I’m afraid I wasn’t paying complete attention during the inaugural speech. Too busy scanning the skies waiting for the mothership to descend. But it seemed pretty inclusive. Bush was thanked for “his service to our country.” Lots of mention of “our forebears” and George Washington, to make it very clear that Obama knows what country he is president of and, despite certain unfortunate remarks, fully identifies with it. Yeah, there was some slightly partisan stuff about “We are ready to lead once more” but, look, you can scarcely come in as a new president having campaigned on a slogan of “change” then say, “well on second thoughts, I am now firmly resolved to run things in exactly the same way as the previous administration,” can you?
It was all so nice. (I also liked the bit where there were no explosions.) I’m not sure I didn’t have a sentimental tear in my eye as I wandered out into the kitchen to inaugurate a celebratory packet of digestive biscuits.
So twenty seconds after the man calls it a wrap with “… and God bless the United States of America” down stomps the BBC in size eleven hob-nailed Doc Martins. The first, the very first, thing that comes out of the post-speech commentary just had to be that Obama’s comment blah blah blah was “a missile into the heart of the previous administration.” Something like that anyway, and I think, but only think, it was Huw Edwards doing the idioting. Like I said, by this time my attention had wandered. So after all that I missed the moment when the prophecies were fulfilled: because, surely brothers, the BBC was destined to speak thus.
Obama did no more than indulge in some standard “new dawn” rhetoric. The man may be an economic ignoramus but – and this skill at performance may bring us good or ill – he knows very well indeed how to vary his demeanour to match the mood of the occasion. The BBC doesn’t.
That’s another 10/10, Ms Solent.
Indeed Natalie, every president evokes a “new day in America” image. I thought, as a member of the party opposite, that Pres. Obama’s speech was respectful of Bush. We are all Americans first today.
I thought the speech was actually pretty good, and well delivered. The hard part, as they say, starts tomorrow.
As for Pres Bush, we gladly wecome him home to Texas, and are excited he will live right here in Dallas.
i have heard r5 nes call it a “sober” speech. i.e it wasn’t left wing enough for them.
i imagine they didn’t like the bit where he said
“We will not apologise for our way of life….”
the bbc spends 24 hours a day apologising for the very existance of our country.
I liked that part of the speech, and that we would continue to defend ourselves against terrorists. I think the left is going to be disappointed with the President. If I was pleased with the speech, the left must be hurting. But as they say, the proof in the pudding…
“I thought the speech was actually pretty good, and well delivered.”
Hi Charles:
He wrote it hisself, you know. I’m glad to hear someone made it out, a Texan at that. Must be all that good clean New Mexico water we have to give you 🙂
Oh, that’s our water betyangelo. For some danged reason God misplaced it in New Mexico!
Obama has completed his job as new prez of america,done and dusted,if he quit tomorrow it wouldn`t matter.
Barry is percieved as anti-war,
assuaging liberal guilt over iraq.
He`s also firmly nailed himself to environmentalist flag pole,suv drivers who voted for him will no doubt sleep smugly in their beds tonight.
Of course being an african american as well, the citizens of america can finally shed the collective guilt of slavery and segregation,not a bad days work were you a guilt ridden democrat,absolution with just one trip to the polling booth.Better than confession.
Is anyone taking bets that america`s not going to hell in hand cart in the next four years?
The bbc having fought an anti-republican campaign worldwide for the last eight years must be gooing their collective posing pouches this evening.
stomps the BBC in size eleven hob-nailed Doc Martins
Natalie, surely you know that the air filled soles of the Doc Marten boot cannot be hobnailed?
I remember a kid putting blakies (remember them?) on his DMs with dire results – hobnails would be worse.
When Clinto left office he pardoned all his criminal cronies.
At least Bush did the right thing by commuting the sentences of Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean.
Pity he couldnn’t have gone the whole hog and pardoned them.
Bush and Obama, the change makes little difference, as the unelected Ben Bernanke continues to destroy the US economy.
Had the Republicans opposed the idiotic bailout and pledged to abolish the Federal Reserve, they might have won. Bush could have helped McCain by sacking Henry Paulson.
Do I hold the world record for not watching any (not one word) of his speech or the media hype on Barack Obama?.You see he is a socialist and I have yet to see a country that is controlled by socialists to have a prosperous economy.
Also..[The U.S. Constitution stipulates that only a natural born citizen of the United States may be eligible for the presidency.]
“There is evidence Mr. Obama was born in Kenya rather than, as he claims, Hawaii. There is also a registration document for a school in Indonesia where the would-be president studied for four years, on which he was identified not only as a Muslim but as an Indonesian. If correct, the latter could give rise to another potential problem with respect to his eligibility to be president”.
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=1511
Curious,an hour or so ago bbc reported that as an
african american president, obama would be looking into closing guantanamo,is there an inference that had he been a euro american president or an anglo american president this wouldn`t have been the case?
Apparently just being a democrat doesn`t cut it with the bbc,you have to carry the correct ethnicity,which would be anything but white,or the right gender,which would be female or…i was going to be rude and say beeboid,but maybe not.
Very neatly put, Natalie.
It will be good once all the BBC army leave Washington and allow the US administration to get some work done.
This all has the same feeling as that clown Blair in 97, the Lefties all waxing on about “great efforts and opportunities for the future” etc etc .
The markets seem a little less impressed, and presently so am I.
There were some ignorant gits on Radio 5 last night. Some woman ‘claimed’ that ‘Boosh’ (she was Scottish of course) had pardoned two men who’d gunned down some poor innocent Mexican.
Of course ‘Boosh’ didn’t pardon the two border guards, he commuted their sentence, they were still guilty of their offence AND will be in prison for some time yet.
The man wasn’t innocent but a drugs smuggler and he got shot in the backside.
The BBC never lets the facts get in the way of a good lie do they?
George Bush has pardoned the fewest number of people of any President in recent years and many many fewer than that idiot Clinton.
Very few Inauguration speeches are really memorable. They are ‘feel good’ words for the occasion not policy blueprints.
I can’t vote for any American President and wouldn’t have voted for Obamma if I could. The BBC’s Obama worship has long been a joke and an offense against the requirements for neutrality.
Nevertheless, the real job starts tomorrow. I’m all for giving him a break until he actually does or says something. The bottom line is, and here I take on the BBC’s tone of omnipresent voice, the World doesn’t want him to fail. The consequences of failure will damage us all.
IF the world governments follow the centralist Obama and Brown models and are perceived to succeed, all of us who want free speech, low taxation and for the government to allow us individual freedom, will be shafted.
Welcome to the dawn of the Mega Nanny State!!!
Last night the tone of the Beeb seemed to be pretty disappointed by the lack of soaring rhetoric in the speech. By this morning they were wheeling on speechwriters to say how great it was. An editorial decision overnight?
I am delighted to report that I watched no coverage of Obama whatsoever yesterday, but look forward to how the BBC report his first cock-up.
Cockney
you are quite right,The beeboids seemed shocked by the speech yesterday,lets see how the great one will perform over the next 4 years.
I like Obama. I’ve read his “Audacity of Hope” and he comes across as a decent guy.
What is nauseating is the gushing, dripping adoration of The One by the proto-Marxist media.
Compared to the great Martin Luther King, Obama lacks the authenticity of the black experience that drove Dr King. The Big O has led a charmed and pampered life. So his speech was full of hollow Washingtonspeak platitudes.
Interesting to me was the “sermonising” in his speech, the religious cliches, the unswerving attachment to God. Had this been said by anyone else, the BBC and the alliance of proto-Marxists who dominate 24 hours news services would have been swarming all over the man, decrying his loony religious right beliefs and crazed Christian values. For now, silence.
Grant | 21.01.09 – 9:27 am | #
Grant, within hours of the Second Coming, the Big O has made two almighty cock-ups:
1 Halting the 9/11 trial. The President is not above the law, nor should he interfere with due process. If any trial should NOT be interfered with, this is it. The Iranian thugocracy have already started to party.
2 The anti-capitalist tone of his speech, which has already sent stock markets worldwide going into free fall.
It won’t take too long before the anti-American slugs started leaving a slimy trail across BBC 24.
A bit of Obama and a bit of Hamas
This paragraph in Jeremy Bowen’s diary: Obama’s challenge riled me.
Everything seemed to be on hold, as people waited to see what Obama would do. And even Israel’s offensive was determined by the inauguration. It was shaped to fit the time that was left before the old president went home to Texas and the new president went to work.
Firstly, there is absolutely no collaborating evidence. No statements by Israeli politicians or cabinet ministers who were in on the decision making; no leaks from cabinet, the IDF or the Defence Ministry; no anecdotal evidence from soldiers who were informed of the date and told to prepare; no leaks from the White House or the Pentagon that Israel had warned them to be prepared. Nothing to back-up that statement.
Secondly, it would be far more accurate to say that Hamas miscalculated badly when they declared on December 18th the ceasefire with Israel was over and would not be renewed. or when they escalated the crisis by firing hundreds of rockets and mortars at Israel.
You could say that Hamas timing doubly screwed itself. Not only did they commence hostilities in the lull before Obama’s inauguration but they ignored the XMas-New Year break when much of the world, including journalists, take holidays.
Could Hamas have picked a worse time to start a war?
Could Bowen be more misinformed?
People on the Left can be religious, the media will not touch them. It’s only when you are on the Right that the media savage you.
Obama can do pretty much whatever he likes, and the Left’s criticism will be muted, if anything at all. Plus, of course, his ethnicity gives him a “get out of jail free” card with middle-class liberals wracked with guilt and self-loathing.
It’s funny how some people on here are quick to claim that it was Obama who screwed up the oath (when it was Justice Roberts). Shows that many are out to get Obama from the word go.
Remember that the election of Obama (left leaning, pragmatic) is more a reaction to the Bush years than anything else. Poeple got sick of the arrogance and incompetence of the Bush white house, so they decided to give the Dems a chance. And then in 4, or 8 years, it will be back to the Reps. It’s all a cycle.
Bush simply moved too far to the right of most people. America is a conservative nation, but Bush over-reached. Maybe Obama will reach too far the other way. But come on, give him a chance. People reacted hatefully to Bush from the word go in 2000 yes thats true, but thats because of the controversial way in which the election ended.
Also, and this is my final point, a lot of people here strike me as the types who have been moaning about anti-Americanism in the British press (wider world) for years now. So now the world is giving the US a fresh look, you still can’t be happy? The election of Obama (yes, partly cos of his skin colour) shows America’s limitless possibilties to the world. And yet a lot of you on the right can’t rejoice in that? You have to complain still. You were fed up with anti-US press, and now you’re fed up with pro-US press. The election of Obama will make it much harder for people to disguise their anti-Americanism as anti-Bush. Anti-Americanism as it will exist from now on will be exposed for what it is, and for this you should be grateful. There are no longer any excuses for the far left who just hate America full stop.
What always cracks me up is the ‘land of the free’ delusion.
Big business back presidents during and after campaigns. Right now they will be saying ‘Obama, we would like this and this etc.’
They certainly do not do it for charitible reasons.
Apologies if someone has already posted this, but check out the pic. of Anita Anand, BBC reporter, who provided ” the impartial political coverage for which the BBC is famous…”
http://www.order-order.com/2009/01/one-last-encore.html
What always cracks me up is the ‘land of the free’ delusion.
Big business back presidents during and after campaigns. Right now they will be saying ‘Obama, we would like this and this etc.’
They certainly do not do it for charitible reasons.
Whereas in other countries the unions fulfill this role instead. A much better situation
There will be a struggle between two groups – one the one hand, the vast number of Democrats who want proper socialist policies, and who are represented by the mainstream media and our BBC, and on the other hand the new president and his government who genuinely want the new government to succeed.
It is like a rebellious pupil (‘I don’t believe in school uniforms’) becoming a prefect (‘Straighten your tie, boy!’).
Anti-American leftists are pro-Obama to the extent that he is unAmerican.
His honeymoon will eventually be interrupted- perhaps when the working + middle classes get their first tax bill.
The nauseating sycophancy will diminish as reality kicks in –he is not the Messiah –just a very naughty boy etc etc
I know it was petty and small, but just couldn’t resist texting some leftie friends on Obama’s swearing in gaffe “After Bush, what a relief it is to have a President who can get his words right!”
We all know how this type of gaffe would have been treated by the BBC.
If this gaffe is unprecedented, which I suspect it might be, you would have been hearing it ad nauseam.
I missed the speech after his ‘gaffing in’. Thought I might have been putting him off. Caught the aftermath at a friend’s house full of fawning lefties. Shocked at my enthusiasm at the sight of George Bush Jr.
Read in the paper that one of President Obama’s comments was that ‘People will judge us on what we build, not what we destroy’.
Well, people will actually judge America on both President Obama.
Under Bush, the American people destroyed the tyranny of Saddam Hussein and built Iraqi democracy. The then Senator Obama did nothing for either. The exact opposite in fact.
One now lives in the hope that President Obama will outlive his hard-left, black power, anti-semite, corrupt Chicago background. If he moves to establish tyranny instead, as his background suggests, we know that the OPS (One Party State) media will do all it can to aid him.
Gus – bang on. How could one be neutral on the matter of his inauguration? Sneer a bit? Argue he isn’t actually President, like Fox?
http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2009/01/20/obama_oath/index.html.
Problem is the coverage doesn’t chime with a central dogma on B-BBC that the BBC is Anti-American.
Gus Haynes | 21.01.09 – 11:18 am |
Also, and this is my final point, a lot of people here strike me as the types who have been moaning about anti-Americanism in the British press (wider world) for years now. So now the world is giving the US a fresh look, you still can’t be happy? The election of Obama (yes, partly cos of his skin colour) shows America’s limitless possibilties to the world. And yet a lot of you on the right can’t rejoice in that? You have to complain still. You were fed up with anti-US press, and now you’re fed up with pro-US press. The election of Obama will make it much harder for people to disguise their anti-Americanism as anti-Bush. Anti-Americanism as it will exist from now on will be exposed for what it is, and for this you should be grateful. There are no longer any excuses for the far left who just hate America full stop.
I disagree with most of this. The BBC and the rest of the Leftoid world, including those in the US, are not giving the US a fresh look. They believe that the US has finally come round to the “correct” way of thinking, and are graciously allowing the Prodigal Son back into the fold. We think the correct thoughts now, so we’re cool again. Opinions haven’t changed, only the signage has. Wait until you see the hatred finally unleashed against George Bush and those who voted for him and supported even some of his policies. It won’t be pretty. But America will be great again, simply because we appear to think approved thoughts now.
I don’t have too much respect for people who reacted to the election as if they’ve been freed from years of tyranny and oppression. Yet, that’s how Hollywood, the vast majority of the media, and especially all BBC employees are behaving. Haven’t you noticed that the real adoration is for The Obamessiah, and the US is getting the benefit of the doubt simply for following Him? We’re true believers now, so yes, the world is smiling upon us again. Not really something to warm my heart. Why should I respect their opinions now?
We’re all happy that everyone understands now that we’re not a racist country. Yes, that’s a good thing. I just wish it had been a much more qualified black man instead of a lawyer from the most corrupt political machine in the country (well, probably tied with New York), and one who made his political bones on Socialsim and radical education politics. But “limitless possibilities”? As if there were none on Nov. 1? That’s the phoniness I object to the most. We’re the same country. We may change now because of the cult of personality that is developing around a neo-Marxist. But that remains to be seen.
The Beeboids who are all of a sudden no longer going to spit on me are shallow, emotional, and ignorant.
I agree –the reason I don’t like Obama is I think he is a quasi Socialist not beacause he is black(ish)
Frankos,
THere is nothing quasi about it. Take a look at all the things he is spending money on…they are all new age socialist programs!
You know, the good old impartial and totally independent media did their nuts over GW, demanding he not spend money on the “Neocon” war machine, yet their silence on the Light Workers ™ socialist spending agenda is defeaning.
Make no mistake about it. The Light Worker ™ has the very real potential to make GW’s years in office a very fond memory.
Mailman
MWL: No, but as I’ve been continually reminding you, it chimes perfectly with the BBC dogma that “we like DEMOCRAT America, we hate REPUBLICAN America”. It’s not difficult to understand, but it is impossible to deny.
David,
I believe that the world is giving the US a fresh look, but I take your point that there is a certain amount of ‘they’ve come round to our way of thinking’ . Whether that way of thinking is right or wrong is open for debate, but I think it’s clear that US government policy has been out of step with much of Europe and the world in recent years. The world is rejoicing at Obama because he seems to be interested in how the world views his country; Bush seemed unconcerned about the image of the US as long as he was doing what he felt needed to be done. Now, I accept his (Bush’s) point of view; he’s the US president, not the world president, and he serves to make decisions not to win popularity contests. But the US has weakened itself in many peoples eyes by ignoring requests/advice from the rest of world, and it’s ‘soft power’ has been weakened. This is where Obama’s approach may differ, and hence why the world seems to be so thrilled he was elected.
And David remember too, that US presidents are rarely ‘qualified’ for the job. How much experience did Clintyon have? Or Reagan? Or Bush (w)?
Even Lincoln was regarded as incredibly inexperienced. The flipside of this is that supposedly experienced men (Cheney, for example) have shown that other qualities are just as vital.
How could one be neutral on the matter of his inauguration?
mikewineliberal | 21.01.09 – 2:25 pm |
Well, are we allowed at least to be cynical? I really wish President Obama all the best, because I think he, and we, are going to need it.
But there is no way he is going to live up to the hopes he has foolishly allowed everyone to place on his shoulders. The media at large has gone along with this, not just the BBC, however the BBC is a huge beast with its tentacles everywhere and must accept a large part of the responsibility for setting the mood in this country.
It allocated all but 5 minutes of its flagship news programme last night to his coronation and in my view that was well over the top. Mrs D is apolitical but even she felt she’d had enough after 10 minutes – with no prompting from me as I’d decided I would bite my tongue and await her reaction.
And Huw Edwards looked frozen and bloody miserable having to stand there!
Gus Haynes | 21.01.09 – 3:11 pm |
And David remember too, that US presidents are rarely ‘qualified’ for the job. How much experience did Clintyon have? Or Reagan? Or Bush (w)?
Reagan, Clinton, and GW Bush were governors, two of them of states with bigger budgets and populations and economies than many countries. One key – and always overlooked – qualification for being a leader of any large organization is the ability to manage and administrate.
Chief Executive experience is vital, and all three of your examples had it. They had different management styles, to be sure. But they had experience managing enormous budgets, staff, etc. They also had experience making important decisions that affected millions of lives, and that of an entire state entity, and had to bear the consequences. It doesn’t mean their policies or personal behavior will be any good, but the experience of doing it reasonably well is extremely important. It’s one of the main reasons why Senators almost never get elected President. The Obamessiah had none of that.
Lincoln’s time was a different world. Comparisons like that are invalid.
David Preiser (USA) | 21.01.09 – 2:26 pm
David, I understand (and sympathize to some extent) with a lot of your criticism of Obama along the lines that he is unproven, inexperienced, etc. But where do you get the idea that the guy is a ‘neo-Marxist’? Judging by the policies he has been proposing and the economic team he has assembled, I’d say his instincts seem to be entirely conventional and mainstream. If anyone has been upset by his actions so far, it’s been the left wing of his own party, and the vast majority of them wouldn’t even fit the definition of Marxist, neo or otherwise.
Isn’t it interesting that the BBC haven’t commented on just how well Bush and Obama got on in the handover period?
No childish antics from the Bush people, unlike the Clintons (many of whom are back of course) and I’ve heard a few reports (not from the BBC) that since Obama started getting security briefings (“..welcome to the Party..” as Bruce Willis said in Die Hard) he seems to have cut back on the leftie nonsense?
Obama knows that if there is a single attack on the USA either in the USA or outside he’s gonna get it from the people.
mikewineliberal: Utter rubbish. Bill O’Reilly on Fox said Obama got the words out, although not in the right order.
What is shows though is how bad Obama is speaking without an Autocue as we have been saying here for months.
People on the left like you used to joke that Bush didn’t know the difference between Iran and Iraq. I just wonder if Obama will have to have everything written down for him so he doesn’t screw up? After all the soldier that stood in for him in the rehersal got it right.
Mugwump | 21.01.09 – 4:10 pm |
But where do you get the idea that the guy is a ‘neo-Marxist’? Judging by the policies he has been proposing and the economic team he has assembled, I’d say his instincts seem to be entirely conventional and mainstream. If anyone has been upset by his actions so far, it’s been the left wing of his own party, and the vast majority of them wouldn’t even fit the definition of Marxist, neo or otherwise.
I’m talking about the policies on which he ran during the election campaign, and his personal history as an activist in Chicago. He has had to change his game temporarily due to an economic situation that was thrust upon him, sure. In that regard his instincts are for survival first. But as a candidate, he wanted to “spread that wealth around”. He often talked about forcibly seizing profits from the oil industry, passing laws with the intent to bankrupt the coal industry, huge tax increases on corporations and high earners, giving unions the ability to coerce people into unionizing, etc. There’s no question about his radical past, either.
I’ve been saying all this for months, based on the evidence the man himself provided. I’m not saying this all of a sudden, based on his appointments of the last couple of weeks. However, before we all pass judgment on him as a happy centrist, we should look not to the cabinet members, but to the coming appointments of the lower echelons of government who actually enforce the policies, or create them through activism.
Martin
The BBC referred to the good transition many times yesterday during the inauguration coverage. Maybe you missed it, but it was referred to on the BBC1 coverage on more than one occasion, so please get your facts right.
Here’s a chance to give youself a lift and help make a beeboid miserable.
Sign an online thankyou to George W:-
http://mission1accomplished.com/
Gus – you’re right. I’m worried about Martin though. I think David Vance has buggered up his mojo with his swearing ban.
Gus Haynes | 21.01.09 – 4:47 pm |
The BBC referred to the good transition many times yesterday during the inauguration coverage. Maybe you missed it, but it was referred to on the BBC1 coverage on more than one occasion, so please get your facts right.
Yes, but they have neglected to mention – as Martin correctly points out – that the Bush people’s behavior has been the polar opposite of what the Clintons did when leaving. If anything, I think the BBC is surprised that the Bushies didn’t engage in petty, vindictive behavior. They’re probably remarking on it so much because they expected the worst.
It would have been nice to hear about the contrast between the Bush team and the previous Administration. But it wouldn’t do to make Bush and Co. look too good, would it?
Natalie, you are totally correct.
The first beeb comment was “a stinger missile through the heart of the Bush administration”
They could have summarised “in how many ways do I love thee”, but no, old habits die hard.
The second comment was anti Bush too.
Gus Haynes: I certainly did. But I caught the BBC comments about Obama attacking the Bush policies.
But I bet the BBC didn’t mention the childish behaviour of the Clinton administration when they got booted out did they?