Poll: What did you think of Pres. Obama's SOTU speech - ?

Only problem here is that Obama is supposed to be one of us - a Democrat.

That said, he made a few great statements, but the Devil is in the details.

You are right about Obama's speech. He is one of us. We do have to hold him accountable to REASONABLE expectations. I recognize that the problems are difficult, there are political and logistical difficulties, and there is often a long process to go through. So I am trying to be fair and reasonable in my expectations.

I worked very hard for Obama in 2008 and I expected more from him. We have to be fair. He is president of the United States and not dictator. The challenge of lining up all the political support he needs for his proposals is difficult. He has had some victories.

Where I am disappointed is on the subject of the wars and the prison camp at gitmo.

If we want to cut the budget/deficit, then the easiest way to do that is to end those wars. Obama promised to end the war in Iraq and bring our troops home in six months (we all saw the video of the Democratic candidates debate on CNN). If it took him a year to do it I would not complain. If it was underway now but the logistics took longer than expected I would not complain. But we still have close to 100,000 troops in Iraq. While we have cut back on troops we have added Blackwater mercenaries to replace the troops we have cut. At the same time he is escalating the war in Afghanistan. We have to realize that under the new political landscape Obama is going to forced to make cuts in spending. That will mean that he will be sacrificing programs we all support to keep these wars going. That is cruel irony.

Further the prison camp at Gitmo is still opened. There are no trials. Instead there are military tribunals. There are people being held there indefinitely. We are still using the practice of rendition.

Let me be clear. I know these problems are difficult. I am not asking for Obama to undo a decade worth of problems in two years. I am asking for two things. First I would like the President to speak about these things the way he did as a candidate in speeches such as the state of the union. This would make me feel like he meant what he said in 2008. And I would like to see some progress being made. I not asking for the problem to totally go away. I know the problems are difficult. Just some forward progress.

It seems like ending the wars would be such an easy win. After all, there is not a lot of support for the wars that I can see among the people. Democrats tend to oppose the wars. And even many Republicans oppose the wars. I know the neo-cons support any war any time. Republicans like Ron and Rand Paul oppose the wars. They have a large following in the Republican party. There are a number of Republicans (ordinary people) I work with. I disagree with them on many issues. But they agree with me and I with them that we need to end the wars.

Now if we can get President Obama to agree we might be able to make some progress.

Only one thing you & I heard differently: I thought Obama said troops would begin coming home from Afghanistan in July?

His promise was to remove all combat troops within 16 months of taking office, not the 6 months you claim. He achieved that goal within 19 months. By dong so, he brought our total troop presence down to about 50,000, not the 100,000 number you claim.

On GITMO ... he can't close it without help from congress, and the Dems caved on that issue by being unwilling to bring a single detainee here for trial, not one. He can't make it happen without congress, and congress, as usual has had zero spine on this issue.

It's refreshing to read this post.

:thumbsup:

Obama won't speak to the obstruction. It would be counterproductive for him to do so. He is trying to get buy-in, and it's working... slowly. You can't get buy-in from people if you are pointing the finger at them.

According to the New York Times as of Thursday August 19, 2010 the US government was DOUBLING the number of contractors (i.e. Blackwater) to replace the troops that were leaving. That report, like others is subject to error. But since I am not there I need to rely on some source for the news.

Having pointed that out, I genuinely hope you are right.

But I not only want our troops out of combat in Iraq. I want them home. Then candidate Obama was very hard on John McCain when he indicated that we could leave our troops in Iraq indefinitely as long as they were not in combat just as we do in Korea. I agreed with candidate Obama then and now.

I am not certain that the President's hands are so tied on Cuba. First we had a huge majority in both houses of Congress. In fact, for most of 2009 we had a filibuster proof majority in the senate. What happened? Why couldn't we make time for a vote in Congress on a matter of human rights? Moreover, the President can stop the military tribunals in Cuba by executive order.

Like I said, I want to be fair. I know these things take time to fix. From the bottom of my heart I hope you are right. I would like to hear the President talk more about this in the State of the Union so I know that it is still important to him.

I obviously feel very strongly about both wars and want to see them end.

mentions that are in Iraq? We are an Empire now and we have a private army. It is deceptive to say that the U.S. is almost out of Iraq. We are NOT and never will be. I just wish the fuck they would stop with the lies. I hate that more than the actual reality.

They MUST keep regular troops in Iraq. Those 50,000 are what makes the Mercenary Army legal. The law would not permit a huge private army (contractors as they deceptively call them) to be in a war zone unless they are there in 'support of the regular army'.

We are never leaving, we are being lied and I don't know why people keep putting up with the deceptions and lies. When has any reporter ever asked this president 'what about the private army of mercenaries? When will they be leaving?' Why has no one asked that question? Because if they did, they go the way of Helen Thomas and anyone else who asked inconvenient questions.

When they pass a funding bill 'for the war', that money is mostly going to mercenaries.

Is about how the Republicans are acting as obstructionists to all you have noted here. But Obama won't do that. He can't. You can't point fingers at people while you are trying to get them to work with you.

Ending the wars is not an easy win. This is one big area of obstruction.

It is not an easy win any more. You are right about that. What happened in 2009?

We had a huge majority in the house. We had a filibuster proof majority in the senate. We are not talking about banks screwing people with high ATM fees. We are talking about people dying, human rights being abused, and money being wasted on a war when people in this country need food, housing, healthcare, education, and other assistance.

That seems to me like it should be a top priority.

Like I say, I want to be fair. I am sorry if I am not. I want the wars to end. I want to know it is still a priority for our President and our elected leaders.

Coming from me that says alot.

as far as salmon jokes go.

Not his best work, but certainly not bad. It was vintage Obama, in that it was a bit more flash than substance, but that's what you're going to get with him and we all know that. I liked the mentions of public transit and DADT.

God, you people are soooooo whiny! Is nothing ever good enough for you?

Bestest. Speech. Ever. In the history of, uh, speechology. So there.

As far as speech writing went, it was good, but Reagan was a good speech writer to.

heard, you can bet he wrote it himself!

He conflated wind & solar with coal, nuclear and gas, and never mentioned hydro, wave, or tidal.

At least he came out against handing SS over to wall street.

20% positive.

he also could've mentioned every person in the US who's gone back to school, and every plant that closed down.

some people want solar, wind... others want clean coal and nuclear (paraphrase obv.)

However, most Americans would not want to live near you, then --

Couldn't nuclear plants be put in the desert near Yucca mountain? Wouldn't it be safe as long as it were away from people and near where the waste will eventually be disposed of?

That is a genuine question. I don't know the answer.

Yuuca is far away from the load centers and the transmission system is not adequate to move the power. Nevada has great solar resources and there are excellent wind resources in the midwest. Making full use of them requires the ability to move power from those areas to places like Chicago, Houston, Los Angeles, etc. Our transmission system is not capable of doing that. Obama mentioned the need for upgrades to it in his SOTU.

I am not a huge nuclear fan. I know there are a lot of problems with it.

It does displace the burning of a lot of coil, oil, and natural gas. France and other countries get a large part of their energy from it.

Then again I would not want it in my community.

I guess I am still on the fence about nuclear. I would like to learn more about it.

Yes, he mentioned nuclear, because it's greenhouse free. And if we're going to hit that 2035 goal he mentioned, we're going to need a lot of it.

As for hydro, it's great, but there's a sharply limited number of rivers you can dam to produce it, unless you're willing to do some very large scale ecological engineering, the kind that can have it's own negative ramifications.

Go to these industries.

And nuclear IS greenhouse free.

"So tonight, I challenge you to join me in setting a new goal: by 2035, 80% of America’s electricity will come from clean energy sources. Some folks want wind and solar. Others want nuclear, clean coal, and natural gas. To meet this goal, we will need them all" http://www.mybanktracker.com/bank-news/2011/01/26/state-union-2011-video-summary-transcript/4/

To me, he is saying all of these are clean.

Nuclear waste is not clean, nor renewable, nor unlimited, as are wind solar, tidal, wave, & hydro.

Conflating these items is disingenuous, IMHO.

Obama didn't say he wouldn't trim it or cut it. Nothing there to gaurantee that Wall Street won't get their filthy hands on it. There was no mention of a "lockbox" for it.

private Health Care Industry -- I would count on more of the same in his dealing

with Social Security -- in other words, whatever the GOP wants, they'll get!

Also recall the "stimulus" was only 20% of what economists told him was needed and

yet it included "BILLIONS" for corporations -- !

Same with public education -- constant undermining since day one to benefit Charter

Schools while destroying public education, teachers and their unions.

On and on --

IMO, best bet it to toss Obama as soon as possible -- unless you want more of the same?

We need a Democrat like Bernie Sanders -- Tom Hayden -- Michael Moore -- anyone from

outside the party who isn't already pre-bought and pre-owned by corporations.

pleasantly surprised at his plan to begin bringing troops home from Afghanistan, happy to hear his vision of high-speed internet capabilities in the future.

Obama made me laugh out loud with the salman joke.

I was disappointed about his remarks about job creation. I got the impression the issue isn't top priority; I expected more impressive solutions from Obama than what was offered. Those without Republican governors will reap the job opportunities provided by high-speed rail & improved infrastructures embraced by progressive governors. And the amount of jobs bargained for with India & Korea, 300,000+, is paltry when compared to the nation's total of unemployed.

It wasn't his best speech, but it relieved my mind about SS.

He said he wanted a "bipartisan" solution. The only "bipartisan" solutions floating around are add on accounts, raising the retirement age, means testing and reducing COLA (these all CUT SS, not "slash" but we're just talking semantics here). We need a Democratic solution (i.e. lifting the payroll tax cap). Keep an eye out for his budget in February. Then we'll know if we can breathe easy or not. As for me, I'm still calling and writing letters.

but, hey -- it is "change" -- !!

The change we need now, imo, is a new Dem candidate --

maybe Bernie Sanders can run on the Dem ticket --

but I won't be voting for any more Obama nonsense --

Note that everything from "impressive" to "100%" was broken down into four separate categories, while "disappointed" was left as one category. Hence, although those top four categories outpolled "disappointed" by 34-28 (and, if you include the "85%" in the mix, it becomes 41-28), a quick glance at the chart will say that the biggest vote-getter was "disappointed."

Frank Luntz would be so proud... :puke:

anything but an attempt to try to be fair to the pro-Obama people here.

I should have included more negatives --

But, I also agree that we can clearly see and hear that the reaction

to this speech was negative -- more globalization, for one, slickly presented.

As for me -- I don't watch Obama's speeches -- never have.

Nor will I be voting for Obama in 2012 -- i think we need a new Democratic

challenger -- someone like Tom Hayden -- or even Bernie Sanders running on a

Democratic ticket --

And -- again -- I haven't seen anything positive on Obama's speech from any

liberal commentators --

Didn't catch up with Amy Goodman today, but hope someone will post her reaction

soon --

Bye --

Majority either loved it or were disappointed.

He offered some good ideas, but I doubt that the Republicans will let him keep any of them.

The speech itself was very general (again) and not very interesting. He did not suggest any really creative, new ideas. But I still gave him 90% because he conveyed optimism, and that is a hard thing to do right now given the state of the economy.

The state of the stock market doesn't mean anything to ordinary people. He has to find ways to create jobs, and that is going to be very difficult. First, big business wants cheap labor and fewer jobs lower labor costs. Second, the Republicans in the House are really subpar and don't understand how the world works, so Obama will have a hard time selling ideas like fast rail and alternative energy.

The first priority right now is educating Republicans about what needs to be done and why. They just don't think very well. That is why they are Republicans.

For once I'd like to see something happening. I'm tired, maybe it's political fatigue but I'm tired of watching both parties screw the lower income workers into the ground.

Maybe I should get re trained in a not so tiring job for a not so available other job cause this job I have is making me too tired to listen to speeches anymore.

3 month old meltdown last night led to not being able to watch. I look forward to catching up today during her naptimes.

The ugly truth is there's little that will be accomplished with a teabagger House and obstructionist Senate. On the whole the SOTU is a wish list where the specifics are weeks or months down the road...if at all. Complicate this with a government that is broke...and refuses to make the hard choices that in any way upsets the big money and special interests who both parties rely upon to throw them well over a billion dollars next year in what is sure to be the most expensive election cycle ever. You won't hear about tax hikes on the rich...the votes aren't there. Cut defense spending? No votes. Eliminate a lot of the corporate welfare? Not a chance. Thus what's left is "on the table" as sacraficial lambs to the "promises" of being "fiscally responsible". The poor, those on fixed incomes, the elderly and the disenfranchised don't stand a chance as they don't fill the campaign coffers and have few real advocates in either house.

I didn't expect much from this speech and I wasn't disappointed.

Maybe many DUers wanted him to give a rousing FUTRP speech instead.

I realize that many, including the media, thought that Obama reasserted his (bland and milquetoast) centrist position as POTUS in DC.

Perhaps he is, likely he is doing so in order to placate the center-right and center-left who he believes to be or is advised to comprise the vast majority of US citizenry.

Most DUers who post here are definitely further to the left and many are extreme left. IMO. Just some are center-left. It is my belief that if DU truly represents the majority opinion of Democratic voters in the US, why are replies to OPs on General and General: Presidential threads on DU not in the tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, and not just usually in the upper hundreds at most/best.

It is VERY unlikely that we will EVER have a Dem POTUS that will please many if not most DUers. I would love to have a "Give 'em HELL Harry" Truman-like firebrand, takes no shit from the rightwing Democratic POTUS, but I don't see Olbermann or an Olbermann-like Democrat successfully seeking to primary challenge Obama and and defeat him, and then picking Maddow as his VP.

However, we are very correct in believing that Obama is foolish in his apparently continuing to appease and think that he can elicit much if any bi-partisan cooperation by the Rethuglicans, but his first term is now half completed. These final two years will obviously become crucial in discovering whether or not he is or could be re-electable, that is, IF he decides to seek a second term, of which Obama has not given much if any indications that he intends to as yet.

He will obviously never get any votes cast or approval from those in the RW-extremist Tea Party, but apparently he does not believe that the teabaggers are a genuine political threat to him, and that they are the GOP's headache. (which they are)

Perhaps the far/extreme left needs to create their own version of the Tea Party, to shake up and disrupt the mostly docile Blue-Dog members of the DLC. I have heard about the "Coffee Party", but it does not seem to generating much if any nationwide interest, not does it appear that it could ever have as much disruptive potential influence on the Democratic Party, as the teabaggers do upon the GOP, at least not until possibly AFTER the GOP once again have their candidates elected as POTUS and VPOTUS. But IMO, IF the left were able to create their own liberal version of the Tea party, WHO would they have amongst the wealthy would bankroll and continue to fund it, behind the scenes, like the teabaggers have in the Koch brothers, and Dick Armey?


Any teabagger-like demonstrations, protests, assemblies, meetings, and groups who would plan, organize, and encourage large assemblies/protests by the Left would very probably be construed and spun by most of the MSM as being COMPLETELY opposed to most if not ALL of the policies of Obama adminstration, and to a slightly lesser degree, the Democratic members in Congress. If so, they would very likely provide much more political fodder the GOP and the Tea Party to use to their great advantage, in their quest to elect a Republican to the Oval Office in '12, IMO. Their leaders, especially the more outspokenly vocal ones in Congress and in the media, such as Limbaugh, Beck, Palin, Bachmann, Malkin, Coulter, Hannity, the Faux Noise network's talking head-cases, Cantor, McConnell, ect..would VERY eagerly seize the opportunity to use the Left's overall unhappiness and growing discontent with the Obama administration thus far, to greatly advance their stated agenda to see President Obama FAIL and to help in "Take Their Country Back".

If Obama does not seek a second term, or if he is unable to rally the elected members of the Democratic party and the very enthusiastic support of the more liberal/progressive elements of the left JUST like he did during his first campaign, I have little doubt that the many successful election campaigns by the GOP candidates after the '10 midterm elections might have been just a mere preview to their much greater potential successes in '12 elections, and once again as the GOP/Tea Party backed candidates might emerge largely victorious, and may regain majority control of the Senate as well as enjoy a much greater majority control of the House, with likely a much better chance of their presidential candidate being elected to the Oval Office.

usually a good speaker. In his speech last night he just regurgitated Republican talking points and gave us the same empty promises about "cutting dependence on oil" and "rapid transit trains" that are now mandatory for presidents to include in their SOTU's. He also made several references to Boehner, I got the feeling that they are quite chummy.

I usually don't miss these types of things. But I just can't stand all the stupidity anymore. It makes my blood boil and I really just end up angry.

And I can appreciate the courtesy and civility in the Chamber.

The ribbons for Gabrielle Giffords and her empty seat meant a lot to me.