Posted on 01/20/2009 12:56:30 PM PST by lewisglad
Obama's Disappointing Speech Posted at: 2009-01-20 14:57:00.0 Author: Michael Sean Winters
President Barack Obama’s inaugural address was surprisingly leaden. It did not soar like his "Yes, We Can" speech after losing the New Hampshire primary, nor did it chart his plans for governance as did his convention speech in Denver. Most strangely, it did not seem to capture the history of the moment the way his election night speech did.
Part of the problem is with the nature of such an address. This was the speech of a head of state, not a head of government, even though the President serves both functions. But, presidential oratory only succeeds in head of state mode at times of national tragedy. After the space shuttle Challenger disaster, Ronald Reagan gave his best speech as Bill Clinton did in the wake of the Oklahoma City bombing. Inaugurals are festive occasions, and as we saw today, the impulse to speak for the nation often leads to the kinds of abstractions that do not make for great oratory. Still, one need not be so opaque about historical illusions: If you want to refer to Washington crossing the Delaware, speak of Washington crossing the Delaware not of "the coldest of months" and "the icy river."
One of the chief virtues of Obama’s campaign speeches was that they did not need flights of poetry. They were often quite prosaic. "Yes We Can" is not the most lyric of lines. But, he matched policy and purpose in those speeches, and he inspired not only in his presence but in his sensibility that government must be a force for good in our national life again, that governance was a moral act, that we were not at the mercy of economic laws made by the gods but could yet again be masters of our nation’s future through systematic, thoughtful analysis of our problems.
Obama’s speech contained a lot of spinach. Alan Wolfe thinks this was the primary problem with the speech – too much duty and not enough hope – and I think he is largely correct. Obama’s campaign was about hope, about our ability as Americans to reach for the stars. Obama’s tone today was gloomy and foreboding, sounding more like a stern, unpleasant uncle than the smiling man who captivated the nation last year. He needed to inspire, not merely to lower expectations, to make his talk about values less vague and more precise, more concrete. The speech too often seemed like spinach pretending to be poetry.
Obama said that our problems, and our solutions, would require common effort, and the sight of crowds stretching the entire length of the Mall emphasized the small "d" democratic quality of the speech better than the words he chose. But, inaugurals do not merely commemorate the voters who choose: They commemorate the choice. Maybe Obama is a more humble man, but I yearned for some reiteration of Franklin Roosevelt’s line: "The people of the United States have not failed. In their need they have registered a mandate that they want direct, vigorous action. They have asked for discipline and direction under leadership. They have made me the present instrument of their wishes. In the spirit of the gift I take it." We may need to focus on our common responsibility, as President Obama suggested, but we want leadership too.
Sitting here not three hours since the speech was given, it is sad to think that I can’t recall a single line from memory. I suppose almost any collection of words was likely to be dwarfed by the historical enormity of the moment. And such a moment it was.
It was an omen confirmed by, "A nation of Christians and Muslims . . . and Non-Believers"
yitbos
My friend, you should be writing covers for the new york post.
I am not buying what Obama is selling (if he ever tells us exactly what it is), but the death of this nation won’t be caused by the likes of puny Obama. We are much stronger than that. He may hurt us, but he can’t kill us. I understand your concern, but I can’t go along with the hyperbole.
My hope is that Obama implodes. It will be fun watching him try to vote “Present” in the coming four years.
>>Obama’s tone today was gloomy and foreboding...<<
Hmm. Sounds like Bush finally let him in on what is REALLY going on in the world.
This is from AMERICA, the Jesuit magazine. They would be disappointed in 0bama’s speech. He didn’t scream “Kill More Babies!” at intervals during the speech, did he? This would cause AMERICA’s editors to have severe reservations about 0bama’s commitment to Social Justice.
Failed speech.
Market sinks.
Obama’s fault.
No more hope? No more whipping the rock star crowds into a frenzy with “Yes We Can”?
The Obama adorers will find out just how much reality sucks. The speech is just the beginning of their disillusionment with this man. I predict that by next week the economy won’t have recovered, the earth will not have started cooling (as if it needed to) and Hamas and Israel will not be singing Kumbaya together, also Christopher Reeves will not have risen up and walked again due to an embryonic stem cell transplant What a suprise!
As far as memorable speeches go “An angel in the whirlwind” still comes to my mind.
Thats very haiku like...a much better poem than the ramblings of that poet at the inaugeration. I like it.
I can't think of a more appropriate word for Obama.
Only if good men and women do nothing. If we stand up, If we do everything we can to fight back against what we know in our heart is wrong, we can and will prevail.
I LOVE Celtic woman! Nothing could have been more therapeutic today. /off-topic
He is not the Wizard the MSM has manipulated the public into believing. The MSM only knows the money generated from Political Commercials pays their salaries.
That was because Bush was elected that year, right?
"Could not he who said 'Yes, we can!' have caused that this man should not have died?"
Is resurrecting the dead above his pay grade? 9 out of 10 Obama supporters don’t think so.
Actually it was both. First Roberts misplaced "faithfully", then when Obama hesitated, Robertes restated correctly. Obama then said it the way Roberts said it the first time.
Unfortunately I think the "formal" oath is just that, the formal oath, and the oath may have been sworn earlier, perhaps just on paper. If not, we have a problem, and had another. First, we had no President, not even a poser, for some period, as the taking of the oath occurred somewhat after noon, when President Bush's term ended. Fortunately nothing happened to require the President's action during that period. Secondly the oath is the only thing in the Constitution in quotes, it must be sworn as written. It wasn't. So, technically, and Constitutionally, if the oath was not sworn before the formal ceremony, even a written oath would be OK, we still don't have a President or a poser, since swearing of the oath, as written, is commanded by the Constitution (Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he *shall* take the following oath".) (members of the military both swear an oral oath and sign a written oath, (for officers these are: AF Form 133, DA Form 71, NAVCRUIT 1000/20) but I don't know if the President does or not.)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.