Presidential Address Thread

Watch it here live:

Tags: Barack Obama (all tags)



All Talk

What I see from Obama is what I saw from Bush. Alot of tough talk and bravado, but his actions betray him. He has mishandled this mess from the start. He just comes across as someone trying to act tougher and more decisive than he is. He is what he is, in over his head.

by BuckeyeBlogger 2010-06-15 10:35PM | 1 recs
Are you concerned he's going to exploit the tragedy to push his socialist agenda too?

Because that's all your buddies on the right, Boehner, McConnel, the RNC could come up with as a response: that he's going to use this as an excuse to push energy reform. Oh, the horrors!

by NoFortunateSon 2010-06-15 11:22PM | 1 recs
RE: Are you concerned he's going to exploit the tragedy to push his socialist agenda too?

Yes I am so wrong, thats why there are others here basically saying the same things. Further public opinion gives him the same bad grades they gave Bush onm Katrina. Face it, Obama is a failing President. In over his head.

by BuckeyeBlogger 2010-06-16 08:25AM | 1 recs
He's all talk, indeed

Last night, President Obama said he was going to make BP pay. And he did.

BP agrees to put $20 billion in an escrow account.

Oh, but Obama is all talk. He's no action. It's another speech.

The President just humiliated you.

by NoFortunateSon 2010-06-16 12:52PM | 0 recs
RE: He's all talk, indeed

Yeah thats it Im humiliated. Obama got some money.....2 months into this mess and he got them to pay some money....hes doing a bang up job....

by BuckeyeBlogger 2010-06-16 07:49PM | 1 recs
RE: He's all talk, indeed

Others here are saying the same thing as you because this place is a wasteland, fit only for PUMAs and republiclan trolls, such as yourself.  A pox on this site (not that it is necessary)

by lojasmo 2010-06-18 05:57PM | 0 recs
RE: He's all talk, indeed

PUMA.... you say that as if it were a bad thing when really all it is is people who figured the guy out long before you did.

by TeresaINPennsylvania 2010-06-20 04:48PM | 0 recs

The person who ran to the right of Obama.

by NoFortunateSon 2010-06-20 10:42PM | 0 recs
RE: Are you concerned he's going to exploit the tragedy to push his socialist agenda too?

we should be so lucky that Obama does something not right wing in nature.  The repbulicans are crazy for calling him socialist when we know damn well he is nearly as far right as dubya.

by TeresaINPennsylvania 2010-06-20 04:46PM | 0 recs
You've got to let it go

The primary was settled two years ago. You lost. You need to get on with your life. It's not good for your health to hold onto bitterness like this.

Puma simply serve as amusement, as you twist yourself into all sorts of controtions complaining that Obama is too far to the right after supporting the choice that was to the right of Obama in the primary.

I have come to the conclusion that puma are ultimately motivated out of fear that someone is going to come along and reinforce the notion that Bill Clinton's Presidency was failed, that some guy is going to succeed where Bill Clinton failed. It's not that we're obots, but that you are clintonistas desperately trying to save Bill Clinton's image 10 years after he left office. If some guy comes along and passes health care, hold the house and senate, and gets reelected, then he surpasses Bill Clinton. And that's ultimately what you're afraid of. That all your Republican friends who told you that Bill Clinton never accomplished anything... were right.

Obama just overturned the Bush Era doctrine of expedited environmental permits. So Bush like, I know.

by NoFortunateSon 2010-06-20 10:49PM | 0 recs
As with everything else from Obama... was a mirror. People saw in it what they wanted to see. Personally, I saw some very encouraging words, and some words that were too vague for my liking.

The speech asked for thought, though. And I am amused watching the media elites tripping over themselves trying to tell people what to think immediately after Obama, in my opinion, made the subliminal case for people to think for themselves.

by NoFortunateSon 2010-06-15 11:36PM | 1 recs
A speech!

By Obama?  No way!

lol, I watched the Laker game-- great one!

by Jerome Armstrong 2010-06-15 11:51PM | 1 recs
This President is not up to this job

He should have been down in the gulf within a week of the spill.  I hate to think of what would happen if we had another 9/11.  It would probably take him a month just to realize what happened.  He is like a naive child and a cancer on the Democratic party. 

by Kent 2010-06-16 01:41AM | 1 recs
Obama's speech was a waste of time. Just read the highlights after tuning out

While Obama has been a huge joke over the last month, this problem does not boil down to Obama - the President. It is the cancer the senate has become. Obama's actions reflect on what he learned as a Democratic senator. Look at how Barney Frank, so called respected senator, is getting schooled by a newcomer like Al Franken. Chris Dodd was supposedly one of our best senators and he has been exposed to be a mildly corrupt weakling. Ken Salazar came from the wing of the party where they supposedly are conservative and are all about "results matter" and "fuck the liberal wing". Well, he failed. These establishment guys are all talk. Obama is so used to the ways of the Senate, I wonder if he knows how to kick some ass as he claims to want to. What I wanted to see from his speech was why people in the MMS should be scared and what he plans on doing to change the culture in DC which causes EXISTING regulations to be overlooked. What is he going to do to twist the arms of enough senators to pass some stronger conflict of interest laws? Obama has a chance to strike back at libertarians who want smaller government by showing that he can reform government. So far, he has shown he lacks the will to do it. One firing in a month so far?? That's it?

Obama's problem is he had a good campaign staff that he mistook to be a good administrative staff. Gibbs is a smug spokesman who makes Obama look worse. He is good at attack ads, but he is terrible communicator for the White House. He is quite simply unqualified to be working in government because of his persona. I can't believe I trust Bush's first Treasury Secretary than the full blown joke that is occupying that position under Obama.


by Pravin 2010-06-16 04:46AM | 0 recs
RE: Obama's speech was a waste of time. Just read the highlights after tuning out

If by good campaign staff you mean corrupt cheaters and sleazeballs, then I agree.  But you do not rig a primary by simply good campaigning.  Obama's staff got people's private divorce records leaked, you don't get much creepier than that unless it is calling everyone racist, disenfranchising voters and steeling delegates with the help of the DNC.


Obama's biggest IMO is that the appearance of doing good is the same as doing good to him.  He rarely follows up on his words (maybe because he uses different ones depending on who he is talking to) and talk is cheap.


I do congratulate him on getting 20 billion from BP, but I am guessing that it was a back room deal in which he promised to protect them from law suits in exchange.  That is his MO.

by TeresaINPennsylvania 2010-06-20 04:58PM | 0 recs
Why Obama is full of crap

He says that he will make BP pay. Does anyone really believe that? How come he did not use this to call out the senate for not increasing the liability cap?

Why do I not believe OBama? He said similar stuff about Wall Street. What did it end up being ? All talk. Nothing changed. So Obama should have been more explicit in why things will be different now. If he couldn't reform Wall Street despite dangling an immense bailout, what makes him think he will succeed now?

The Healthcare saga is a story in development. But one thing is sure - Obama sure didn't instill any fears in the hearts of insurance execs. They are blatantly raising premiums for several policyholders. So what makes one think Obama can scare BP?

by Pravin 2010-06-16 04:58AM | 1 recs
RE: Why you is full of crap

He says that he will make BP pay.

Obama said he'd make BP put 20 billion in escrow. They did.

Does anyone really believe that?

He DID NOT say that he would make you believe it. But, since you asked, I believe the facts.

How come he did not use this to call out the senate for not increasing the liability cap? 

Because he already did that.

"The president supports removing caps on liability for oil companies engaged in offshore drilling," said spokesman Ben LaBolt. "Oil companies should have every incentive to maximize safety and arbitrary caps on liability create a disincentive to achieve that goal."

The statement was the most detailed the administration has offered to date with respect to the debate surrounding BP's liability. And it reflects a growing sentiment within the White House that more aggressive action (if not optics) need to be in place to stem the fallout of the Gulf crisis. Several weeks ago, U.S. Associate Attorney General Tom Perrelli made the case for an unlimited cap without formally endorsing the policy.



As for the rest of your unresearched diatribe, it's just more Obama bashing you pulled out of your ass.




by QTG 2010-06-19 07:41AM | 0 recs
I stopped listening to his speeches long ago

Because his actions never live up to his words. He gave a speech on healthcare and embraced a Heritage Foundation plan. He gave a speech in Cairo but the Israelis are still increasing settlements and he is increasing aid to Israel. He gave a speech about his new financial regulation and now we find out that his point men in his administration want to water down derivatives regulation and as far as his much championed "volcker rule" goes, ain't gonna happen and he is just fine with that. So that's the disconnect between his words and his deeds.

But as far as this speech goes, like I said I did not hear it but did read the contents. What struck me is he purposely downplayed expectations without holding anyone accountable (except BP). Much as people would like to see some theater coming out of the White House, let's be clear the administration can do little to actually stop the flow of oil. What it can do is address the failures of the government, push for more expansive oversight and hold people within the government as well as in BP accountable. This begins with the Secretary of the Interior. Ken Salazar dropped the ball on off-shore drilling regulation, the Deepwater horizon plan was not reviewed by his department and despite its ludicrous nature was given a free pass, and in fact was given a special exemption from a worst case environmental study.

Instead what we heard was a new study commission and a reminder that his Energy Secretary Stephen Chu has a nobel prize. That might be very impressive but unless Stephen Chu is thinking of freezing the atoms in the Gulf with his lasers, there is seriously very little he can do. Right now the cleanup process is in Hollywood territory with such notable scientists like Kevin Costner and James Cameron advising the government.

The other thing he did not address was why did the government play along with the willful deception of BP and low-balled the magnitude of the spill, which included denying the very existence of underwater plumes of oil discovered by independent scientists. When you have nearly a 2 million gallons spilling per day, removal of a couple of million gallons of oily water every now and then is not enough; and the laying down 5 million feet of booms to contain a spill that exceeds 60 million gallons is laughable. These failings needed to be addressed, but was not.

But going ahead here's what we have to look for:

1. Does BP pay for all the clean up?

2. Will the tax payers be made to pick up any of the clean up tab in the name of "protecting capitalism"?

3. What new regulatory framework will be announced and will it have the full backing of the executive branch?

4. Are we going to have bold leadership towards faster transition to new energy?

Many here, among the fans of the administration make this hollow excuse anytime major legislations are watered down: change is hard, no bill is perfect, this is first step towards incremental change. Here's my take: when you have more than 10 million uninsured people in the country dying due to their inability to afford insurance you do not go for incremental change, you change the system. When you come very close to total financial meltdown and have the taxpayers bailout compulsive Wall Street gamblers with more than a trillion dollars, you don't do an imperfect bill, you overhaul the goddamn system. When you have the mother of all environmental disasters due to lax regulation, you do not propose window dressings, you propose tough regulations and overhaul the country's energy policy. These are tough proposals and require a tough executive, unfortunately I don't see substantial change happening anytime in the near future, just more window dressing.

by tarheel74 2010-06-16 09:34AM | 0 recs
RE: I stopped listening to his speeches long ago

Just to be fair, the title of your too long retort was all I read of it. I didn't have to read it any more, since the title said all I needed to know: that whatever you wrote  was based on absolutely nothing.

by QTG 2010-06-19 07:45AM | 0 recs
RE: I stopped listening to his speeches long ago

it's funny that you can type while holding your fingers in your ears and singing "la la la" with your eyes closed.

by TeresaINPennsylvania 2010-06-20 05:04PM | 0 recs


Advertise Blogads