Entries tagged with “Obama” from Things You Don't Care About
Lately, I've been rewatching the last seasons of The West Wing on Bravo. I know it's a TV show and it's definitely an idealized version of the Presidency and politics in general; characters on the show get away with saying things in political speeches and news conferences that you wonder how the heck anyone would get away with it in real life. Vinick and Santos are basically the "dream candidates" for a large part of the country, and they make speeches written by TV writers to evoke drama for storylines the writers have complete control over.
Tonight though, I saw Obama's "State of the Nation" address. I wrote a month ago about his inaugural address, and I said that it kind of blew me away. But when I saw this address tonight -- when I saw him display the same kind of confidence and not pull any punches, when he gives some firm plans and bold statements -- it really felt like I was just watching another episode of The West Wing. Supposedly, Santos was extensively based on Obama, but if anything Obama's rhetoric and manner of speaking seems more impressive than the "idealized" version. When he lays out specifics and (holy shit) tells people that he is going to raise taxes, that's pretty bold -- at least compared to the kind of (attempted) feel-good pap we've been fed for the last eight years. Yes, he goes for inspiring words, and the proof really lies in the pudding, but he's really pushing an agenda that is not "get out there and shop."
In contrast, Bobby Jindal's response...well, first off, compared to Barack Obama wading through a clamoring crowd, looking completely comfortable in the element, when Jindal walked out he struck me as looking really awkward. Maybe that's shallow, but body language is important, especially for a politician. Also, I couldn't put my finger on it when he was talking, but jesus does he sound a lot like Kenneth the page from 30 Rock. I suppose that's just a Southern accent, but I couldn't stop thinking about it.
And then we get to the content. There are some good Republican ideals, and I think that it's extremely important that there be an "honorable opposition" in government. But to have a Republican use the mess in New Orleans during Katrina as a reason not to trust big government, to have a Republican say they are going to clean house and cut out corruption after one of the most scandalous administrations in history, it comes across as unbelievably ridiculous.
Sure, Jindal tried to show some introspection, but it fell horribly, hilariously flat. He said that Republicans had "gone along" with massive government spending -- who, exactly, were they going along with? For six years, the Republicans had control of both Houses of Congress and the White House. Come on. It's not that I don't understand what the deal is here -- no Republican wants to sit there and go "yeah, we kind of fucked up the country here," especially when most of the people who were in charge during those 8 years in Congress are still there. But what that shows to me is that the Republicans still just won't take a long hard look and own up to their failures. Jindal tried -- maybe. But his hesitance in going all the way makes it seem like he doesn't actually realize it was the Republicans fault.
Also, "Americans can do anything" is an okay catch phrase. But when you repeat it about ten times in 15 minutes, after a powerful oratory like Obama's, it shows that you either have nothing to say, or you badly need a new speechwriter.
Tonight though, I saw Obama's "State of the Nation" address. I wrote a month ago about his inaugural address, and I said that it kind of blew me away. But when I saw this address tonight -- when I saw him display the same kind of confidence and not pull any punches, when he gives some firm plans and bold statements -- it really felt like I was just watching another episode of The West Wing. Supposedly, Santos was extensively based on Obama, but if anything Obama's rhetoric and manner of speaking seems more impressive than the "idealized" version. When he lays out specifics and (holy shit) tells people that he is going to raise taxes, that's pretty bold -- at least compared to the kind of (attempted) feel-good pap we've been fed for the last eight years. Yes, he goes for inspiring words, and the proof really lies in the pudding, but he's really pushing an agenda that is not "get out there and shop."
In contrast, Bobby Jindal's response...well, first off, compared to Barack Obama wading through a clamoring crowd, looking completely comfortable in the element, when Jindal walked out he struck me as looking really awkward. Maybe that's shallow, but body language is important, especially for a politician. Also, I couldn't put my finger on it when he was talking, but jesus does he sound a lot like Kenneth the page from 30 Rock. I suppose that's just a Southern accent, but I couldn't stop thinking about it.
And then we get to the content. There are some good Republican ideals, and I think that it's extremely important that there be an "honorable opposition" in government. But to have a Republican use the mess in New Orleans during Katrina as a reason not to trust big government, to have a Republican say they are going to clean house and cut out corruption after one of the most scandalous administrations in history, it comes across as unbelievably ridiculous.
Sure, Jindal tried to show some introspection, but it fell horribly, hilariously flat. He said that Republicans had "gone along" with massive government spending -- who, exactly, were they going along with? For six years, the Republicans had control of both Houses of Congress and the White House. Come on. It's not that I don't understand what the deal is here -- no Republican wants to sit there and go "yeah, we kind of fucked up the country here," especially when most of the people who were in charge during those 8 years in Congress are still there. But what that shows to me is that the Republicans still just won't take a long hard look and own up to their failures. Jindal tried -- maybe. But his hesitance in going all the way makes it seem like he doesn't actually realize it was the Republicans fault.
Also, "Americans can do anything" is an okay catch phrase. But when you repeat it about ten times in 15 minutes, after a powerful oratory like Obama's, it shows that you either have nothing to say, or you badly need a new speechwriter.
No, not since I blogged last, smartasses.
Today, we got our new president. Finally. Last October, I wrote this entry, shortly before Obama won the election. Needless to say, I was pretty happy about that. It's been a very long two and a half months waiting for him to take office, while Bush has lurched around and tried to shine the turd that has been the last eight years. But frankly, I would have felt that about almost any of the candidates on the Democratic side, and that's not because I love the Democrats a lot -- let's face it, they've been pretty mediocre in the face of adversity the last eight years.
Today though, something else happened that showed just how different Obama is, or at the very least, has the potential to be. It wasn't the massive crowds at the Inauguration. It wasn't the fact that Obama rejected basically every disastrous, right-wing, anti-intellectual, anti-science policy that the Bush administration put forward to the man's very face (seriously -- if you haven't watched his inaugural address, go do it now).
No, the thing that really stood out at me is because he called us on our bullshit.
It was pretty funny, actually, listening to the inaugural address, because the sort of things that Obama was saying were along the same lines as what my character has been saying in Eve about the way the Caldari State has been going (though obviously some of the details were slightly different).
Now, I know Obama isn't the first politician to give a speech like this. And I would have been a lot more impressed if he had given this kind of a speech six months ago. Think about it though -- when was the last time we had something like this? I know this is the first time I listened to a present-day political speech and really felt something, and that includes Obama's speeches during the campaign. People say Reagan was charismatic -- obviously I was too young to really take much from those years but I never saw him give anything like this. It's been 45 years since JFK was in office -- has it been that long, almost two generations, since we've seen someone like this?
Obviously, the proof will be in the pudding, as they say -- he's only been president for about 10 hours, so let's not start canonizing him yet. But for the first time in my life, I really do feel inspired by a politician (a living one, anyway). I've been a cynic for a long time, especially about politics -- mostly, I think, because I want to be an idealist and just know better. Maybe, just maybe, I don't know as well as I thought I did.
Today, we got our new president. Finally. Last October, I wrote this entry, shortly before Obama won the election. Needless to say, I was pretty happy about that. It's been a very long two and a half months waiting for him to take office, while Bush has lurched around and tried to shine the turd that has been the last eight years. But frankly, I would have felt that about almost any of the candidates on the Democratic side, and that's not because I love the Democrats a lot -- let's face it, they've been pretty mediocre in the face of adversity the last eight years.
Today though, something else happened that showed just how different Obama is, or at the very least, has the potential to be. It wasn't the massive crowds at the Inauguration. It wasn't the fact that Obama rejected basically every disastrous, right-wing, anti-intellectual, anti-science policy that the Bush administration put forward to the man's very face (seriously -- if you haven't watched his inaugural address, go do it now).
No, the thing that really stood out at me is because he called us on our bullshit.
"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."Now, this might not seem like much, but contrast it with the last President, who, when confronted with the worst attack on the United States since Pearl Harbor, told people to go shopping, and gave the impression that forcing average Americans to make any sort of sacrifice was horrific.
"In reaffirming the greatness of our nation, we understand that greatness is never a given. It must be earned."
It was pretty funny, actually, listening to the inaugural address, because the sort of things that Obama was saying were along the same lines as what my character has been saying in Eve about the way the Caldari State has been going (though obviously some of the details were slightly different).
Now, I know Obama isn't the first politician to give a speech like this. And I would have been a lot more impressed if he had given this kind of a speech six months ago. Think about it though -- when was the last time we had something like this? I know this is the first time I listened to a present-day political speech and really felt something, and that includes Obama's speeches during the campaign. People say Reagan was charismatic -- obviously I was too young to really take much from those years but I never saw him give anything like this. It's been 45 years since JFK was in office -- has it been that long, almost two generations, since we've seen someone like this?
Obviously, the proof will be in the pudding, as they say -- he's only been president for about 10 hours, so let's not start canonizing him yet. But for the first time in my life, I really do feel inspired by a politician (a living one, anyway). I've been a cynic for a long time, especially about politics -- mostly, I think, because I want to be an idealist and just know better. Maybe, just maybe, I don't know as well as I thought I did.
I have probably missed the boat on talking about the election at this point; with only a few days to go, almost everything that I've wanted to say about this has been said by someone else (Todd Alcott's endorsements of Obama here, here, and here sum up a lot of what I think). However, it's worth saying that for me, the most surprising part of this two year long campaign has not been the ascent of Barack Obama, but the complete collapse of John McCain.
In 2000, I remember thinking that I really wished that John McCain had gotten nominated instead of George Bush; aside from not coming across as a barely literate moron, McCain also seemed more thoughtful and more willing to call out people that others in his party were kowtowing to, such as the religious right. Sadly, over the last eight years, he seems to have lost that edge, and decided to embrace more of the standard Republican line, and it seems like that very thing may have cost him this election. I have no idea why he picked Sarah Palin as his running mate -- if you name any of her attributes, it seems like there's someone more qualified he could have picked. It's less a question of experience than a question of intelligence, of introspection, of analysis. The feeling I get from Sarah Palin, when she is talking about a subject, is like a student in school who simply memorizes something to pass a test and has no deeper understanding of the topic, even on subject she's supposedly an "expert" on.
I don't expect a politician to know everything on every subject. I don't expect to agree with a politician on every subject. However, I do expect politicians -- especially ones that are running for a national office -- to display some amount of thought on a subject, even one they don't know much about. I expect them to be able to tell me why they hold their opinions in a way other than circular logic. During the second debate, when Obama explained to one of the members of the audience what the credit crunch meant to him, that was something that really stuck with me because it showed a level of understanding that I didn't get from either of the Republican candidates.
I tend to be rather liberal on social issues and conservative on fiscal ones -- if the 2000 election had been between Gore and McCain, it would have been very hard for me to choose between the two (and I suspect I'm not alone in that). This year, the choice is trivial, which is disappointing. While I think Obama is probably the strongest presidential candidate from either party in a long time (at least in my voting lifetime, not that that has been all that long), McCain is incredibly weak, simply because his campaign has shown a lack of intellectual fortitude that I consider horrific. The most despicable part of it has been seeing McCain (and even moreso Palin) mock the idea that we might want someone who is smart, who is eloquent, who is thoughtful, who is diplomatic, who is better than the average American to be the most powerful person in the world.
Last time I checked, it's generally a good idea to hire the best candidate for the job.
In 2000, I remember thinking that I really wished that John McCain had gotten nominated instead of George Bush; aside from not coming across as a barely literate moron, McCain also seemed more thoughtful and more willing to call out people that others in his party were kowtowing to, such as the religious right. Sadly, over the last eight years, he seems to have lost that edge, and decided to embrace more of the standard Republican line, and it seems like that very thing may have cost him this election. I have no idea why he picked Sarah Palin as his running mate -- if you name any of her attributes, it seems like there's someone more qualified he could have picked. It's less a question of experience than a question of intelligence, of introspection, of analysis. The feeling I get from Sarah Palin, when she is talking about a subject, is like a student in school who simply memorizes something to pass a test and has no deeper understanding of the topic, even on subject she's supposedly an "expert" on.
I don't expect a politician to know everything on every subject. I don't expect to agree with a politician on every subject. However, I do expect politicians -- especially ones that are running for a national office -- to display some amount of thought on a subject, even one they don't know much about. I expect them to be able to tell me why they hold their opinions in a way other than circular logic. During the second debate, when Obama explained to one of the members of the audience what the credit crunch meant to him, that was something that really stuck with me because it showed a level of understanding that I didn't get from either of the Republican candidates.
I tend to be rather liberal on social issues and conservative on fiscal ones -- if the 2000 election had been between Gore and McCain, it would have been very hard for me to choose between the two (and I suspect I'm not alone in that). This year, the choice is trivial, which is disappointing. While I think Obama is probably the strongest presidential candidate from either party in a long time (at least in my voting lifetime, not that that has been all that long), McCain is incredibly weak, simply because his campaign has shown a lack of intellectual fortitude that I consider horrific. The most despicable part of it has been seeing McCain (and even moreso Palin) mock the idea that we might want someone who is smart, who is eloquent, who is thoughtful, who is diplomatic, who is better than the average American to be the most powerful person in the world.
Last time I checked, it's generally a good idea to hire the best candidate for the job.
Feed Subscription
If you use an RSS reader, you can subscribe to a feed of all future entries tagged “Obama”.