Transcript now that the live Video and Audio links are finished. Will try to find new links.
So far it looks like an hour of speech is gonna be interrupted by more than an hour of overabundant applause. Too bad the SecretService isn't allowed to dogpile upon Biden and Pelosi.
Only a half hour speech with a half hour of overabundant applause.
[ February 25, 2009, 04:52 AM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
That video feed is FASTER than the TV feed. LOL That's funny! By like 4 seconds...
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Sounds like tonight's buzzwords are: reform and regulate.
I wish I had the video editing skills to make a sweet video that blends Obama and Warren G and the Regulators.
And tonight's bet is to see how high into the air Pelosi can jump out of her seat at the applause points. It's more fun than watching her read her program like she did for the last two years when Bush talked.
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
She looked like she was trying to sit on a tack. Yeesh. It wasn't that good a speech. Just sit down, stop clapping and let the man speak!
Still it was a good speech (what I caught of it)
Posted by Mocke (Member # 11963) on :
This seems to be a problem with presidential speeches. Rather than focus on the content, the lackeys for the party mindlessly clap at any pause. These speeches would be shorter and my time less wasted if there was more polite listening and applause only at a few strategic points where the president can get a drink or breathe.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I wasn't really listening to most of the speech. I'm waiting for the little speeches that give the specifics. I already know the agenda. Jindal's response was more telling than Obama's speech was.
Posted by Tstorm (Member # 1871) on :
As long as I can peruse the speech transcript later, I feel like I'm not missing anything. Watching the speech on TV, with all the applause interruptions and the sycophantic clapping, just drives me crazy. Thanks for posting the link, aspectre.
Posted by Vadon (Member # 4561) on :
There was one line that I cracked up at (actually there were many being as my brother and I were providing commentary and hypothetical follow-ups.) that led to applause but really shouldn't have.
It was, "The concern is that if we do not re-start lending in this country, our recovery will be choked off before it even begins." The dems clapped at this line, and my brother and I were just, "That's not a good thing!"
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Yeah they clapped at lot at what sounded like the negative parts. That confused me.
Posted by BelladonnaOrchid (Member # 188) on :
Oh? And here I thought Pelosi was just trying to show off the sweet cabling down the front of her sweater.
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
You guys are treating this clapping as unusual. I clearly remember a Bush speech with as much clapping, but with a different cast of characters.
Posted by Sean Monahan (Member # 9334) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Jindal's response was more telling than Obama's speech was.
I couldn't concentrate on anything that guy was saying - he was whistling his 'S's
Posted by Vadon (Member # 4561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sean Monahan:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Jindal's response was more telling than Obama's speech was.
I couldn't concentrate on anything that guy was saying - he was whistling his 'S's
And any time he said 'President' it sounded more like 'present.'
But beside that, I was able to pay attention to it. From my biased point of view, it wasn't bad. But I think Jindal has a long way to go before he's really a competitor for the national spotlight. (A presidential run)
It wasn't blatantly anti-democrat, but rather was a nuanced attack through implication. "The Republican party believes in you, the American people." This is the better route to go because it lets people who support you cheer at some fighting words, while not overly upsetting people who sympathize with the opposition. (I think most dems just rolled their eyes at a lot of what he said. And in my biased opinion, with good reason.)
But if he wants to be a contender, he needs to be stronger and more clear in his message. (And watch out for contradictions) He blasted the federal government over the lack of response to Hurricane Katrina (which was a Republican administration at the time.), yet also says "don't give me stimulus money!" (And then later clarify that as, don't give me 'THAT' stimulus money, I'll take most of what you offered though.)
In summary, he needs to tighten his act before I'll give him a second look.
***
And on topic, I thought President Obama's speech was wonderful. He set a really high bar for himself, and the strength of his conviction makes me think he might just be able to do it. We'll see, though if he's able to do it.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
The scope of his agenda is actually mind boggling when you really think about it.
He wants healthcare reform and climate change legislation done before the end of the year. Before the end of the year! That's friggin crazy. We've been talking about fixing healthcare since it fell apart in the mid 90's and he wants it fixed in months. Climate change, same story.
Long term he wants a total overhaul of entitlements before his first term is over. Bush boiled off a ton of his clout when his own attempts to do that failed a couple years ago.
The level of ambition in his agenda is staggering. His confidence is staggering.
Posted by Vadon (Member # 4561) on :
And don't forget his education goals too! Have the highest college graduate rate in the world by 2020.
Oh, and he wants to cut the deficit in half by 2005(Not positive on that year.)
I agree that the ambition and his confidence is staggering. But I have high hopes for this. I mean, even if he just gets half of what he's working towards, that would be an incredible feat.
Posted by Saephon (Member # 9623) on :
quote:Originally posted by Vadon: Oh, and he wants to cut the deficit in half by 2005(Not positive on that year.)
Wow, that is ambitious.
I quite enjoyed the speech...I mean, for what it is, he did a good job of communicating his agenda to the average American Joe. But like Lyrhawn said, for most of us who follow this kind of stuff, most of it isn't new. The very specific details will be coming shortly.
Posted by Vadon (Member # 4561) on :
I know, retrofitting past budgets!
I mean, time traveling should NEVER be taken lightly.
(I meant 5 years, didn't add properly. =P
ETA-And in my defense, I DID say I wasn't sure on the year. )
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Nope, annoyed at the canned applause cuz it's SO business as usual. If folks had wanted the usual, they woulda reelected the Republicans.
[ February 25, 2009, 05:09 AM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
"Watching the speech on TV, with all the applause interruptions and the sycophantic clapping, just drives me crazy.
Normally just half-listen to the speeches over radio or the internet while doing something else, then read the transcript. Watched this time cuz it was the first, and I wanted to watch the reactions. Interesting stuff: Justice SamuelAlito turning his head to stare at the floor as Obama approached to greet him. Afraid of catching cooties I guess. Oklahoma Senator TomCoburn accepting Obama's handshake "cuz he is the President" while emoting a massive grimace to make sure that his supporters would understand that he disapproved of "a black man being allowed to mingle in polite company" (though his expression wasn't as benign as my paraphrasing). Republicans sitting on their hands to signal their disapproval of children receiving health care. etc
[ February 25, 2009, 09:57 AM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Vadon: I know, retrofitting past budgets!
I mean, time traveling should NEVER be taken lightly.
(I meant 5 years, didn't add properly. =P
ETA-And in my defense, I DID say I wasn't sure on the year. )
I didn't even hear the speech and yet I'm sure he isn't planning to balance the budget in 2005.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
According to CNN yesterday's speech was not technically a "State of the Union" speech. As the date is too early, and it was not given before both houses and the supreme court.
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
quote: He wants healthcare reform and climate change legislation done before the end of the year. Before the end of the year! That's friggin crazy. We've been talking about fixing healthcare since it fell apart in the mid 90's and he wants it fixed in months. Climate change, same story.
I would just like to point out that additional legislation is no guarantee of something being fixed. Reforming something gives me no confidence without understanding how it will be accomplished.
The specter of uninitended consequences ever hovers.
Posted by BelladonnaOrchid (Member # 188) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: The scope of his agenda is actually mind boggling when you really think about it.
He wants healthcare reform and climate change legislation done before the end of the year. Before the end of the year! That's friggin crazy. We've been talking about fixing healthcare since it fell apart in the mid 90's and he wants it fixed in months. Climate change, same story.
Long term he wants a total overhaul of entitlements before his first term is over. Bush boiled off a ton of his clout when his own attempts to do that failed a couple years ago.
The level of ambition in his agenda is staggering. His confidence is staggering.
I completely agree! I voted for Obama (even though I'm republican), but I will have to say that I thought that the campaign was over November 4, 2008. It's like now that he's in the office Obama's saying 'Now that you elected me to do these things, we're going to do them on a much much larger scale! Surprise!'
It's a bit more than I think he can chew-heck, it's a bit more than I think anyone can do, and Obama is no super-hero.
Yet.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I enjoyed it. I'm a bit leery of the scope, but by Thor-- I'm inclined to think it can be done.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
The question is will we accomplish more by trying for as much as possible, or by deliberately setting out to do less so that we don't overshoot ourselves?
I think the answer lies more on the former end of the scale. Yes, Obama has set a lot of lofty goals, but the president's job is to lead and delegate, not do everything himself.
There are people naturally more skilled and inclined to think about solving educational problems and people more inclined to solve environmental ones. Trying to get all those people excited and motivated at once makes sense to me.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Obama is no super-hero.
Yet.
Yet! But who knows what kind of side effects an overexposure to toxic securitized assets might cause....
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
The Shadow knows.
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
If he does pull that off, he needs to make a speech where he says, "We have done the impossible, and that makes us mighty."
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: According to CNN yesterday's speech was not technically a "State of the Union" speech. As the date is too early, and it was not given before both houses and the supreme court.
Are you sure? I'm almost positive that it was a joint session of Congress, and all but two of SCOTUS were there. And generally SOTU addresses are given in January, so I don't see how it could be too early.
But regardless, I don't think it was a state of the union either because I don't even think that incoming presidents usually do one. Don't they usually just give the inaugural and have that cover it?
Posted by Godric 2.0 (Member # 11443) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mocke: This seems to be a problem with presidential speeches. Rather than focus on the content, the lackeys for the party mindlessly clap at any pause. These speeches would be shorter and my time less wasted if there was more polite listening and applause only at a few strategic points where the president can get a drink or breathe.
Now that's would be change we can believe in!
Posted by Vadon (Member # 4561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: According to CNN yesterday's speech was not technically a "State of the Union" speech. As the date is too early, and it was not given before both houses and the supreme court.
Are you sure? I'm almost positive that it was a joint session of Congress, and all but two of SCOTUS were there. And generally SOTU addresses are given in January, so I don't see how it could be too early.
But regardless, I don't think it was a state of the union either because I don't even think that incoming presidents usually do one. Don't they usually just give the inaugural and have that cover it?
And even at real SOTUs, Supreme Court attendance was flimsy, usually getting only a handful of justices to show. It's actually been one of Chief Justice Roberts' goals to increase attendance at these events.
It's technically not a SOTU, but for all intents and purposes, what came from the event was one. President Obama outlined his agenda to a joint-session of congress and also tried to assuage the worries of the American people. I don't think it's uncommon for newly-elected presidents to have a speech infront of a joint session. If I'm not mistaken, Bush held one in early 2001.
Posted by Godric 2.0 (Member # 11443) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: The level of ambition in his agenda is staggering.
One could even say audacious...
(Sorry, I have nothing substantive to add, I'm just being light-heartedly snarky today.)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
) ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
(what I caught of it)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)