Was it all that you hoped for? Did Barack deliver the goods? The absurd and detailed news coverage of this admittedly historic day was a bit much. This was more akin to a coronation of a new king vs. the inauguration of a president. It just sets the bar that much higher for him. I don't envy him.
I think he gave a good speech. It is difficult to tell how it will rank with the other great inaugural addresses, but it was good. The man can give a good speech. On my way to work I was listening to conservative talk radio, and as they were licking their wounds, they were replaying Reagan's inaugural addresses in their entirety. Which reminded me that he was a hell of a speaker too. At several points in the Reagan speeches I listened to on the way to work I found myself saying "hell yeah!" Now the Republicans understand how frustrated the Democrats must have felt in the 80's when the Right had such a charismatic leader.
I've been encouraged by some of Obama's words and appointments. He seems to be tracking more to the middle since his election. Some of his moves have made liberals downright angry. Good stuff. Perhaps he does think freely.
Am I the only one who has been fascinated by this series of exit interviews and press conferences given by George W.? If he had been this reflective and open to criticism over the past 8 years, he would have been much more successful. One thing W. has accomplished that many people did not think possible: he has kept the U.S. safe from another attack after 9/11. That is no small feat, and it is something for which we should be grateful to him. As he candidly admitted recently, "I never moved passed September 11th."
As far as the Obama hysteria, it was interesting at the high school where I teach. It was strongly encouraged by certain powers that be that teachers show the inauguration to our classes throughout the day. Not only that, but the auditorium was open all day to bring classes down to watch it on a huge screen. Had John McCain won this election, would the school make the same efforts? Probably not. But we now live in "Obamaha" and it is "Obamatime", as some of my more conservative students cynically said today in class.
I am encouraged and optimistic about an Obama presidency. I think he is reflective and smart enough to rule from close to the middle. And you cannot underestimate force of personality in leadership. That is one reason Reagan was so successful. Strong and optimistic leadership can help to lift a nation in a crisis of confidence. That is what Reagan did after the malaise days of Jimmy Carter, and hopefully that is what Obama can do for us now.
22 comments:
So far, Obama has been more conservative than Bush. That is what is cracking me up. Everyone thinks he is going to be some liberal savior, when in actuality, he has so far been pretty conservative.
I watched the daily show yesterday as they replayed the speech. They would play a section of the speech and then cut to a clip of some Bush speech where he says nearly THE EXACT SAME THING WORD FOR WORD. Of course, Obama does it with STYLE, so people overlook that.
In summation, people are stupid
It was a good day. The media was terrible, but Obama was dignified, I thought. So was the rest of his family. I hate to tell Pockyjack that not "everyone" thinks he will be, or wants him to be, "some liberal savior." I'd prefer that he govern from somewhere near the center. I think people are mostly excited to be treated like adults, and to have a president who speaks to them and seems confident doing so. To Dez's point, these Bush interviews have been extra painful because have how much he shut himself off for a lot of the past 8 years. As one conservative writer put it recently, "Watching Bush's farewell address last night, what struck me above all was how long it's been since he felt like the President."
As for keeping us safe, that's obviously a good thing, but it's always hard to gauge how much Bush-Cheney (or anyone else) are directly responsible for that. As someone else said recently, we all felt like Clinton's time was full of safety and peace, but 9/11 kind of changed the thinking on what he had actually done, etc...
You Bush haters refuse to give him credit for anything at all. I've always found that funny. Bush could cure cancer and Rolling Stone magazine would still run their vile, hate-filled attacks on him that they do every issue. I'm no Bush fan, but come on. Can people, maybe, admit that perhaps he stumbled into doing SOMETHING right in 8 years? Maybe?
"Hard to gauge how much Bush-Cheney are responsible for that"? Are you serious? That is the one clear thing Bush accomplished, even in the face of enormous opposition and to the detriment of his popularity. What are you saying? 9/11 was just a fluke, an abberation? It probably wouldn't have happened again, regardless of Bush's actions? Or has it been Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi keeping us safe? Jesus Christ.
Dez, you're around the bend on this one. First of all, 9/11 couldn't possibly happen more than once on that scale and with that coordination. It was EIGHT YEARS between attacks on the Twin Towers. We're not just going to get attacked every day. We're still a difficult country, geographically, to attack on a large scale.
And as long as we're talking about Bush, how about his intelligence department and the fact that they were... drumroll, please... IN POWER WHEN 9/11 HAPPENED!!
I am not someone who is incapable of giving Bush credit for anything. I'm just not. But no matter who is president, I'd say that the safety of the country from things like 9/11 is complicated, and also due in many ways to local policy and action. I'm happy we haven't been attacked. But if a dirty bomb went off tomorrow in D.C. or L.A., what would you say then? The fact is, these things bleed between administrations, and that 9/11 was a fairly astonishing aberration in almost every way you can name. You can "Jesus Christ" me all you want, but save your uncomprehending exasperation for Rush or whoever else...
I disagree with you on several fronts. I think that 9/11 could happen on that scale. A different plan, different methods...but why not? 9/11 wasn't that complicated, really. Some flight lessons, box cutters, being able to coordinate flight schedules and counting on the fact that most highjacks pre-9/11 resulted in taking a plane and landing it elsewhere (which explains why the passengers on the towers and Pentagon planes allowed it to happen). That's about it.
And forget about the scale issue. Even if I grant you that an attack on that scale is unlikely anytime soon. We have not had a terrorist attack on U.S. soil since 9/11 AT ALL. ON ANY SCALE. NONE. NADA. The Bush administration, for all of its many faults and clumsy public relations, did dedicate itself to preventing another attack. And if there is an attack during Obama's administration, it will not be that easy to point the finger back at Bush (although the Libs will undoubtedly try, since everything bad is his fault). It will be more likely because of Obama's ridiculous decision to shut down Guantanamo as a prison facility, and other such relaxations and softening of our guard.
I do not dispute that the Bush administration made mistakes before 9/11. The Clinton administration was AT LEAST as much to blame as Bush. They had several opportunities to eradicate Bin Laden and did not take them. 9/11 was a failure of intelligence from the Clinton and Bush administrations. But after 9/11? It is difficult to fault Bush on the measures he took after the attack. (Iraq aside).
And even on Iraq. Since the Surge, that has really turned around. Remember when Harry Reid and other congressional Democrat leaders publicly declared that we had been "defeated" and we should retreat? Now they are singing a different tune. Obama gets to wrap up Iraq and claim victory. How convenient for the Left. Who was at the forefront of demanding the Surge, even before Bush wanted to do it? John McCain.
Dez, Dez. I'm not criticizing Clinton, Bush, or Obama. (Right now.) What I'm saying is that these attacks take time, if they're going to succeed. You make it sound like the 9/11 operators drew up a map on the floor, went to Target for some box cutters, and that was that. It took years to plan. I'm not saying that an attack of that scale is impossible -- in fact, I think terrorists will manage to more or less destroy an entire city someday, either here or somewhere else. I'm just saying that attacks of that magnitude are inherently rare. (Again, for now. Thankfully.) You say there have been no terrorist attacks of any type. "Nada." OK, I'll bite: Other than the original bombing at the WTC, and 9/11, name a (foreign) terrorist attack that's happened on U.S. soil in our lifetimes.
As for Iraq, I will leave you with your delusions. I'm thrilled that the surge caused some level of improvement in the country, but "Obama gets to wrap up Iraq and claim victory"??? Is that really what they're saying on the radio stations you listen to, and if so, where can I get what they're smoking? If we stay in Iraq, there's still blood being spilled and big problems, even if things have improved. There's still a hell of a lot of money that we don't have being spent and Americans dying. If we leave, as you've mentioned many times in the past, what do you think the place is going to look like? Where is "victory" in any of this? Bush started a war -- and I admit that I supported it at the time -- in which "victory" is almost impossible to envision. That's what Obama has inherited. Period.
Also, "(Iraq aside)" has to be one of the most courageous parenthetical asides ever written.
OK, sure 9/11 was more complicated than I made it sound. But still, if you recall, almost every "expert" under sun was predicting that it was all but a sure thing that we would have another major terrorist attack in the U.S. within a couple of years after 9/11. It was a foregone conclusion, they were just trying to figure out where and what type it would be. I am just saying that Bush did a great job in the following 7 and a half years proving the experts wrong.
True, the big attacks have been rare, but the whole thing was that after 9/11 everything supposedly changed. We were in a new world. Terrorists would be everywhere and attacks common. It was going to be a new reality.
As much as you people hate to admit it, Iraq is a continually improving situation. Terrible mistakes were made early on, and they were not fixed soon enough. But strategies have been altered, and the situation is improving a great deal. As we bemoan every death and every dollar spent...well, wars costs lives and money. That is the nature of a war. Why are people shocked by this? Yes, I am sad about American troops being lost. But did people think there would be no casualties in this particular war? It's a war.
We look at WWII with almost nostalgia, but there were many costly tactical mistakes along the way that cost thousands of lives that could have been avoided. War is a messy business.
We look at WWII with almost nostalgia because we knew what the hell we were doing there in the first place. If you're waiting for us to look back on Iraq with nostalgia, I hope you live to 450.
And who is "you people"? I supported the war!
You write: ...after 9/11 everything supposedly changed. We were in a new world. Terrorists would be everywhere and attacks common. It was going to be a new reality. The key word there is "supposedly." What the experts (and people like myself, who were very shaken and fearful) failed to account for was the fact that it wasn't a whole new world. Being a New Yorker, I hate to say this, but if it were a whole new world in the way that everyone was predicting, there already would have been suicide bombings on the subway, etc. I challenge you to come here, ride the trains for a week, and tell me how George Bush or anyone else could possibly stop someone who's fully determined to carry out an attack on the subways.
All I'm saying is that there are three other things involved here, in addition to George Bush's awesome powers: 1) luck; 2) a world that's not as radically changed as people assumed it would be; 3) the scope of 9/11, which meant that terrorists hoping to make a "big show" in the U.S. had to outshine a pretty amazing/horrific event, and for all we know they're still planning to do that.
The word verification for this post, I kid you not, is "heropoo." I guess that's Batman's waste or something.
It is about time this board got interesting again.
It sounds like JMW prefers style over substance
Pockyjack, you must prefer pithy over profound.
It occurs to me that you mean I prefer Obama (style) over Bush (substance). You could also mean my own arguments. You might mean both. In any case, I like style and substance if at all possible. Failing that, I do like one or the other, which is why W. left me cold.
You are correct on your analysis of me.
I was referring to Obama vs. Bush.
Anybody want to keep the ball rolling here? I have reserves of contentious, voluble style with nowhere to put it.
JMW, I may not need to live until I am 450 to determine Iraq a success. I have always said that W. will largely be judged by historians based on how Iraq looks 20-30 years out from this war. All of thee whining libs and the wringing of hands and Harry Reid-defeatist rhetoric may look really bad 20 years from now if Iraq has become a thriving somewhat democratic country right in the middle of that region. On the other hand, if it turns out badly, then they were right. If Iraq does turn out well 20 years down the road, it just better not be the Obamamaniacs taking credit for it, that's all.
Also, don't you think that perhaos it was because of the controversial measures taken by the Bush administration that we haven't had another major attack? Obviously we are all speculating here, since our intelligence forces can't really publicized how many close calls they foiled in the last seven and a half years. We only hear about the failures, not our many successes.
Bush's presidency is likely to be mostly remembered for 911 and the Iraq War.
Which of these 2 events has had the worst impact on Americans?
We lost almost 3000 Americans on 911. It was horrific in terms of loss of life but it was also quite traumatic for our entire country. We will never feel as safe again as we did prior to 911. There was significant loss of property, as well. Of course, it also brought our country together and it brought a trememdous amount of support and goodwill from all over the world, including most of the Muslim world.
We have lost over 4000 American lives during the Iraq War so far. Troops have been forced to extend their deployments and have been re-deployed multiple times. Families have suffered. We have spent roughly $600 Billion so far on the war. We lost the support of some of our former allies. Much of the Muslim world is now against us and pose a much bigger threat to our security than ever before. Our economy has suffered greatly, although admittedly it is hard to say how much the Iraq War has contributed to that. Personally, I felt much safer prior to the Iraq War than I do today.
The "Iraq aside" comment is amusing. If only we could put Iraq aside and do it all over. I would argue that the terrorists might not be as strong and as dangerous as they are now. Would Pakistan be more stable? It seems that's where the Muslim terrorists are now finding a stronghold. That's really scary.
I have hope again with Obama, but I am scared. He is walking into the toughest situation of any President in many decades. Are you really saying that Bush has done all the hard work so that Obama and just walk in and claim victory on Iraq? That's hilarious.
I will admit that Bush has given Obama many opportunities to look like a hero. The opportunities all look very challenging to me, though.
Dez,
I agree it is possible that Bush did a few things right on the security front. It's just not obvious what those things were.
It wasn't the Iraq War. It wasn't torture. It wasn't illegal wire taps.
I don't want to live in a country where the government or the President has the right to do absolutely anything they want in the name of national security. That's a very slippery slope.
Man up, Dre. For being a red blooded American, you sure are "scared" of a lot of things. Relax. We are still the U.S.-fuckin'-A. In the words of John Belushi in "Animal House": "Did we give up when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?" Hell no.
Regarding 9-11, I think people outside of the New York vicinity have short memories. Yes, they remember 9-11, but the intense feelings of that day have faded into the history books. I would say that I was strongly effected by 9-11 for about 6 months. But since then my day to day life has felt the same as it did pre-9/11.
The Muslim world was not going to love us, regardless of Iraq. Yes, there were some statements of goodwill after 9-11, but there were also celebrations in the streets of many Muslim nations the day after 9-11. Remember that?
You know why the Muslim world does not like us? Because we are Israel's best friend. That's why. I'm not sure that I want to bend over and do what it takes just to gain the approval of the Muslim world. We can try and be fair with them, but short of us nuking Israel, they will never love us anyway.
Dez,
Man up? What the hell are you talking about? Is that what Bush has been doing? Showing what a man he is? Who showed more courage? Bush or Gandhi?
My day to day life returned to normal in a lot less than 6 months after 9/11. And my day to day life wasn't really affected by the Iraq War, either.
I really hate it when people go to the argument that the Muslims are not going to like us, anyway. The Iraqis are Muslims. Are you saying they will still hate us after they have a thriving democracy thanks to Bush? The Pakistanis are Muslim. Weren't they our allies? I agree that most Muslims do not like our support of Israel, but that doesn't mean they all want to kill us. I can list quite a few Muslim countries who we've had good relationships with in the past in spite of our support of Israel.
My goal is not to make everybody like us. However, I highly prefer peace over war. I also liked being a highly respected nation. More importantly, I like it when I'm proud of my own country. We've lost some of the world's respect in the last 6 years and I've lost a little of my pride, as well, but I think Obama's leadership will help us earn it back. Unnecessary wars do not earn respect.
I've always been very proud to be an American, but I was much prouder on Jan. 20, 2009, than I have been in the last 6 years.
Gandhi was courageous. Although, even he was wrong about several things. His pacifism did not make much sense when he was asked how the world should respond to Adolf Hitler if fighting was not an option. He never had a good answer for that. Also, he never figured out how to live peacefully with Muslims either. Once India was free from British rule, it fell into violent civil war between Hindus and Muslims, and Gandhi was assassinated by an angry Hindu who did not like his largely ignored peaceful overtures to the Muslims of India who soon formed Pakistan.
Of course we can't speak of the Muslim world as a unified block. We have good relations with Egypt and some of the smaller countries on the Arabian peninsula. But much of the Muslim world hates us because of our support of Israel. That is a fact. Pakistan at best tolerates us when it is convenient for them. They are not a close ally.
What are you willing to sacrifice to gain the world's love? Throughout history, the most powerful nations have not always been loved by the rest of the world. That is just not going to happen when you are the most powerful country in the world. The up and comers as well as the has beens aren't going to appreciate the hierarchy.
This is all speculation. Like I said, we will not know whether Bush was a success or failure until about 20 years from now. Remember that Harry Truman was considered a terrible president during much of his term and immediately after. It was only decades later that he was rehabilitated and is now considered a great president. I'm just saying that there is the POSSIBILITY that that is also in the cards for Bush.
I am not a Bush fan. But I get tired of the intellectually lazy, knee jerk reactions of Bush-haters.
Dez, I feel similarly about knee-jerk reactions. Those occurred in 2000, when everyone in New York assumed Bush would be a terrible president, and knees were jerking all over the place. But here's the thing: Bush is now out of office after eight years in. Dude, reactions ain't kneejerk anymore. There's such a thing as a record, and a lot of Dre's complaints are real and not intellectually lazy. It's intellectually lazy to argue that several decades from now Bush's legacy may be improved, instead of talking about the facts as they currently stand. (Also, the good will toward Truman had a lot to do with what he did after leaving office, so we'll see if Bush takes advantage of that opportunity.)
The world's good opinion is not my litmus test for our actions. For one thing (of many), "the world" makes "Muslims" sound like an incredibly narrow, specific group. "The world"??? We had some countries with us, and some of the countries we didn't -- France and Germany come to mind -- were knee-deep in Hussein's corruption. So no, I don't really worry about them. That said, to know what we know now, about how and why the war was launched, about how it was executed, about our options now -- it's really hard to see Bush being vindicated here, especially since, as you point out, many in that part of the world do hate us. Obama and the rest of us have to get some of our dignity back -- and that includes reversing some of Bush's policies, so I don't see how history will applaud him for his leadership. I also don't see -- because I agree with you about some of the deep, intractable hostilities in the Middle East -- how Iraq is going to be a thriving, gentle democracy anytime soon.
I also think we need to rearrange our view of the U.S. as the 21st century progresses. Yes, we are a hell of a country, and yes, we have physical and intellectual resources that are awesome. But we are not the "most powerful" unless you're talking about our might. Right now, this economy is a much deeper mess than even the headlines usually admit, and we're indebted to China something fierce (as you know). This John Wayne idea of the U.S. that's held sway since WWII should be revised. Best nation on earth? Yeah, I'd be willing to say that, for various reasons. But the hubris could still kill us.
Dez,
I guess I didn't make myself clear. I'm not looking for love from other countries. I do, however, want to work toward peace.
Post a Comment