Please do not denigrate words.

The President has an awesome responsibility, which is outlined very well in the Constitution. I recommend reading it to fully understand what the President can and cannot do.

On the topic of words:

Lately, many here have been dredging up the old saying "actions speak louder than words," which is a great saying, and has a very nice ring to it, especially in the current political/economic climate. It is hard to imagine the use of this phrase, being shouted from the rooftops by many who now find themselves (or always have been) opposed to the President, is not a cynical attempt to undercut his strength... his unmatched oratory skills.

Here is my request. Recognize that a key function of the President is communicating with the people. In my opinion he has spoken more clearly, more directly, and more succinctly than any President in modern history. His words are important not just because they inspire (young & old alike), but because they can set the tone. You see this in the bump not only he receives after a speech, but also his policy positions receive every time he speaks. That's right before they go through the woodchipper and come out the other side of the "translation" via the media/gop, usually resulting in angry interest groups.

I wholly appreciate people do not like or even respect this President. I encourage you, however, to not participate in taking away his voice, which has brought hope to so many, and very real help now to many many more. There is a reason they call it the Presidential soap box.

Take that away, and all of the actions you are hoping for, working for, impatiently screaming for..... gone.

pressures on Congress. Except...it many only last until 2010 when money in politics wipes that all away. Still, words can be powerful.

This came out twice during the primaries. Once, Clinton accused Obama of having only words, and no experience to back them up, and in a "You'd do it for Randolph Scott!" moment, Obama quoted lines from MLK and JFK speeches to prove the power of words. What he left out was that these speakers, and all great speeches we remember, attained their power because of the lives these people lived. You'd never care if Britney Spears said "Ask not what your country can do for you," or Roseanne Barr shouted "I have a dream!" You'd mock them. The power of these lives came not just from the oratory, but the sacrifices and accomplishments of the orator.

The second time it came up was when Obama was caught plagerizing others for his words in the first place.

He's the President of the United States. That is a major accomplishment, and what he has had to do to reach that office, and the office itself, give his words some weight. Yet when he talks about accomplishments he's never made, or promises future actions when his past actions haven't panned out, his words lose a lot of power.

I guess what I'm saying is that I don't think people are "denigrating words," or oratory, when they call for actions to back the words. I think the denigration comes when the words are spoken absent any credibility to speak them. I'm not an Obama hater, and while he hasn't done much to make me cheer, I do realize he's had a lot on his plate and he has a complicated job to learn. But I do hate hearing rhetoric that has not and probably will not result in any real accomplishment. Words are just words, only actions make them more.

My two cents.

Is his life itself not a testament to what he has achieved?

I didn't say he hadn't earned the "right to speak" powerful words. I said that words are more powerful by someone who has lived a life that earned the words. The "I have a dream" speech is powerful because of the sacrifices MLK made, and the actions he took towards his goals. They weren't words--the words was the expression of the action.

Obama has the "right" to say whatever he wants. No one has to "earn" that right. But unless his words have actions or history behind them, they are just words. The words haven't earned the power they aspire to. On some topics--how to win a presidency, how to neutralize racism enough to do so when you are a minority, what it's like to grow up abroad and live amongst other religions, and a lot of other topics his history gives his words weight.

But when he talks about passing legislation, or health care, or war, or gay and lesbian equality, his words have said many things his actions, nor his efforts, do not back up. Then they are just words.

for history to judge? Has he failed completely already? He is still President. His words can still lead to action. Why destroy his call to action by failing to accept the reality and limitations that surrounds them? There is still time for words... and action.

that he has a lot fewer limitations to overcome than a lot of presidents who have done more. Clinton had a Republican Congress and still moved us to the left. Reagan had a Democratic Congress and moved us way the Hell to the right. Obama took over with momentum and a mandate and a supermajority of Congress, and has grossly underachieved. He passed a lot of bailout and stimulus bills early on, and that was well done (even if controversial on many points), but both parties wanted that. Since then he has failed to use what he has. And he has been hesitant on things he led people to believe he would fight for, like decreases in our war efforts, or health care reform. (I realize he didn't promise a lot of what people claim he did, but he tried to convince them that's what he was fighting for).

I'm not saying he's been a bust--frankly, I don't understand either those who continue to lionize him or those who completely condemn him (although the latter group I suspect have ulterior motives)--just that he needs to do more than try to make us all feel good about him by saying the right things. He needs to lead, and that might mean making decisions that get people upset with him, and it might mean thinking on his own and ignoring his advisers. Whatever it means, when he has pulled troops out of Iraq, he can talk about peace. When he's worked harder for health care, he can blame Congress for dragging its feet. Speaking well is great, but the words need actions to back them. I can rattle off Teddy Roosevelt or Benjamin Franklin quotes to back that up, but you know them.

While I agree with your assessment of Congress when he took office, you kind of treat the stimulus as if it was no big deal. The President repeatedly stated that he did not want to start his job off by bailing out banks and spending a metric crap-ton of money to try and get things going again. These were areas he was forced into by the worst Presidency in over 100 years. This, due to a great deal of (very real and righteous) angst over the state of the economy has shifted Obama into having to solve his predecessor's problems while simultaneously having to work on his own policy goals. The two have not aligned very well... and he has made many many decisions that have made people angry on the left and right. Do not piecemeal these into a lack of leadership because he has not pissed off one group enough.

I do not recall him saying Congress is dragging it's feet on HCR. He certainly set un-met benchmarks... but other than physically prodding them into action, I think he has done all he can there. I believe he was very smart in handing this to Congress, because it actually forced them into figuring out what they might be able to agree upon, rather than giving the GOP a very clear target in the President (he is still target #1, but making Congress carry it's weight has thrown them for a bit of a loop). IF HCR fails, it will do so after having passed both houses of Congress which no President has accomplished in... well you know.

Anyways, I think we are basically on the same page... I will jump on Obama when I think he has failed. I am not even close to there yet.

but those of us who are hanging on by a thread don;t need someone to stand on the cliff and tell us about the great thing they are building to keep people from falling, etc...we need that guy to pick up the rope and get his ass in motion!

Time for words is over, that was the campaign...now we need results.
And I am afraid that we don't have the luxury of time or history to tell us Obama was a great oratory president.

Issues and events that were 'pressing' last year are still there and not getting any better, the next wave is crisis...and we don't need a crisis. Arguing whether this "should have been done already" is a waste of energy... let just MOVE FORWARD for crying out loud!

I'm asking you to respect that he is trying to wield one of the most powerful tools he has at his disposal. Assisting in the mangling of those words helps no one.

Words do help actions prevail. Maybe not fast enough for some.

And no one has the power to do it either. So the question is moot.

That's what I am getting at.

pshaw! ;)

to me

:O

It would help.

maybe you should read some history.

Just a bigot? Hmm.

I wish I could jump like that

you?

Looks like we both got something to shoot for.

WTF?

Do you see how this discussion devolved into me being a bigot somehow?

This is really sad.

He is the bigot. I don't know about you.

I was saying he managed to get elected. I was also pointing that out in the hopes that maybe you would attempt to imagine what it's like to try to be President. But you clearly have your opinions about him.

I am no bigot. I have my vices (all self-inflicted), but I am absolutely in favor of marriage equality, repealing DADT (idiotic policy) and DOMA. Obama's views are born of his religion... I do not hold them against him, as I know he favors equality for all, and is working towards it in his position as head of state. Obviously not quickly enough... but we have very different views on how easy it is to get these things done.

Newt Gingrich taught history.

.

How does someone who appreciates the amendment against illegal search and seizure just kind of throw up his hands and say, whatever, when he is empowered by the American people to actually stop it and penalize those who did it?

:eyes:

Please go practice your pedagogy somewhere else.

But I'll stay right here anyways, thank you very much.

1. Clinton was better at communicating than Obama.
2. Accusing John Q Public of being able to "take away his voice" is a completely bogus accusation and actually aimed at shutting up John Q Public.
3. Actions do speak louder than words. Actions matter, words not so much if there is no action to back them up.

1) your opinion
2) I am accusing people of not listening, or mangling his words, not trying to shut him up directly.
3) Presidents speak, their words move markets. Their words are action, or can spark it... it's part of a President's job. They have an intrinsic value that we allow to get mangled by our own biases/media spin/you name it. My request is not for you to shut up, it is for you to appreciate his actual words (listen to them) -- not the ones that get torn to bits by the time they reach DU or any other "outlet".

1. Clinton was warm and would listen. Obama has a cooler attitude and clearly does not listen.
2. No. You're trying to shut people up.
3. Words are not action. Words are an wisp of air or a vapor trail on the wind unless or until someone actually does something to translate them into action. I'm sorry you do not see that simple fact.

1) Yes Clinton was very warm, but not in the same league in terms of speechifying imho. We can go round on this one.
2) I'm not. Please, speak your mind.
3) For the President, words can be action. He can say a word, a wisp on the wind if you will, and the market tumbles (see his announcement about the banks last week). This is the nuance, that you are missing.

1. Clinton was more open. Do you remember him wading into crowds even after he was elected and how long it took the Secret Service to persuade him to do otherwise? He displays southern warmth in his demeanor. He encouraged conversation which in turn, made people want to listen to him. He really is better at speeches than Obama for that reason alone. Obama is not open. He isn't southern, he would be fine at a party where you don't have to go into any depth and display anything more than surface charm. When I see Obama I see someone who has built a defensive wall around himself that very few people get past.

3. Words without any actions to back them mean nothing.

1) Maybe we can agree they are different. I would rank Clinton directly behind Obama as far as connecting with people. The warmth you do not see, I see. A lot. Both men are great men. You do not have to be southern to be warm. And I am a Texan who grew up in the Midwest so, I can attest to this. I do not see defensive walls other than those erected by secret service post 9/11 and with the heightened security due to the fact the man is President, and there are a ton of people out there who are armed and dangerous -- and bigots. He has openly stated how much he hates "the bubble".

3) We are arguing over a laundry list of actions some perceive as an Obama failure while others are willing to give more time. Simple as that. There is a linear progression, unless we are talking quantum mechanics, in which case, I am all sorts of potentially wrong.

Man, that is some awesome power the DFHs have!

my parents were DFH's, and they rock. This is not about the SOTU, directly. But thanks for jumping to really random and seemingly paranoid conclusions.

Is not my problem.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=DFH

I'm mocking you for acting like President Obama is being silenced. The man can get on the airwaves any time he wants.

my parents fit the mold.

I guess you too busy moving on to the actionable item of bashing me over the head for no good reason? You do not understand my post.

I did not say he can't speak, I said people are no longer listening, the value of his words are being denigrated... which is serving the same effect as silencing him.

Not that I accept your thesis, as I expect millions of people will be watching the SOTU.

not sure why you are hung up on that. But thanks for continuing to misrepresent what I am saying. Kind of exactly what my point is actually... so thanks.

what the President can and cannot do.

Lots of promises are made. Not all are kept. It's a fact of every Presidency. He has kept far more than he has not... and he is not done. So cut him some slack, yo?

See: Public Option.

being under a microscope, and the nuance and missteps in language.

you deserve it

I think that is an increasing problem for this White House, and something they need to be more careful about.

I just don't see it happening. Sad that so many do.

Obama and his aides should treat us (their constituents) with a basic level of respect.

as Obama seems to be one of the most respectful President's I have seen. But I certainly agree that many must feel that way, because they certainly are not affording the President any basic level of respect here or elsewhere. Unfortunately that was the case for some before he was President, as well.

We will get a soaring speech tonight.

But, just as an example, Obama has never, to my knowledge, actually provided a clear explanation of his health care plan.

Partly this is because he never seems to have had one.

Just a collection of general proposals that he expected the House and Senate to hash out the specifics on.

A plan which failed miserably.

When did you ever hear the mandates clearly explained?

Or the excise tax?

We never did.

:thumbsup:

as an administration official today seemed to me to employ a poor choice of them with respect to "muting" liberal critics.

I'm sure if you took anyone's words over a few days time you'd find countless examples of poor word choices. In context "muting liberal critics" was supposed to mean "making them happy" not silencing them forever so we can march forward to our Fascist Corpkleptoligocracy.

Although to those already pre-disposed to hating all things Obama, and assuming he is working very hard against you, I could see where you would find this something else you could bemoan for a few days. Enjoy it while it lasts (I see ya'll already are).

and this has been known for a long, long time:

Ethos, pathos and logos.

Obama has logos down. He sometimes falters on pathos (read Ira Cherus' piece I just posted for expanded elaboration on how that fits into larger schemes of things, as shown repeatedly by cognitive science).

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x154149

The real problem that's been developing is with ethos (roughly translated as credibilty):

Frank Herbert gives a fair outline on that in his latest column (which I also posted recently) -it can also be found here:

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/01/26-1

I think most realistic (non DU related folks) would argue the President does not have as much of a credibility problem as you think he does. They blame Congress and Republicans (primarily) for the intractable nature of modern politics. Obama is doing just fine on all three fronts. Your post seemed more concerned with framing how people should respond to Obama's next "most important speech of his life".

Like it or not, you are being eaten by your own ethos on this issue.

Eaten by one's own ethos. Nice.

Credibility problems like this aren't unique to Obama- though they are amplified in his case precisely because he's a fine public speaker (at least in terms of elocution and delivery) because his campaign created high expectations- and because the times call for bold and decisive action, as opposed to muddle throughs and excuse making.

People see a disconnect between words and actions. Whether these actions and omissions are his "fault" is less important than the disconnect- or inability to see significant, tangible results. Moreover, as Herbert implies- over time, the actions and omissions (and actors) are associated with the leader.

People wonder what he really stands for- who he's really "for or against." Again, whether that's an artifact of his attempts at post partisanship- conciliation and conflict aversion is less relevant to folks than than whether he has a track record of coming through for them. Or at least fighting the good fight against those they perceive as their oppressors or those who are standing in the way of popular measure that they want passed (including members of his own caucus who have been quite publicly- and unpopularly appeased as of late).

It's an ongoing dynamic- to use Herbert's words- "a credibility gap," and it hasn't developed- and won't be reversed in a single speech or in a series of speeches- though it could surely be made worse.

not his words filtered through countless academic or pundit/infotainment-fueled intrigue pondering to no end.... "what it all means".

People tell us he is post partisan, and he himself relates the story of how he is a mirror by which people see what they want to see. I am with you on that.

This does not discount very real policy positions. The wiggle room he has left himself is the pragmatist in him, and it's a good thing, because every successful President has known when and when not to burn bridges if they want to get anything of consequence done.

As an experiment, some day we should move directly to discussing the actions part of the equation that so many want to see happen yesterday... as even though the saying "actions speak louder than words," is powerful... by it's very nature, "actions have consequences," is ultimately far more meaningful to what we are getting at. It is here that I think Obama has a unique understanding amongst Presidents of what he is actually trying to achieve -- how he is trying to do it, and how to get as much of it done in the environment he has to work with. His words are important for precisely this reason... and if you listen to them closely without all of the filters and blinders on... you might see how his words could quite beautifully transform into the types of actions we all want to see.

But you have to keep listening to him, or all you will hear is the noise trying to drown him out. He is our President. He deserves at least that respect. One year, one tiny year, following the last 8 -- is just simply not enough to have already decided the man has failed you and decide absent the ability to remake the world to your liking overnight, that the next best course of action is to turn the man into Moby Dick.

All that most maddens and torments; all that stirs up the lees of things; all truth with malice in it; all that cracks the sinews and cakes the brain; all the subtle demonisms of life and thought; all evil, to crazy Ahab, were visibly personified, and made practically assailable in Moby-Dick. He piled upon the whale's white hump the sum of all the general rage and hate felt by his whole race from Adam down; and then, as if his chest had been a mortar, he burst his hot heart's shell upon it. -- Moby Dick

Thus- I had few illusions.

Unfortunately, many other people did- and all together, it was an army- squandered and by the administration's own center right choices, disillusioned.

btw: the Melville quote not only rings hollow- but has the tone of distorted desperation a stretched and tortured analogy borne of cowardice.

Much like what many of us in the trenches saw and heard close to two decades earlier, when similar, center right apologetics were the all rage of the day.

people are not as disillusioned with the President as you proclaim from day to day here in the sheltered safety of the DU den... talk about cowardice.

I'm not sure what you are referring to from the 90's, but if it was tortured hairdos, we might have reached agreement.

Lastly, I am apologizing for no one. This is your main problem, trying to frame people's reactions. Putting words in people's mouths.

Stop that.

We heard many of the same arguments ad nauseum with Clinton in the 1990's as he repeatedly pandered to the right, enabling legitimizing- and signing off on Republican policies. He was, of course, not alone- many "new" Democrats went along, too.

This was also long before internet penetration reached anything approaching its current levels- so what we saw then (which mirrors what we see today) can't be attributed to some artifact of boards like DU. Sure, we had 'em (at least, the tech savvy or progidy types did) but more important were organizations (and constituencies) that we worked on issue for and with- and many felt betrayed. And on many issues- rightly so.

To this day, I know people in the environmental community who haven't forgotten being stabbed in the back by the salvage rider (logging without laws). Things like that happen with, say-the public option, too.

You seem to think that if you ignore the pattern, deny its existence or find fault with all the disillusioned in the base, that the politics of disappointment will just go away- and the President's "word power" will have the same impact it had a year ago- or last summer.

It won't. At least, not without some concrete actions to back it up.

I get it. I am part of the base. That is the part that you do not see, where I find fault. You have assumed I must be center right because I am asking you to listen to the President. The "base" is not just people who disagree with the President. That is the reality not squaring with your point of view of which I speak.

Regardless, I want to congratulate you for your service in the line of trying for a better world. I'm not sure why everyone eventually gets around to their "Dodge Stratus" moment in these threads (sorry inside joke for me relating to an old SNL skit). We will not agree on how to get there. I keep score, as you clearly do -- and I recognize at least the notion that the actions of Clinton had consequences. Some very bad, some good.

I won't be so shallow as to suggest you do not consider the time or circumstances having changed dramatically, as I am sure you have factored that in to your thinking.

Peace and good luck.