SUBSCRIBE NOW WELCOME BACK. Do you want to continue reading where you left off? New Republic subscribers can pick up where they left off no matter which device they were previously using. SUBSCRIBE NOW

Go Home Barack Obama's Speech: A Disappointing Hodgepodge

THE PLANK JANUARY 20, 2009

Barack Obama's Speech: A Disappointing Hodgepodge

Barack Obama has the makings of a great orator, but his
inaugural speech was not a great oration. It was well-delivered, but it
consisted of a hodgepodge of themes, injunctions, and applause lines that did
not speak directly to the crisis that the country faces.

The speech was unusually abstract. It lacked any reference
to people or situations in the present. Obama was most vivid in describing
moments long past--such as George Washington crossing the Delaware. Of course, an abstract speech can
have its use if it is the service of compelling argument. But the concepts, and
the argument on which the speech hung, were neither original nor compelling.

Part of the problem was that much of the argument was
implied; and what was implied did not ring true. Premise: America's
success in the past was based on people who "struggled and sacrificed and
worked." Conclusion: What we need now is a "new era of responsibility." What is
missing is a middle term, and what is implied is that the reason we are in
trouble now is because the present generation has acted irresponsibly. Is that
really at the heart of America's
difficulties at home or in the world? It has the ring of Biblical prophecy, but
not of truth.

There were subsidiary themes that seemed ill-suited to the
occasion. Obama returned to his earlier primary campaign oratory about politics
and partisanship. We need to end "the petty grievances and false promises, the
recriminations and worn-out dogmas that for far too long have strangled our
politics." Yes, fine, but again: Does that get at the problem now? Is Obama facing
partisan warfare? Is Washington
deeply divided? It may become so, but the evidence of the last month does not
suggest that this is a critical problem.

Obama did hit upon the nature of the challenges facing us,
but I don't think he had anything interesting to say about them. "Our nation is
at war against a far-reaching network of violence and hatred," he declared.
This strikes me as either boilerplate or an exaggeration of the danger posed by
al Qaeda. It is reminiscent of George W. Bush and his catch-all war on terror.
Obama and the country clearly face grave problems overseas; but they can't be
reduced to a "far-reaching network." The difficulty is more in their
multiplicity than in their individual gravity.

The economic crisis? "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."
Greed? Yes, but greed condoned and encouraged by government. Hard choices? What
does these refer to? Not enough retrofitting homes? Auto companies making the
wrong cars? Obama doesn't say. And I don't think he could have been specific
without revealing the shallowness of his diagnosis. I have my own view of what
went wrong, but that's not important. It's whether Obama put one across, or whether
he offered the semblance, but not the reality, of a diagnosis.

You can say, of course, that I am treating his speech as a
political argument, and not as a piece of oratory, but the problem is that it
existed in the netherworld between inspiring oratory and political argument. It
had intimations of both, but lived up to the promise of neither. I suspect
Obama chose this ambiguous course partly because of the difficulty of the
occasion. Argument requires pros and cons, truth and falsity, truth-tellers and
misleaders, but an inaugural speech is an instrument of national, and even
international, unification. Thus, some who might have actually qualified as
misleaders and villains (e.g. the greedy) make only a fleeting appearance,
while scorn is heaped upon others (the "cynics... who question the scale of
our ambition") who are inventions of the moment rather than real adversaries.
That's certainly understandable, but it didn't make for good oratory or
argument.

--John B. Judis

Be sure to read Eve Fairbanks' response, "John, You're Too Hard On Obama's Speech,"  Noam Scheiber's response, "Solid Themes, But No Style Points," and Marty Peretz's, "The Great Oration of Barack Obama."

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Show all 85 comments

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

85 comments

Leave it to the phony Lib Judis to plant the first treacherous kiss on the cheek of our new president...I thought the speech was eloquent, beautiful and indicative of a huge break with the idiocy and lawlessness of our cowboy ex-president!

I'm getting to the point that I might erase TNR off my bookmark bar, and I certainly won't be coming back for any more of JBB's pathetic dribblings....

Grow up John, join the rest of us in enjoying the glow of the moment and a new honest, decent and intelligent president, rather then attacking him immediately!

- wagonjak

January 20, 2009 at 2:34pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Great oratory is the _last_ thing we need now. Our leaders can't even decide upon a clear and simple diagnosis of the economic problem we're facing, let alone a coherent policy approach, let alone one that's susceptible to sweeping and uplifting perorations.

Case in point: per David Einhorn and Michael Lewis, in barely four months our government has pursued seven, yes, 7, different policy approaches toward the banking mess.

As to energy, Obama himself firmly supported one of the most disastrous and stupid policies, the ethanol boondoggle, that we've seen.

And then there are all these paradoxes, which have a way of mincemeat of rhetorical clarity. The nation desperately needs to de-leverage, and desperately needs a relaxation of credit.

We need stimulus-- and for a society built around the automobile, low gasoline prices are one of the most potent stimuli available-- and yet a rational energy policy requires conservation and less driving.

Congress is hell-bent on spending money on federal infrastructure projects, and yet it's the states that need the money now, and can spend it far more intelligently.

I could go on, but the point is that from its political leaders the nation needs to see rational, coherent movement, not dancing-- or, as poor crestfallen Rick Hertzberg out it on NPR today, post-speech, "singing."

- teplukhin2you

January 20, 2009 at 2:36pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I thought the speech got off to a very ropy start especially with "Our nation is at war, against a far-reaching network of violence and hatred" coming almost at the start of the second paragraph even before mention of economic crisis at home. There just seemed to be too many specific items that should have been left to the State of the Union.

Regardless, the importance of today lies not only in the inauguration of Barack Obama but also in the departure of George Bush.

- ndmackenzie

January 20, 2009 at 2:36pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Is Obama facing partisan warfare? Is Washington deeply divided?"

What a disingenuous question! You know full well the Republican right has its knives out for Obama.

- hueylong

January 20, 2009 at 2:41pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Holy shit!  NBC showed the wrong speech!  I totally missed the bad one!

- boneill

January 20, 2009 at 2:50pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I don't think I'll really know what to think about that speech until Joe the Plumber weighs in.

- WoodyBombay

January 20, 2009 at 2:53pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The speech was hugely reassuring for its refusal to veer into cloudland and lay out all kinds of false promises or BS about community service, etc. Obama knows that if we don't unlock the credit markets, we're facing a Japanese-style decade of stagnation. This isn't a moral challenge or one calling for heroics and soaring rhetorical calls to action. It's just fixing our broken banks, that's all.

After that, he needs to fix health care. That's more than enough desperately difficult, wonky policy grist for a dozen presidencies, let alone one.

Keep the rhetoric in its bottle, Obama, and continue to show us a serious, grown-up, nonideological approach to solving tough problems. You're off to great start. And keep pissing off ndmack in the bargain.

- teplukhin2you

January 20, 2009 at 2:54pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Huey - funny but it's now John Boehner and Charles Krauthammer who are delighted with Obama, and the lefties who have the knives out for him.

- teplukhin2you

January 20, 2009 at 2:58pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

My disagreements with the speech are only minor quibbles and critiques in an otherwise very good performance.  Judis is giving an important analysis over some of the speech's technical flaws, but goes over the top with a common pundit error:  "said speech somehow did not live up to whatever prescription that I, the wisest man around, deemed necessary for the politician to do."

Here's my prediction:  this speech will be a reference for historians matching the early record of the administration to the path charted out in the soaring inaugural.  Just as the beginnings of the Bush Doctrine were etched out in Bush's post-9/11 speech and his 2002 address at West Point, people only understood the full effect of the president's words when the policy was in place.

Team Obama does nothing this big without a plan.  Only with our new president, the policy put into place after the principles laid out in a speech will be to repair the damage done by Bush, and chart a course of change.  Obama's talk about facing down hard choices and calling on citizens to sacrifice is another piece in the platform he's about to put forward.

Judis, bless his heart, is getting caught up in small ball.

One last thought: this speech was perhaps the best delivered of Obama's career.  There were some very difficult and potentially tongue-twisting words and phrases that he just sailed through.  His cadence was near perfect and the inflection in his voice nuanced to convey more than the text implied.  All the more impressive a feat considering the pressure and extreme cold.

- fbacon2

January 20, 2009 at 3:02pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I really liked the whole George Washington reference, I thought it was wise.

The speech was not out to coddle anyone - or even to entertain, which I think is a fair critique.  

But that doesn't mean it wasn't inspirational. I sat up straighter as I listened, paid close attention.  He was speaking to the entire world, not the press, not historians, not speech writers. The world.  That seems like a tightrope walk.  It needed to have easily understood substance, a clarion call.  It didn't sing like some much of his work, but I heard him loud and clear.

My Mom said "Well, the President certainly just told everyone on earth to get up off our duffs and pitch in NOW, didn't he? Good for him."  

The speech had a serious, wake up and smell the coffee quality to it, also sort of an alpha dog vibe - he didn't mince words on torture which took some spine. William Bennet called the speech muscular, which sounds about right.

Very interesting.

- Wandreycer1

January 20, 2009 at 3:08pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

teplukhin2you writes:

-- And keep pissing off ndmack in the bargain.

I suspect Barack Obama is going to piss off teplukhin2you far more than he will piss me off. After all, unlike teplukhin2you, I didn't spend 2008 ranting and raving about Obama- with the emphasis on ranting and raving.

- ndmackenzie

January 20, 2009 at 3:08pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

tep, Judis is the only one I see pooh-poohing the speech.  Everyone else seems to like the fact that it told the hard facts.  I liked the fact that it started out by thanking Bush but then basically listed everything Bush did wrong.

- anonevent

January 20, 2009 at 3:13pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Nd, I pity you, I really do. Obama's refusal to allow even an inch of daylight between his and Bush's Israel policies must be agonizing for you.

No Springtime for Israel-haters, at least not for another four years. Even if Obama were opposed to Israel's war against Hamas, which he isn't, he's got far far bigger fish to fry these days. I seriously doubt we'll see any push for peace in Obamatime a la Clinton.

Again, nd, my condolences.

- teplukhin2you

January 20, 2009 at 3:19pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I only got to read it and it -read- pretty good.  I'm a cold fish, I'm more jonesing over the first batch of executive orders.

- Lymon1

January 20, 2009 at 3:21pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

What bacon said re Obama's flawless delivery. Exactly the right cadence, no slips, strong, confident, unhurried yet still focused. Even more impressive to speak that way when in frigid weather.

The man's off to a great start.

- teplukhin2you

January 20, 2009 at 3:21pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I think those on the right and left who find fault with Obama's speech are missing the audience he was addressing: it was the whole world, looking on by the billions, to take the new president's measure. He sounded some pretty important themes for them to mull over. I'm thining when he said American will lead again, he was talking to the EU, China, Russia and the UN, which may have some mistaken preconceptions about Obama's multilateralist tendancies. Or about America's willingness to play second-fiddle in the new world order. And when he talked about continuing the fight against terrorism, he was sending a message to another set of other players, possibly lulled by his campaign rhetoric into  imagining him to be another Jimmy Carter.

Berlin notwithstanding, this was Obama's maiden speech to a world that is looking for weaknesses. He didn't reveal any today that I noticed.  

- dkrieger

January 20, 2009 at 3:23pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

nonevent - "I liked the fact that it started out by thanking Bush but then basically listed everything Bush did wrong"

So why is he mimicking Bush's Iraq and Israel policies, retaining Bush's DefSec, refusing to commit to his erstwhile 16-month wothdrawal timetable? Re withdrawal, he didn't even mention a timeline, in fact changed gears and highlighted a "_responsible_ withdrawal."

I mean. look, either you're right and Krauthammer and Lieberman are wrong or v-v. All the evidence we have-- his words and, re. Israel, his refusal to utter any words-- indicates the latter.

- teplukhin2you

January 20, 2009 at 3:24pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Hmmmm.  Odd.  Judis and Hendrick Hertzberg disliked the speech.  The conservatives they interviewed on NPR thought it was great.

How very disconcerting to be in agreement with the latter, when usually it's the other way around.  Sorry, John and Rick, but the speech I heard was exactly what the occasion called for.  It was clear-eyed, eloquent and direct.  Wonderful.

- drdannyu

January 20, 2009 at 3:31pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Obama's talk about facing down hard choices and calling on citizens to sacrifice is another piece in the platform he's about to put forward."

I vividly recall his line about hard choices-- gladdened my heart to finally hear a US politician refusing to engage in the usual fibs 'n' fairytales-- but I don't recall the call for sacrifice. That seems like overkill. We're all 30% poorer, at least. My kid's public school is on the brink of closing. More layoffs are coming. What other sacrifices are required?

It would be better IMHO if the dialogue were framed in terms of _rationing_ rather than "sacrifice." Credit is de facto going to be rationed, so will health care. Rationing, at least in a democracy, implies a transparent process and an open debate. I believe that's the essence of what Obama's calling for.

- teplukhin2you

January 20, 2009 at 3:37pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Judis:

"Barack Obama has the makings of a great orator, but his inaugural speech was not a great oration. It was well-delivered, but..."

"...[blah blah blah blah blah blah]...

Noted.

- tomeg

January 20, 2009 at 3:40pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I think that policy specifics are game for the State of the Union speech, Jon.  Your concerns are valid to the extent that these are really some pressing issues, but the inauguration is all just some deeply symbolic fanfare.  Wait a week or two to see if the President (oh how I love not having to add the suffix "-elect"...) cannot get more wonk-y with his rhetoric.  For now, this was force with loose form, and I think it served its purpose.

- dylanposer

January 20, 2009 at 3:40pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

tep, glad to see you've returned to the original seat of the grime - tnr, that is, and its cerebrated mighty minions  ;-)

Tom G

- tomeg

January 20, 2009 at 3:50pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

dkrieger for post of the day. "this was Obama's maiden speech to a world that is looking for weaknesses. He didn't reveal any today that I noticed."

Bingo. The Russians, Ajad, Chavez et al are each watching the man like a hawk looking for prey. The man criticized Bush on torture and domestic issues but showed zero daylight between him  and Bush on Iraq or Afghanistan.

As to his outreach to the muslim world, this was weak and insipid. What came across far more powerfully was the refusal of everyone involved to mention the new president's middle name. After "George Walker Bush" and William Jefferson Clinton, George Herbert Walker Bush, James Earl Carter, Richard Milhous Nixon etc, hearing our new president referred to as just Barack Obama or even Barack H. Obama told Ajad, Putin et al that Obama's multiculti rhetoric means little.

"America's back", as Obama would say, and not about to take any sh*t from the world's gangsters and thugs.

- teplukhin2you

January 20, 2009 at 4:01pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Wow! From sneering at almost every single thing "Obambi" did in the late summer and fall to swooning over him like a teenage girl who saw a Jonas brother at the mall.

And who says Obama is not a miracle worker?

- WoodyBombay

January 20, 2009 at 4:03pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I don't have a whole lotta time but my instant analysis of the speech?  I was a little deflated. It sounded too much like his campaign speeches. I can't quite put my finger on it but I was expecting something different and a bit...oh I don't know...more...visionary perhaps.

a unifying theme that packaged the address. It wasn't bad...but it was hardly memorable. Granted, I watched it on a Board room live feed so there was some technical difficulty so I will watch a replay tonight at home but if I had to grade it, I would give it a C+.

- thejauntyboulevardier

January 20, 2009 at 4:04pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

In response to John B. Judis' post, " Barack Obama's Speech: A Disappointing Hodgepodge

- Anonymous

January 20, 2009 at 4:05pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

tomeg - I'm beginning to like this guy, Pres. Obama. He's not at all like candidate Obama.

"America's back, and ready to lead."

"Hard choices..."

Super. More like this pls.

- teplukhin2you

January 20, 2009 at 4:07pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Watching the Obama's walk up Pennsylvania Avenue, with the cheers literally deafening from crowds who have waited all day in the freezing cold, makes me realize that Obama's super-nova status, all over the world, is as powerful and useful a statement as anything he can actually say.

The speech was a warning, this walk through the parade route is a whole other language.

- Wandreycer1

January 20, 2009 at 4:13pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I am reassured by the way Obama emphasized that Islamist terrorism is a real threat and that defeating it is a goal of his administration.  He effectively repudiated the belief of the left wing of the Democratic Party that the terrorists can be appeased.

My hope is that Obama will be just as tough as Bush on national security, but that because he is a Democrat, and because he has the charm, the charisma and the communication skills that Bush lacked, he will meet with considerably less opposition as he seeks to defend our country and its allies.

- bulbman1066

January 20, 2009 at 4:15pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I took some time off today to watch B.O. getting sworn in and to listen to his speech and enjoy some of the hoopla. I haven't read Judis yet and skimmed over these posts just to keep my own impressions in tact. I thought it was a great speech, inspirational without being wispy, calling on your country's best traditions, a kind of measured soaring, and sober too as the times obviously demand. I was a notional Hillary supporter but looking back see that I was plain wrong in that. As MC Hammer said,  she "can't touch this."  I am glad though he made her sect of state: she's tough and she knows the difference between Israel and Hamas.  I hope Tepluhkin 2 me is right in what he sees as signals for the kind of foreign policy president B.O. will be, taking, no bullshit from the bad guys, understanding the difference between Israel and Hamas, as if that's even a stretch, and staring down terror when he sees it, continuing that part of Bush 43 the times demand and jettisoning the rejection of science and the needless bellicosity and promising some  enlightenment.

- basman

January 20, 2009 at 4:19pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

How far off could Judis be when Pat Buchanan thought it was an excellent speech?

But starting tomorrow, once all the pompous Inugural puffery is behind us, it won't be Barry's rhetorical flights that hit the fan, it will be the shit coming at him from all directions...and from folks who are not blown away by a passel of stirring oratory.

In any event, the epic battles that commense, compose and then encompass every post inagural event is always the same.

The new president and his administration [Democratic or Republican] sets out  to change Washington and then the bets are on: how long it will take for Washington to change him?

Go ask Bill Clinton how that works. By the end of his presidency, his "liberal" campaign promises had morphed into NAFTA, welfare "reform", and deregulating all things financial. Then there was social security "reform":

Michael Tanner from the 7/13/2001 CATO website:

"A president decides that Social Security is in need of radical reform. He assembles a team of experts to examine the issue and they conclude that allowing workers to privately invest a portion of their Social Security taxes in individual accounts is a viable way to solve the program's financial problems, increase the rate of return to young workers, and allow low income workers to accumulate real wealth. They conclude that most criticism of individual accounts -- they would be too risky, too costly to administer -- is unfounded. The president leans toward quick implementation.

"George Bush? No. Bill Clinton. So much for the myth that Social Security privatization is a "partisan" or "conservative" issue."

George:

What stopped this of course was the Monica Lewinsky scandal. Had Bill found another place to stuff his cigar [like down Linda Tripp's throat] the 2008 stockmarket meltdown might have taken on a whole different meaning for senior citizens

Indeed, on the tube right now is the traditional inaugural motorcade. All these big black cars make it look like a funeral procession. And as with all such human rituals, virtually every aspect of Barry's Inauguration is meticulously choreographed. It's like watching all the dominos fall on one of those YouTube videos. Sure, watching them fall you marvel at the ingenuity of those who create the effects....but you have no illusions that the effects unfold only because the laws of motion, accelaration, gravity etc. make for no other possible outcome.

That is basically how I react to Barry's words. Like most others, they can be truly captivating to the soul. But starting tomorrow the words don't mean jackshit unless they become the battery, the starter and the fuel pump that propel the actual policies that buck or do not buck the way the political economy game is played concurrently in New York and Washington.

If they buck it, that's when I stop referring to him as Barry.

george walton

- iambiguous

January 20, 2009 at 4:24pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Woody - I didn't see any Obambi today. Neither did Putin or Ajad, I'm sure. Did you?

- teplukhin2you

January 20, 2009 at 4:27pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I think tep has it about right -- the speech contained messages for a few different audiences:

At home (general):  We've got problems, people, and they aren't going to be easy -- but we've gotten through worse and we'll get through this.

At home (conservative):  Let's try to get beyond the silly games, eh?

At home (liberal):  We can push hard for what's needed/overdue but government can't do it all.

Abroad (friendly to neutral):  We need to do stuff together, and I'll keep the macho posturing to a minimum.

Abroad (neutral to hostile):  We're open for business, but not for being screwed around -- in the words of my predecessor, don't misunderestimate me!

- ironyroad

January 20, 2009 at 4:31pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Not at all.

But -- and this is key -- there was no "Obambi" then, either.

- WoodyBombay

January 20, 2009 at 4:32pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Go ahead, George, call him "Barry" if it floats your boat.

I'm thinking of calling him "H."

- teplukhin2you

January 20, 2009 at 4:40pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I think Obama may be a bit tired of O-B-A-M-A.  

He seemed a little tired today, I can hardly blame him.  

He's going to be like Jack Nicholson in exactly one way - we always get mad at Jack when he does the yeoman's work of an actor instead of just giving us Our J-A-C-K and taking home a paycheck.

Obama is always expected to make us levitate whenever he speaks, but that's neither desirable or posible.  He's always lyrical, always thoughtful, always remarkably honest.  This is the best of Obama, the rest of it is just gravy.

I don't think he likes that worship much, its always impossible for him to hide if he's feeling bored with it.  I see flashes of that every now and then, his wanting to just get to nitty gritty work and be freed from the pomp and hoopla.  Let's let him be human Judis.  The speech did exactly what it was intended to do: let the WORLD know that he's The President now, not  O-B-A-M-A.  I think anyone planning to test him right now may pause a think again.

I don't need My O-B-A-M-A fix any more after today, just my President, and I hope millions are like me.  It would certainly serve him better.

- Wandreycer1

January 20, 2009 at 4:56pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Getting TNR's inauguration day coverage started bright and early, Michelle defended the indulgence

- Anonymous

January 20, 2009 at 4:57pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

My own view--People are measuring this speech against the greats.  It's a bit disappointing that he came up with no great sound bites to match JFK's, but it's really difficult to measure up to FDR's first or [of course] Lincoln's Second [Lincoln's First, BTW is pretty argumentative except for the breathtaking conclusion].  First of all, Lincoln and FDR could plug into a common and widely understood tradition of political rhetoric that could set politics in a broader context of meaning--in FDR's case, a certain Bryanite evangelical-tinged populism, and in Lincoln's case the grand tradition of the American jeremiad.  No such language is available to Obama; his country is far too diverse.  Secondly, Lincoln's Second Inaugural was unique in that it didn't offer a road map to the future, but a reflection on the recent past.  It had only one issue on its plate, not a slew of them; but the issue--the meaning of the American Civil War, and the implications of that war for the meaning of America itself--was huge.  Obama wasn't called to give a sermon, but to lay out some themes of his coming administration.  By and large, I liked those themes--but, like Churchill's pudding, they collectively had no theme.  After eight years of rule by stubborn ideologues, that's sort of a relief.

- colablease

January 20, 2009 at 4:58pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I noticed that H too Tep, I cracked up.  The guy has to walk ten tightropes at a time every day, I guess most Presidents do.

- Wandreycer1

January 20, 2009 at 5:01pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

re soundbites, "America's back, and ready to lead" is good enough for me. Churchill: short words = best words, old words = best words of all.

"America's back" is exactly what everyone, everywhere on this planet, needed to hear.

Make of it whatever you like, but this guy is signaling to the world, and to Washington, that he's, as Wandrey says, an alpha dog. Even cocky John Roberts was shaking in his boots.

Give 'em hell, H!

- teplukhin2you

January 20, 2009 at 5:10pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Exactly right John B. A missed opportunity.

He had one good line about government being effective instead of big or small, and that jolting back-to-the-future WOT line took me right out of the moment. Energy - unquestionably a, or the, major root of all Westren problems/issues/involvement/global "democracy promotion" - was relegated to a brief mention, when the speech should have been wrapped around it, or a forceful rif on the role of government in society.

It wasn't awful, but it could have been so much more.  

- The Ignorant Populist

January 20, 2009 at 5:33pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Come to think of it. We got one "consequences of greed" line on the pyramid scams that have constituted our financial services over the years. Surely, there was a great speech to be had with that theme: service vs short term greed, investment vs hypnotic consumerism, progress, liberty vs....the list is endless.

- The Ignorant Populist

January 20, 2009 at 5:39pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Unlike John , I thought Obama's speech was thematically coherent. Its basic message was: "America's

- Anonymous

January 20, 2009 at 6:23pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

teplukhin2you said:

Go ahead, George, call him "Barry" if it floats your boat.

I'm thinking of calling him "H."

George:

Actually this extraordinary inauguration is finally starting to deeply move me. NOW I understand what went wrong in Iraq, in New Orleans, at Abu Graib, on Wall Steet. NOW I understand how Barry will make all that go away---as though it never even happened.

He said while sticking another pin into his Barack Obama doll.

george

- iambiguous

January 20, 2009 at 7:15pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Wasn't it Henry David Thoreau who said "Who you are speaks so loudly, I can't hear a fucking word you're saying" ?  (of course later edited a bit for those prudish times).  The most important impact of Obama's speech was not the textual content, but the combined effect of his poise, confidence, vocal projection, and bearing while giving it, all very Presidential.  If you don't speak a word of English what will come through loud and clear upon hearing this speech is that the U.S. clearly now has a confident leader with clarity of vision at the helm.   But I will agree that the text itself, while coherent, was not in a class with the MLK "I Have a Dream"  or Lincoln's 2nd Inaugural -it was at best a three-star literary effort.  But it gives our new President some room for improvement for his own Inaug, #2 in 2013, right?

- phildtm2

January 20, 2009 at 7:19pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

From President Obama's inaugural address:On this day, we gather because we have chosen hope over fear, unity of purpose over conflict and discord. On this day, we come to proclaim an end to the petty grievances and false promises, the...

- Anonymous

January 20, 2009 at 7:31pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

wandre:

Watching the Obama's walk up Pennsylvania Avenue, with the cheers literally deafening from crowds who have waited all day in the freezing cold, makes me realize that Obama's super-nova status, all over the world, is as powerful and useful a statement as anything he can actually say.

The speech was a warning, this walk through the parade route is a whole other language.

George:

Not sure what any of that means [unless that's the point] but I do recall watching a Science channel documentary on super-novas. It seems that when they occur they obliterate everything around them. Did you mean something like that?

Now Rick Warren is Invocating. His fervently ejaculated religious bromides include the suggestion that we should, "stop fighting each other when we forget about you."

Well, maybe Rick is a more sophisticated historian than I am, but as I recall, it is not when people forget about God that they start fighting, it is when God is the pointman on each crusade. Sacred OR secular.

Alas, the only way I can tolerate this sub mental drivel now is by constantly reminding myself that I once mindlessly spouted it myself.  

george walton

- iambiguous

January 20, 2009 at 7:32pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Ever read the reviews of Lincoln's finest work, including Gettysburg? Many of you sound so familiar.

Not all conservatives liked it -- Rush hated it.

- klingb

January 20, 2009 at 7:57pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I have to say, Judis completely lost me on this one. The speech was beautifully delivered, spoke to our better angels, and had a rational progression:

   "Hi, everybody, we are in some deep shit. Who cares who's to blame. We're Americans, and we can dig out, if everybody grabs a shovel and if we get past all those false choices, all that either-or, blue-vs-red, GOP-vs-Dem, Free  Market-or- Socialism-and-no-in-between bullshit. Here's a few high points of my domestic and foreign policy agendas everybody knows already. Let's finish up with inspiration, exhortations to courage, and calls to service and responsibility, all liberally (if you'll forgive) sprinkled with totally appropriate historical allusions, confidence in the American spirit, and praise of inclusion and tolerance. So let's get going. God bless us, every one,  'cuz DAMN we're gonna need it."

It was an incantation, calling forth the archetypes that lie in the collective unconscious of America, and an eloquent affirmation that those powers belong to us all at a time when we all need to wield them together.

That's what I heard. Then I went back to work.

So for today the speech was just right.

What will be the ultimate verdict on the inaugural address of Barack Hussein Obama? I don't know. But I do know that verdict won't be passed down by Mr. John Judis. History will judge this speech and, as always, She will do it in Her own good time.

So take a chill pill, everybody, and try to savor the moment. No matter what happens tomorrow, today was a good day.

- sullydog

January 20, 2009 at 8:40pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Well, there's nothing that tugs me out of a deep sense of the good more quickly than one of John

- Anonymous

January 20, 2009 at 8:44pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Sully:

It was an incantation, calling forth the archetypes that lie in the collective unconscious of America, and an eloquent affirmation that those powers belong to us all at a time when we all need to wield them together.

That's what I heard. Then I went back to work

George:

First, in your own psuedo incantation above, Barry never uses the word "shit". He prefers "poop" instead.

As for your own more teary rendition, I tend to believe we take out of speeches what we first put into them---me, myself and I.

In other words, you hear what you want to hear once you are convinced the speaker is more or less The One.

gw

- iambiguous

January 20, 2009 at 9:16pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I read this " It was well-delivered, but it consisted of a hodgepodge of themes, injunctions, and applause lines that did not speak directly to the crisis that the country faces" and wondered if he heard the same speech I did.

But reading through a little more I see this is a classic case of constipated intellectual overthink. Judis analysis the speech like it was a poly sci term paper and completely missed the point.

This speech was a secular sermon and its abstract themes were not "original" because they were a call to a return to classic American values while asserting that it was time for America to get past its stormy adolescence and enter into a new era as a mature nation.

Key thematic quotes:

"We remain a young nation, but in the words of Scripture, the time has come to set aside childish things. The time has come to reaffirm our enduring spirit; to choose our better history; 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. In reaffirming the greatness of our nation, we understand that greatness is never a given. It must be earned. Our journey has never been one of short-cuts or settling for less. It has not been the path for the faint-hearted - for those who prefer leisure over work, or seek only the pleasures of riches and fame. Rather, it has been the risk-takers, the doers, the makers of things - some celebrated but more often men and women obscure in their labor, who have carried us up the long, rugged path towards prosperity and freedom."

"Our challenges may be new. The instruments with which we meet them may be new. But those values upon which our success depends - hard work and honesty, courage and fair play, tolerance and curiosity, loyalty and patriotism - these things are old. These things are true."

I'm sorry it went over your head Mr Judis but I get the impression most people got it.

- AhYup

January 20, 2009 at 10:22pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"As for your own more teary rendition, I tend to believe we take out of speeches what we first put into them---me, myself and I. In other words, you hear what you want to hear once you are convinced the speaker is more or less The One."

Bah, or you don't hear what you don't want to hear if you are to busy being cynical to pay attention.

I decided to support Obama after I read his books, looked at his record, and listened to enough speeches to understand his way of thinking. A very clear character emerged from all of that and though I agreed with much of it the character in fact was not me. I wouldn't vote for me. I'm cranky and over react more often than not.

I would suggest that perhaps you and yourself are getting in the way of hearing.

- AhYup

January 20, 2009 at 10:31pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

What sullydog said.

- ironyroad

January 20, 2009 at 10:51pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I became an Obama fan today. I was not expecting this speech. His delivery was rock solid, not rock star. Grown up, and showed real steel in his spine.

Specifically, he made it clear that he will not back down from Putin and the other gangsters, but will conciliate if they back off. There's no joy in the Kremlin today.

This speech got rid of the lefty persona we saw in the campaign. He made it clear there will be no departure from our policies on Iraq and Israel-Hamas, and signalled renewed determination to win in Afghanistan. That said, it's obvious he's flexible and smart enough to know how to change course if the Germans French Italians and other "allies" continue sit on their arses.

He isn't superman but he's striking just the right notes, IMHO. America's back, and ready to lead. We will not play second fiddle to anyone. Go get 'em, H!

- teplukhin2you

January 20, 2009 at 11:23pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Telling that Israel halted its offensive as soon as Obama was inaugurated, and Putin halted his pipeline offensive on exactly the same day. Strength recognizes strength.

- teplukhin2you

January 20, 2009 at 11:26pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

iambiguous said:

" His fervently ejaculated religious bromides ..."

dylanposer says:

"Oh hell no you didn't just say 'His fervently ejaculated religious bromides'".

- dylanposer

January 20, 2009 at 11:39pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Slublog said:

From President Obama's inaugural address:On this day, we gather because we have chosen hope over fear, unity of purpose over conflict and discord. On this day, we come to proclaim an end to the petty grievances and false promises, the...

George:

The ... part makes a lot of sense. But the stuff that came before it?

THAT sounds like something Barry plagiarized from Mr Smith Goes To Washington.

Wouldn't it be ironic though if Barry goes down in flames and Hillary plagiarizes it yet again in delivering her own inaugaral address in 2012?

By then, however, things may well be so bad that Sarah Palin will be Plagiarizing The Lord in hers.

Let's just hope the folks at TNR aren't employed to write all her other speeches.

george walton

- iambiguous

January 21, 2009 at 2:22am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

AhYup:

I'm sorry it went over your head Mr Judis but I get the impression most people got it.

George:

Didn't most people "get" the rhetorical bullshit all the other eloquent wordmeisters passed down through the years.

Indeed, lots of people even "got" what Hitler, Stalin and all the other ever so much less rhetorical beastmasters said as well.

Barry is no doubt in wordmeister class. But then Bush isn't in either one, is he? And look at all carnage he caused...by God.

Today Barry starts connecting his words to our world. His too, of course. We'll see who benefits from them most as the months pass by.

george walton  

- iambiguous

January 21, 2009 at 2:53am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

AyYup:

Bah, or you don't hear what you don't want to hear if you are to busy being cynical to pay attention.

George:

There is a world of difference between being cynical....and being calculatingly cynical.

And there is a world of difference in turn between being calculatingly cynical....and being cynically calculating.

I think Barry and I could engage in a rather absorbing discussion about this. We could measure the lenght between them, for example. And then the depth.

george walton

- iambiguous

January 21, 2009 at 3:02am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

AyYup:

Bah, or you don't hear what you don't want to hear if you are to busy being cynical to pay attention.

George:

There is a world of difference between being cynical....and being calculatingly cynical.

And there is a world of difference in turn between being calculatingly cynical....and being cynically calculating.

I think Barry and I could engage in a rather absorbing discussion about this. We could measure the lenght between them, for example. And then the depth.

george walton

- iambiguous

January 21, 2009 at 3:04am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

dylanposer said:

iambiguous said:

" His fervently ejaculated religious bromides ..."

dylanposer says:

"Oh hell no you didn't just say 'His fervently ejaculated religious bromides'".

George:

It's not my fault you can't speak bullshit.

Besides, 7 out of 6 proctologists agree that mine stinks less than yours.

Unless, of course, it doesn't.

gw

- iambiguous

January 21, 2009 at 3:08am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The less rhetoric, the better. It seems Obama starts to get more specific, and less bullshit-demagogue. That's a welcome change.

As for Judis, it's very good he disliked the speech. Judis is an imbecile who likes to swoon. Judis cannot support, he can only worship. If Judis is out, good riddance. This is America, not USSR with personality cult.

The only thing I disliked was Lowery's racist benediction. I wouldn't way reverse racist, but simply racist. Racism is racism whichever direction it comes. And no, I don't think Lowery's honorable past excuses the nastiness. Maybe he should go hold hands with Louis Farrakhan - and for good measure call their David Duke, and have a swell drinking party of nasty racists. Racists of all colors, unite!

- sleepyavl

January 21, 2009 at 4:29am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

It was the speech of a President. Obama is no longer a candidate its unfortunate that some people dont seem to remember that. Its a hodgepodge yet I heard it  once and I can recall the important themes. We dont need to compromise our ideals for expediency and any statement that says that is false. We are going through tough times and we have a lot of challenges that wont be solved overnight can be solved. We need to take responsibility stop acting ilke children grow up and realize that we have an obligation to each other and to our country as citizens.  We need to act bold and those who say that we shouldnt is not paying attention to our history because we are a people who are known for our boldness. We will not apologize for our way of life and terrorism will not break our spirit. We will defeat it. Those who come to power through corruption and silencing of dissent are on the wrong side of history. Leaders will be admired for building things up rather than destroying things. "It did not speak to the crisis we face" If you are referring to the economy he did speak about that. But what you dont seem to get Obama is not merely a politician he is President of the US that means his speech has to be placed in a global context. We are a country that have promoted our values world wide for over a century. He is not simply speaking to a an American audience he is also speaking to a world auidence. What you are saying is that he should instead speak only to the American people if thats the case you are not looking at him as a President rather you are looking at him as a candidate for Presidency there is a huge difference. This is an inaugural address that means seeing the entire picuture in a reasonable amount of time. If you speak for about 20 minutes and you are the President you obviously cant go into detalis particularly on domesitc issues you have to touch on borad themes it is NOT like this is going to be his one and only speech there will be more speeches taillored to the economic crisis in this speech he wanted to capture the entire picture and rightly so.

Carol

- harriscrl3

January 21, 2009 at 7:44am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Judis, if you don't think "You will never outlast us" is the point of the speech and a terrific take-away line, I have to question your judgement.   It was perfectly coherent, beautiful.

The speech stayed with me, I slept on it - it was some multi-leveled stuff.  I think on tone, you are right Tep but I see at least some disappointment ahead for you.  Obama is ready to cracks some heads, whoever they are.  He'll do it politely and competently, but no one is or should be immune.  We have to welcome having or head cracked too.  Politely of course.  I think he can handle it.  

George Washington was a serious biz reference.  Anyone with cursory knowledge of GW and American history knows that beyond his lovely homestead, magnificent wisdom and military victories - he also hung traitors, slept in snow, starved, killed, lead.

They will never outlast us.

- Wandreycer1

January 21, 2009 at 10:46am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Getting TNR's inauguration day coverage started bright and early, Michelle defended the indulgence

- Anonymous

January 21, 2009 at 10:56am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

George,

I have nothing against ornate writing--sometimes I'll even try a rhetorical equivalent of a triple backflip handstand myself--but yours in this case is so clunky it hurts.  You don't need the "fervently" in your statement, for instance, as the device "ejaculated" already implies fervor in its action.  

- dylanposer

January 21, 2009 at 10:58am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

iambinguous said: In other words, you hear what you want to hear once you are convinced the speaker is more or less The One.

We all bring what we are and what we know to any experience. This cannot be evaded or denied, and must to some extent account for a range of reactions to anything, from inaugural addresses to music to a nice Bordeaux. But your implication here goes beyond that. Your implication is that I am swooning with some kind of semireligious awe over the man, so much so that I am robbed of my faculties and unable to critically evaluate his words or his actions. I assure you that nothing could be further from the truth. And I was at pains, in my post, to point out the REASONS I thought his speech was not, as Judis opined, a hodgepodge. So your implication that I have been somehow stunned out of my senses by "The One" is not only without foundation, it is objectionable, unresponsive, noncontributory, specious, and stupid.

Not that I'm surprised. I haven't posted much lately, but I do lurk, and I've noticed your increased presence on the site. My impression of you is that you are somewhat intelligent, fluent in the King's English, and very, very impressed with  yourself. You are also churlish, snide, dismissive, impolite, intellectually rigid, ideological, needlessly puerile, far less funny than you think you are...and kind of an asshole. Just a first impression, subject to revision. I think you may have much to contribute here, but few will care unless and until you grow up.

- sullydog

January 21, 2009 at 11:19am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I just saw the speech late last night, because I was busy yesterday working my hands raw for a better America for my children's children and didn't have time for childish things like speech-watching.  Just kidding.  I was working though.

Anyway, lovely, excellent speech.  Judis is far too grouchy.  I'm not sure he's being entirely honest with us about what he wanted to hear and didn't.  I had the same reaction as Wandrey: "The speech stayed with me, I slept on it - it was some multi-leveled stuff."

- jhildner

January 21, 2009 at 11:58am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

And also evasive.  George has a terrible habit of switching the topic onto a more abstract level whenever he feels trapped by the terms of the discussion (e.g. he'll reinterpret political idealism as philosophical idealism and reply extensively to a point that nobody made).  It's a useful trick, I guess, but also an obvious one and boy does it get tiresome after a while.

He also wants everyone to know he's seen "Citizen Kane."

- ironyroad

January 21, 2009 at 11:59am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

As carol harris's excellent summation shows, everyone knows exactly what Obama's themes were. He didn't pull any punches, didn't let anyone off the hook.

But neither did he call for bogus "sacrifice" or "service," those old shibboleths that we always hear from our political class that basically mean... nothing. He made it clear that there will be hard choices, ie, the culture of entitlement is finished.

When I heard that phrase from him, some 30 seconds or so into the speech, I knew he was on the right track. When he called the war on terror a war, and said, with more emotion than anywhere else in the speech, that we would not apologize for our way of life and would defend it vigorously, he sealed the deal with me.

This was a bad day for the Kremlin and for Ajad (also Sarko/Napoleon IV). A great day for the US and the cause of liberal democratic capitalism.

- teplukhin2you

January 21, 2009 at 12:23pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Exactly the right tone. Exactly the right levity.  

Soaring rhetoric is pointless and thankfully, he spoke to us like a President ... something we haven't heard in eight very very long years.

- pburton16

January 21, 2009 at 12:24pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

George Walton...take your cynical schtick back to Walton Mountain and leave the rest of us to warm ourselves for a few days in the glow of a real president, with real intellect, and a real passion to lead this nation back to the path of light, openness and liberal reality! We all know the road ahead is hard, and that O will not be able to solve all of the problems we've inherited from the worst president ever. But he has given us hope and pride again in this country.

I know you feel you're a great intellect who's just injecting a little reality into the romantic view we all have of O now, but this is a time for new hope and belief in O and this country...and not your intellectual posturing as a cynical wise man putting down the rest of us!

PS Scr*w you and your over weaning self esteem!

- wagonjak

January 21, 2009 at 12:36pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

As I moved up the thread after my last remark I saw sullydogs comments on Iambiguous...I think they fit George Walton to a T also:

"I've noticed your increased presence on the site. My impression of you is that you are somewhat intelligent, fluent in the King's English, and very, very impressed with  yourself. You are also churlish, snide, dismissive, impolite, intellectually rigid, ideological, needlessly puerile, far less funny than you think you are...and kind of an asshole. Just a first impression, subject to revision. I think you may have much to contribute here, but few will care unless and until you grow up."

- wagonjak

January 21, 2009 at 12:39pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

IOW, put aside childish things. To coin a phrase....

- teplukhin2you

January 21, 2009 at 1:13pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

This was Packer on yesterday's proceedings from Andy Sullivan...he nailed it and you failed it Judis:

He delivered something better than rhetorical excitement—he spoke the truth, which makes its own history and carries its own poetry. As for the poet who had the impossible job of immediately following the new President, I’ll leave it to you to judge.

.

Mulling over the address yesterday, I felt in retrospect that the restraint and classical tropes of the speech were deliberate and wise. From the moment he gave his election night victory speech, Obama has been signaling great caution in the face of immense challenges. The tone is humble. We know he can rally vast crowds to heights of emotion; which is why his decision to calm those feelings and to engage his opponents and to warn of impending challenges is all the more impressive. He's a man, it seems to me, who knows the difference between bravado and strength, between an adolescent "decider" and a mature president, between an insecure brittleness masquerading as power, and the genuine authority a real president commands. He presides. He can set a direction and a mood, but he invites the rest of us to move the ball forward: in a constitutional democracy, we are always the ones we've been waiting for.

He is not a messiah and does not act or speak like one. He's a traditionalist in many ways. A reader gets it:

The keynote of the speech is strikingly a conservative one--he calls us to remember the best of our traditions and history, to cherish them, to recall the sacrifices made to preserve them.  He uses the conservative sense of loss against his predecessor, a feat of considerable rhetorical elegance.  And the final image of Washington crossing the Delaware in that bitter winter that marked the real opening of our struggle for national identity--perfect.  This man has the makings of real greatness. And yet, even now I cannot forget that politicians who inspire can also severely disappoint and require our critical scrutiny.

I have learned the lesson of misjudgment the hard way these past seven years - but not to the extent of being incapable of trust (especially now - when we have no option, given the immensity of the overlapping constitutional, economic, military and diplomatic crises we have inherited). And that trust, in turn, requires constant vigilance and skepticism and open minds to stay true and honest - even to the point of brutal criticism.

In this president, we at last have someone who doesn't see that criticism as disloyalty. He sees it as our responsibility. He's right. And it's about time Americans lived up to the challenge.

- wagonjak

January 21, 2009 at 2:31pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Here's Tom Rick's take on O's speech...another disagreement with your assessment of O's speech Judis...

"I thought it was a great speech. No stunning applause lines, but I think a clear, tough-minded, realistic approach to national security issues."

- wagonjak

January 21, 2009 at 5:39pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

David Ignatius: www.realclearpolitics.com/.../tough_talk_from_obama.html

Obama's speech showed us, once again, that the new president really means it when he says that he wants to create a new kind of politics for a "post-partisan" America. This has been difficult for some of his supporters to accept, in their rage against the Bush presidency and their understandable desire to settle scores with those who took the country into a dark and painful time.

But Obama wants none of it. "On this day, we come to proclaim an end to the petty grievances and false promises, the recriminations and worn-out dogmas, that for far too long have strangled our politics." Did that cause a moment of self-reflection at Rush Limbaugh's offices, or at the Daily Kos? I doubt it, but one can always hope.

The message to the world was similarly blunt. Here again, Obama avoided the easy grace notes and told people some hard truths. "To the Muslim world, we seek a new way forward, based on mutual interest and mutual respect," he said. That was precisely the right message. Obama's presidency won't be about sweet talk and mediation; we aren't going to sing "Kumbaya" around a global campfire. The dialogue will be about interests. That's the kind of negotiation that the cunning bargainers of Damascus and Tehran understand, and it's the right starting point.

...And for the corrupt but friendly oligarchs "on the wrong side of history" -- Obama offered a path out: "We will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist." Gently said, with none of the battering-ram insistence that marred the Bush administration's promotion of democracy.

I especially liked Obama's message to terrorist adversaries of the United States -- people who believe that his election was a sign that the United States has gone soft; people who remain convinced that the decadent West is losing, and that they are winning. "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."

- teplukhin2you

January 21, 2009 at 6:18pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Dylan:

I have nothing against ornate writing--sometimes I'll even try a rhetorical equivalent of a triple backflip handstand myself--but yours in this case is so clunky it hurts. You don't need the "fervently" in your statement, for instance, as the device "ejaculated" already implies fervor in its action.

George:

Did you think slapstick apllied only to comedians up on the stage? The very phrase is so preposterous, only the most literalist of literalists could possibly take it....literally?

The irony challenged. Don't they have a pill for that yet?

gw

- iambiguous

January 21, 2009 at 7:57pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

sully:

We all bring what we are and what we know to any experience. This cannot be evaded or denied, and must to some extent account for a range of reactions to anything, from inaugural addresses to music to a nice Bordeaux. But your implication here goes beyond

that. Your implication is that I am swooning with some kind of semireligious awe over the man, so much so that I am robbed of my faculties and unable to critically evaluate his words or his actions. I assure you that nothing could be further from the truth. And I was at pains, in my post, to point out the REASONS I thought his speech was not, as Judis opined, a hodgepodge. So your implication that I have been somehow stunned out of my senses by "The One" is not only without foundation, it is objectionable, unresponsive, noncontributory, specious, and stupid.

George:

Can you grasp the implications of Judis grasping the implications of Barry?

Can I grasp the implications of you grasping the implications of Judis grasping the implications of Barry?

Can you grasp the implications of me grasping the implications of you grasping the implications of Judis grasping the implications of Barry?

Maybe.

But it is now time to point the lense in the general direction of Barry grasping the implications of his own words.

The rest is all about the existential implications of that.

I am an existentialist. That is how I view the world. And the implications of that is almost never grasped by someone who is, instead, an essentialist.

Are you an essentialist?

Sully:

Not that I'm surprised. I haven't posted much lately, but I do lurk, and I've noticed your increased presence on the site. My impression of you is that you are somewhat intelligent, fluent in the King's English, and very, very impressed with yourself. You are also churlish, snide, dismissive, impolite, intellectually rigid, ideological, needlessly puerile, far less funny than you think you are...and kind of an asshole. Just a first impression, subject to revision. I think you may have much to contribute here, but few will care unless and until you grow up.

George:

Your impression of me is not far removed from the manner in which you implicate my words.

I am a polemicist. Now, sure, some polemicist are assholes. That is true. And on any given day in any given mood regarding any given reaction to any given context, I can be an asshole. A REAL asshole. Just asks some folks in here who don't merely "lurk".

But after you have balanced all the implications you have read into my words....how will you know when I have grown up? And how will you manage communicate that to me?

george walton

- iambiguous

January 21, 2009 at 8:22pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

ironyroad said:

And also evasive. George has a terrible habit of switching the topic onto a more abstract level whenever he feels trapped by the terms of the discussion (e.g. he'll reinterpret political idealism as philosophical idealism and reply extensively to a point that nobody made). It's a useful trick, I guess, but also an obvious one and boy does it get tiresome after a while.

He also wants everyone to know he's seen "Citizen Kane."

George:

Okay, I do admit this: You are considerably more capable of reading between the lines than others.

You are, shall we say, the LEAST irony challenged poster at TNR?

And not only have I seen Citizen Kane, but the character Charles Foster Kane himself is modeled after me. Imagine the genius of Welles....7 years before I was born and he is already anticipating minds like mine!!

But I watched it again yesterday. And I can assure there is not a single set piece, a single line of narrative that in anyway whatsoever anticipated Barry.

I'll have to watch it a few more times though, to determine if this is good news or bad.

george walton

- iambiguous

January 21, 2009 at 8:39pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

wagonjak said:

George Walton...take your cynical schtick back to Walton Mountain and leave the rest of us to warm ourselves for a few days in the glow of a real president, with real intellect, and a real passion to lead this nation back to the path of light, openness and liberal reality! We all know the road ahead is hard, and that O will not be able to solve all of the problems we've inherited from the worst president ever. But he has given us hope and pride again in this country.

I know you feel you're a great intellect who's just injecting a little reality into the romantic view we all have of O now, but this is a time for new hope and belief in O and this country...and not your intellectual posturing as a cynical wise man putting down the rest of us!

PS Scr*w you and your over weaning self esteem!

George:

Is that you, Mom?

Dad told you should have had the abortion.

Scr*w?

Is that like f*ck? or sh*t?

If so, that reminds me of the first philosophy group I was in at MSN. It was called Brainstorm. It was just a chat room. Then when MSN created philosophy discussion rooms, they changed the name to Friends of Brainstorm. It still exists.

Anyway, I would occassionly use the word fuck or shit in my posts. So Von and VelvetChainsaw, the group moderators, told me they would kick me out if I didn't stop. So for I week or so I changed my handle from iambiguous to Folk Yew

Von and Velvet are still there to the best of my knowledge. I get a Friends of Brainstorm email once a week. So, if you want to stop by tell them "Biggie" said hello.

george walton

- iambiguous

January 21, 2009 at 8:57pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Yeah?  I once knew a female DJ who accepted a bet to deliberately mispronounce the name of the band Blue Oyster Cult on the air.

- ironyroad

January 21, 2009 at 9:56pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Yes this is mom George,and I want you to come home immediately so I can wash your mouth out with soap and spank your bare bottom just like you used to love...and I hate to tell you Georgie...

But you were a mistake that dad and I never wanted...I think that's the source of all your anger...love, mom

- wagonjak

January 21, 2009 at 10:33pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The middle term is missing?  I wonder where Mr. Judis has been for this past quarter century.

- yoyo52

January 21, 2009 at 10:39pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

SHARE HIGHLIGHT

0 CHARACTERS SELECTED

TWEET THIS

POST TO TUMBLR

SHARE ON FACEBOOK

Close