Wednesday, January 21, 2009
I agree with Crittenden (who has a good roundup of reaction) and Surber -- The One's speech was singularly lame (although I disagree it had absolutely no moments...the 'unclench your fist' bit was a good one, but other than that...).
Surber:
...His speech was very revealing. He tried to be large but he kept being petty. He could not move the audience back enough to see the big picture.
Worse, it was also a rambling speech because it had no central theme. And that reflects not a thoughtful man with great vision, but rather a man who is suddenly thrust into power who hasn't a clue. He is clever, but not wise...
Crittenden:
...Some stock American History 101, some standard bootstraps and strong America rhetoric, and a string of other platitudes and sniping entirely unsupported by anything he has said or done or said he will do ... because once you get past the vague "hope" and change" promises, everything else has either been put on hold, sent back for reconsideration, or as is the Obamist wont, abandoned in favor of someone else's ideas. Then there was the fact that much of it was also entirely divorced from anything representing the realities of Washington and the world...
I'm all for the historicity of the moment, and happy that it's been shown what some of us already knew -- that a black man is perfectly capable of being elected president -- but as to the substance, no, as they put it at Hot Air, grading on a curve. And can we please put this kind of crap to bed now: Inaugural benediction: Pray that "white will embrace what is right"
When has Obama had vision before.
What has Obama accomplished before.
What Central theme was there to Obama's campaign.
What should we expect from a man who hangs around with Wright, Pfleger and Rezko.
Seriously. Do liberals not think about reality?
Obama could have given us 17 minutes of our life back if he'd simply said:
"Here's my inaugural speech: It's all about the 'O'" Now, let's paaaaaaaaaaarty!"
He did manage to throw in a few gratuitous swipes at President Bush - what inaugural address is complete without a few jabs at your predecessor?
Be sure to check out the new official www.whitehouse.gov/agenda/additional for more partisan attacks on President Bush.
Low class, coarse politics is a learned skilled - which our new President is displaying already.
A commenter on Bill Bennett's show this morning indicated it was tinged with a bit of Jimmy Carter's "malaise" speech (which was not an inaugural). I think that's right, though tinged is the right word. What seemed odd to me were the leftward themes couched in conservative prose. Or was it the other way around? And is that suppose to reflect another version of the proverbial "third way"? Or is it, at heart, simply more political flim flam and sleight of hand, seeking to appease some constituencies with words while forwarding decidedly leftist agendas under that guise, that veneer?
We'll have to wait and see, but whatever it was, it wasn't Reagan, '81, it wasn't even Bush II, '05. There was little - imo nothing - to grab ahold of in any clear, definitive sense.
David Frum has a new blog, The New Majority, and comments on BHO's inaugural address, here, which is part one of a four part commentary on the speech. Some solid reflections.
h/t Power Line
His speech inspired the gathering to clean up after themselves-so much for personal onus.
mike191, is that true? I don't believe it is. There's ample contrary evidence.
More inspiration: One Hundred Tons of Garbage Collected After Obama Inauguration, here.