did much to discredit their continued use of this tactic.

The American people are damn sick of this crap that has resulted in the congress doing nothing constructive for eight tragic years. Bush and Cheney could only view the speech as a condemnation of their miserable administration whose massive failures were duly pointed out. I will give it a A+ for reaffirming that we must be guided by the Constitution and the rule of law.

[Time for change]

46. That is true

There was a lot more for me to feel positive about than negative.

[DainBramaged]

23. Can't we just be happy Obama is FINALLY the President and NOT nit-pick every word he speaks?

Oh wait, this is DU, nothing is accepted at face value.:eyes:

[Time for change]

29. I happen to think that the words he speaks are very important

Can't we offer opinions on a political discussion website without being criticized for "nit-picking"?

[PVnRT]

25. I don't get how that was "stifling criticism"

I think the intent of that statement was pretty clearly about putting aside nonsense like not wearing flag lapel pins and impeachment proceedings over a blow job.

[Time for change]

30. You may be right

But It's almost impossible to tell. The statement is very vague, so it's impossible to tell what he was referring to. That's not a criticism, as I realize that inaugural addresses, or any presidential speeches will contain vague references.

As I said in the OP, I consider all my criticisms in this OP to be minor, compared to the things that I loved about his speech.

Also as I said in the OP, my unease about that particular statement arises from previous statements of his advocating "bipartisanship" to an extent that makes me feel uncomfortable. In my opinion there are a lot of things for which "bipartisanship" is not warranted, and if he feels that that represents "petty grievances", then I feel uncomfortable about that. The most important of these, IMO, is the issue of prosecuting the Bush administration war crimes. Obama has indicated that, in the interest of "looking to the future", or in the interest of "bipartisanship", he may not pursue that. If so, and if he considers efforts to prosecute those crimes as representing "petty grievances", and if he says that, then I consider a statement like that to be stifling criticism. But I don't know that he would say that, and I don't know whether the statement in his speech about "petty grievances" applied to that. I surely hope not.

[Uzybone]

31. For petty grievances to not mean "petty grievances"

you are suggesting that either Obama doesn't understand the English language, or that he thinks we (the people) are very dumb. So far nothing he has done has shown me that he doesn't understand words or that he thinks we are stupid.

No one can seriously equate petty grievances with war crimes, torture, Abu Ghraib and the like. That is a ridiculous stretch.

Petty grievances are small non consequential issues that the GOP is famous for blowing out of proportion: flag lapels, lipstick on a pig, shutting down the government because Newt didn't get to sit on the plane, Terry Schaivo etc.

Sometimes its ok to take things at face value.

[Time for change]

47. I don't agree with that assessment

The more I think about it, the more I think that "petty grievance" is a very vague term. It is a term that is largely in the eye of the beholder. What one person believes is a petty grievance another person will consider a very serious grievance. The stuff that you list as petty grievances are all things that I agree are petty grievances. Maybe that's what Obama had in mind. But even within DU there is a good deal of disagreement over what constitutes a petty grievance versus a legitimate and serious one. So I don't see how anyone could say that it should be obvious to everyone.

And keep in mind that one of a politician's greatest tricks is to use words that mean one thing to one group of people and another thing to another group. The politician may not even think of it as a trick, it comes so unconsciously. When a politician uses words like that, without specifying what s/he has specifically in mind, the possibilities as to what the statement means are so wide that in my opinion the statement has very little meaning.

And I do believe that words like that, coming from a popular president, stifle dissent, because then when people want to air their grievances they're more likely to hold back for fear of being considered petty.

By my saying this, I don't mean at all to imply that he doesn't understand the English language or that he thinks the American people are dumb. But I personally do not think that it was one of the better parts of his speech.

[Lorien]

32. Overall it was a good speech.But I also winced at the "we will not apologize

for our way of life" line. Personally I don't like Obama telling the world that I or anyone else doesn't think that we should apologize for the absolute hell that we've put others through. Iraq, Afghanistamn, black ops, covert ops, environmental havoc, and everything listed in "confessions of an economic hit man"; it's honestly pretty horrific that we actually DO have a huge amount to apologize for. For those of us who do pay attention that line was fairly painful, and I truly hope that he was only throwing the Freepers a bone and doesn't actually believe it.

I was in the vet's office this morning and overheard two young female assistants talking about his speech. One was just gushing "I've always been a total die hard Republican, but that was a GREAT speech. It really made me feel empowered" she said. So it looks like the speech really struck a cord with it's intended audience!

[ro1942]

34. I'll apologize

I'd like to apologize for using 25% of the worlds energy by 4% Of it's population. I'd like to apologize for killing over one million people in the middle east. I'd like to apologize for everything our government did in south and central America. I could be here all day, you fill the rest in it's very long.

[Time for change]

48. Me too

Fortunately, his speech had enough good will towards other nations of the world to make up for that IMO. I do hope, as you say, that that part was just a bone to the RW.

Because as you say, indeed we DO have a lot to apologize for, and I don't think that our president does us any favors when he tries to hide that fact. But on the other hand, the political climate in our country is such that apologizing to other nations carries with it a very heavy political risk. Perhaps Jimmy Carter went further in admitting some of our major faults than any other modern-day president -- and he paid a heavy political price.

[defendandprotect]

57. Yep . .. and you can start with slavery and Native American genocide . . .

How would we ever begin to make amends for what this nation's corrupt/imperialistic

governments have done?

I also wondered if that line was being applied to our environmental issues -- our

exploitation of natural resources -- pollution -- destruction of the planet--!!!

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

36. Every One Of Your Criticisms I Found To Be Petty And Empty.

But I'm glad you went into much more detail as to what you did like.

[cooolandrew]

37. Randi said it best the best speech by a president in 8 years, which is important in itself.

[geckosfeet]

51. Govern schmovern. Just having a pres who can speak seems a huge step forward.

[Name removed]

54. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.