Obama's Inaugural Speech

[August1991]

Was I the only one who thought that it was a bit of a dud? I went back and looked at JFK's inaugural and Reagan's first and they were both better speeches.

I was impressed that Obama made specific reference to the Muslim world and I though his general meesage to the outside world was good. But when he had the world's attention, I thought he would do better.

Obama has given better speeches.

[Smallc]

Was I the only one who thought that it was a bit of a dud?

probably. It may not have been his best speech ever, but it was no dud.

[M.Dancer]

I glad they annouced Elizabeth Alexander as a poet

Because I'm sure no listening would know it.

At 25 cents a page her sales will gage

Whether anyone will read her or Farley Mowatt

[kimmy]

I thought it was an awesome speech, personally.

The analysts I was watching noted the lack of the "crescendo" which his speeches often build to; they felt that this was deliberately so, in keeping with the theme of subduing rampant expectations. They also noted an effort to avoid flowery language and speak in more pragmatic terms. And they noted an effort to appeal to "mainstream" American values.

-k

{and yes, following him with that lame poet was pretty poor planning.}

[Moonlight Graham]

Was I the only one who thought that it was a bit of a dud? I went back and looked at JFK's inaugural and Reagan's first and they were both better speeches.

I was impressed that Obama made specific reference to the Muslim world and I though his general meesage to the outside world was good. But when he had the world's attention, I thought he would do better.

Obama has given better speeches.

I agree 100%.

Decent speech, but not one of his best. Anyone else annoyed during his speeches when he does that folksy twang thing on the last word of every sentence/phrase? Like "God bless America". It sounds so fake & annoying. Like there's some southern preacher tring to leap out of him or he's trying to sound like small-town America. It was abnormally evident in this speech.

[bush_cheney2004]

Anyone else annoyed during his speeches when he does that folksy twang thing on the last word of every sentence/phrase? Like "God bless America". It sounds so fake & annoying.....

Nope...you want annoying? ...listen to a Stephane Dion speech...and he isn't even faking it !!

[Shady]

I thought the speech was solid. However, there were some contradictions within it. What I found abhorrent was the prayer following Obama's address, asking "when white will embrace what is right."

[M.Dancer]

I thought the speech was solid. However, there were some contradictions within it. What I found abhorrent was the prayer following Obama's address, asking "when white will embrace what is right."

...I thought he should have at least added when "black be not whack..." or some crap like that....

[bush_cheney2004]

I thought the speech was solid. However, there were some contradictions within it. What I found abhorrent was the prayer following Obama's address, asking "when white will embrace what is right."

Right...the speech was fine...he can't deliver a longer home run each time at bat. Unfortunately, very little of the speech's points were original in spirit or motive.

President Obama is about to get a crash course in political and economic reality. And that's OK...campaign season is over.

[sharkman]

Yes, many were offended at that white reference, when all of the other colors he mentioned merely needed to ,"be mella"' or "get ahead".

Was he the one who also referenced Muslims as equal to Christians in seeking God(or some such reference to God), not Allah. This is significant in that this is a tenet of the Universalist doctrine that Rev. Wright also spouts, and says that both Muslims and Christians are going to Heaven. Before I bore the non-religious, devout followers of both faiths would call this incorrect.

It seems that Obama, having gone to Wright's church for 20 years before discarding him like a dirty shirt, also believes this nonsense as well.

The speech was what his handlers wanted, no drama Obama.

Edited January 22, 2009 by sharkman

[bush_cheney2004]

After yesterday's flub, President Obama and Chief Justice Robert's had an oath "do over" today for legal reasons.....that's what Obama gets for voting against Robert's confirmation:

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...?hub=TopStories

[BubberMiley]

This is significant in that this is a tenant of the Universalist doctrine that Rev. Wright also spouts, and says that both Muslims and Christians are going to Heaven. Before I bore the non-religious, devout followers of both faiths would call this incorrect.

How are we ever supposed to pretend you have a clue what you are talking about when you think doctrines have tenants like landlords?

Or maybe you mean tenet?

[August1991]

I thought it was an awesome speech, personally.

Perhaps the word "awesome" has changed its usage from a previous dictionary definition.

I tend to agree with this guy:

CNN analysts Jeffrey Toobin was also underwhelmed.

“I thought that this was a speech with a lot of ideas but no theme and most importantly, this was a speech without a single memorable phrase,” said Toobin.

“We remember inaugural addresses by ‘We have nothing to fear but fear itself’ (Franklin D Roosevelt); ‘Ask not what your country can do for you’ (John F Kennedy). Where is anything comparable in this speech? I’m afraid this is likely to join the vast majority of inaugural addresses which are quickly forgotten.”

Telegraph

But then, I noted the same points as this guy:

A few specifics: By several small choices of word or phrase, Obama made big leaps of inclusivity.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus — and non-believers."

Mentioning Muslims and Hindus is a small act of courage. But what other recent president-elect or presidential candidate would have gone out of his way to acknowledge the agnostics and atheists?

"They fought and died, in places like Concord and Gettysburg; Normandy and Khe Sahn."

Adding Khe Sanh to the list of glorious places felt like a statement that the argument over Vietnam need divide us no longer, at least over the question of whether the troops who fought there deserve our gratitude.

"For us, they packed up their few worldly possessions and traveled across oceans in search of a new life. For us, they toiled in sweatshops and settled the West; endured the lash of the whip and plowed the hard earth."

The legacy of slavery and racism were embedded in the meaning of the day, for obvious reasons. But by this subtle mention, Obama added slaves to the list of glorious forbears who built America.

Link

Obama's speech had little points - a reference to Khe Sanh - that intended to be inclusive. But these references were simply too hackneyed.

Compare this to JFK's opening in his inaugural speech:

Let the word go forth from this time and place, to friend and foe alike, that the torch has been passed to a new generation of Americans—born in this century, tempered by war, disciplined by a hard and bitter peace, proud of our ancient heritage—and unwilling to witness or permit the slow undoing of those human rights to which this Nation has always been committed, and to which we are committed today at home and around the world. 3

Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.

This much we pledge—and more.

Bartleby

"The torch has been passed... " is a wonderful metaphor since Kennedy was the first president born in the 20th century. And he wasn't referring to himself but rather his generation, those who had fought in World War II. Everyone listening to Kennedy understood exactly what he meant. That's true inclusiveness.

----

In fact, Obama - like all president-elects - obviously read past inaugural speeches and then cut-and-paste according following the set style. (Reagan was somewhat an exception to the now standardized format.)

But even here, some of Obama's examples are arguably false, or misdirected. Some examples.

Forty-four Americans have now taken the presidential oath. The words have been spoken during rising tides of prosperity and the still waters of peace. Yet, every so often the oath is taken amidst gathering clouds and raging storms. At these moments, America has carried on not simply because of the skill or vision of those in high office, but because We the People have remained faithful to the ideals of our forbearers, and true to our founding documents.

So it has been. So it must be with this generation of Americans.

That we are in the midst of crisis is now well understood. Our nation is at war, against a far-reaching network of violence and hatred. Our economy is badly weakened, a consequence of greed and irresponsibility on the part of some, but also our collective failure to make hard choices and prepare the nation for a new age.

Time

When Lincoln gave his inaugural speech, the Union had dissolved. When FDR spoke in 1941, the world was at war. Kennedy and Nixon delivered theirs in the midst of a Cold War. Even Reagan delivered his first speech with high interst rates, high inflation, rising unemployment, a hostage crisis in Iran and a Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.

It is a bit much for Obama to refer to the war on terror (and the Left sometimes objects to that term) and an impending recession but not in the context of 44 presidents.

Also, to blame our current economic troubles on greed is entirely simplistic. Greed, selfishness, ambition have been with us for ever. Obama himself is an ambitious man. I am also non-plussed when a politician blames ordinary people for a situation that is not really their fault.

On this day, we gather because we have chosen hope over fear, unity of purpose over conflict and discord.

On this day, we come to proclaim an end to the petty grievances and false promises, the recriminations and worn-out dogmas, that for far too long have strangled our politics.

These phrases are kitsch. They are devoid of true meaning.

As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals. Our Founding Fathers, faced with perils we can scarcely imagine, drafted a charter to assure the rule of law and the rights of man, a charter expanded by the blood of generations.

Some people have noted this phrase as a refutation of Bush Jnr. I saw it differently.

First of all, surely Obama is aware that at some point, we must choose between freedom and security. Indeed, one can argue that Bush's strategy (and almost all other presidents too) had for purpose the defence of America's ideals.

Secondly, I would not describe the Founding Fathers as primarily facing "perils". As Lincoln noted in his Gettysburg address, the US at the beginning was an experiment. The founding fathers were not crossing a treacherous ocean (or even facing the kinds of perils the US faces now). Instead, they were more concerned about liberating themselves from a British monarch and setting up a feasible truly democratic state in a world that didn't have one.

----

Does a bad inaugural speech precede a failed presidency? Not at all. If I were Obama, I'd hire new speechwriters. Obama seems good when it comes to delivery or when he is speaking about black/white relations at a personal level.

Having read (or rather listened to) his two books, it seems to me that Obama wants primarily to help make it possible for everyone to get along. Given his family background, this goal makes obvious sense. In addition, while Obama is a pragmatist, he also is aware of the lives of ordinary people. He is a populist.

Such good intentions might make for a good mayor but I don't know if they'll make for a good president.

And will Obama fail? No, because the American people won't fail.

Among all the speeches, I was most impressed with Dianne Feinstein, the California senator. From the start, she said that for over 200 years, the US has passed power peacefully from one person to another. Leftist commentators described Bush, sitting on the podium, as sour-faced. Such commentators entirely missed the point.

No country in the world has such a long record of the peaceful passing of power from one Head of State to another, often when they strongly disagree. Many countries have yet to achieve this transition even once.

The US is not a great country because of Obama. It is simply a great country.

[sharkman]

How are we ever supposed to pretend you have a clue what you are talking about when you think doctrines have tenants like landlords?

Or maybe you mean tenet?

This is the only response to my points, giggling at a spelling mistake? Uh, okay, you sure got me there...

[kimmy]

Perhaps the word "awesome" has changed its usage from a previous dictionary definition.

I'm not given to using the word "awesome" frivolously. An english teacher once stated that in his view the word awesome is meant for things like a volcano erupting, not for a new cell-phone.

And while Obama's inauguration speech may not quite be on the same level as Mount Saint Helens, "awesome" is still pretty applicable in my view.

When I hear people talking about Obama's speeches and comparing them to one another-- "oh, it was ok, but not as good as the one he gave in September..." I always wonder what they're grading him on. I often suspect they are simply reacting on an emotional level, reacting to whether the speech gave them as many goose-bumps or tingles up their spine as the last one did.

If those are the criteria people are using to evaluate Obama's speeches, I consider it sheer nonsense.

I do admire the man's ability to deliver a speech. It's certainly an impressive skill. But it's just one skill, like singing, or dancing, or throwing a football, or so on. Obviously this man has attained an exceptional level of mastery over his voice, in pitch and timbre and pacing and rhythm and cadence and volume, and he manages to modulate all of these qualities of his speech effortlessly. He's able to build rapport, to maintain interest, to build excitement. I'm sure that Obama knows and uses many techniques that psychologists would identify as being effective at making an audience more receptive. I'm certainly not immune to the effects, and I doubt that many are. It's certainly impressive to watch him perform.

But at the end of the day it is, still, a performance. I can appreciate the skill involved in Obama's delivery of a speech, just as I appreciate watching the skill involved in Peyton Manning picking apart a defense. And as I have watched Obama in the past, it has always been his mastery of this skill that I find fascinating, not anything he said. Being who I am, I find myself analyzing the things he does with his voice, trying to figure out what techniques he uses in his delivery. And I picture him reading the phonebook or using the speeches Kang and Kodos used in their election campaigns... and find myself thinking that there's little difference. It's the delivery, not the substance.

In the past I have watched Obama's speeches with the attitude that I was watching performance art. It's pretty easy to be unimpressed with the speeches if you ponder how the same words would sound if, instead of assimilating the vocal stylings of black charismatic gospel ministers, Obama's special skill was to deliver a perfect impression of Freddy Mercury. It's easy to stop being impressed with his speeches if you detach yourself from the delivery. Disconnected from the delivery, his speeches never impressed me much.

But for me, yesterday was different.

Yesterday I finally "got it". Yesterday I watched the speech and felt that with much of the ham and theatre peeled away, I was watching a more credible, more sincere speech. I felt like instead of watching a guy doing a credible impression of a black charismatic gospel minister, I was watching a more real Obama. For the first time I actually felt engaged by the man instead of finding myself studying the thick layer of performance art that he generally puts into his speeches. I found myself thinking "so this is why they love him so much."

I found the lack of a catchphrase or grandiose talk or crowd-inciting theatrics to be appropriate and sensible. I found that the most firm promise being simply "to pick ourselves up and dust ourselves off" to be sober down to earth and respectful given the situation many Americans find themselves in right now. I thought the tone was fitting. I thought appealing to tradition and history and values and lessons learned in overcoming adversity throughout the country's history was reassuring. He sought to remind Americans that (as you often point out) America is a great country. I liked the statement that "Our workers are no less productive than when this crisis began. Our minds are no less inventive, our goods and services no less needed than they were last week or last month or last year." That might be kitsch, but it is something that people should tell themselves each time a new wave of economic doom and gloom hits the newspapers.

I think this was my favorite part of the speech...

For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus — and nonbelievers. We are shaped by every language and culture, drawn from every end of this Earth; and because we have tasted the bitter swill of civil war and segregation, and emerged from that dark chapter stronger and more united, we cannot help but believe that the old hatreds shall someday pass; that the lines of tribe shall soon dissolve; that as the world grows smaller, our common humanity shall reveal itself; and that America must play its role in ushering in a new era of peace.

...and if it's "kitsch", I don't care.

The US is not a great country because of Obama. It is simply a great country.

I think that was, essentially, the entire theme of his speech.

-k

[August1991]

I don't know if I can do justice to your post, and I don't even know if it's worth the effort. But for US presidents, the inaugural speech is determining.

I frankly thought that Obama would try something a trifle original. Rather, "No Drama Obama" seems to be another Wilfrid Laurier. The mere fact of his election is revolutionary enough. Don't expect anything more other than charm and "sunny ways".

I do admire the man's ability to deliver a speech. It's certainly an impressive skill. But it's just one skill, like singing, or dancing, or throwing a football, or so on.

It's an impressive skill and I recommend that you listen to Obama reciting his two books. His books contain mock conversations with various people he has known in his life (his white grandfather, his wife, his Kenyan stepsister, his black community organizing colleagues in Chicago, his daughters, his daughters' friends, etc) and he does all the voices, accents and slang included. (His black British Kenyan is good but vaguely Caribbean.)

Obama doesn't just have a beautiful voice. He has a wonderful command of it. (In passing, voice matters. GE hired Ronald Reagan because of his voice. Margaret Thatcher took diction lessons to change her northern English middle class twang. de Gaulle spoke in deep tones. Churchill's whiny nasal voice had an upper class accent. Kennedy spoke quickly and had a marked Boston accent but his voice was intelligent. Sadly, we have no recording of Lincoln.)

Yesterday I finally "got it". Yesterday I watched the speech and felt that with much of the ham and theatre peeled away, I was watching a more credible, more sincere speech. I felt like instead of watching a guy doing a credible impression of a black charismatic gospel minister, I was watching a more real Obama.

I guess we'll part company here. I just saw a lousy speech - but I was thinking of the words and what he was saying.

I found that the most firm promise being simply "to pick ourselves up and dust ourselves off" to be sober down to earth and respectful given the situation many Americans find themselves in right now. I thought the tone was fitting.

"Pick themselves up" from what?

In 1861, they were facing a Civil War. In 1868, they had lived through one. Americans have faced far worse or perilous situations than today. This idea that Bush Jnr was the worst president in American history is nonsense. Off the top of my head, Harding was worse than Bush Jnr.

I think this was my favorite part of the speech...

For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus — and nonbelievers. We are shaped by every language and culture, drawn from every end of this Earth; and because we have tasted the bitter swill of civil war and segregation, and emerged from that dark chapter stronger and more united, we cannot help but believe that the old hatreds shall someday pass; that the lines of tribe shall soon dissolve; that as the world grows smaller, our common humanity shall reveal itself; and that America must play its role in ushering in a new era of peace.

This part struck me too. But it's an old line to say that America is a melting pot... but it is new to refer to "bitter swill". If Obama had reworked this section and explained better what he meant by "bitter swill", and found an appropriate simile, then maybe this would have been a great speech.

Instead, to me, the speech was ordinary and hackneyed.