SOTU on Today

For Mark Mardell there was only one word to describe Obama’s SOTU speech, and boy did he use it on the Today programme: “striking phrases… striking phrase… striking passage… the words were striking” (that last one appears on his blog, too). His colleague Paul Adams preferred a different cliché, telling the Today audience it was Obama’s “most important speech to date”. Of course it was Paul – they always are. Later in the programme Jim Naughtie discussed the speech with two commentators, both from pro-Obama publications – Newsweek’s Stryker McGuire (check out the response to the speech from the magazine’s Obama-worshipping Senior Editor) and the Guardian’s Jonathan Freedland (or “Johnny” as Naughtie called him – nice and cosy).

Note to Today editor – other viewpoints are available, please check internet for details.

Update. Craig made similar observations before I did.

State Of The Update 2: It’s always about him, just like every other “most important speech” he’s given.

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Email this to someone
Bookmark the permalink.

15 Responses to SOTU on Today

  1. David Preiser (USA) says:

    I had a comment on the pathetic and useless BBC coverage on the Open Thread.  Don’t trust the BBC on US issues.

       0 likes

  2. David Preiser (USA) says:

    So the President is in Florida today for a town hall meeting in what the BBC describes as the first test of public opinion after the “State of My Presidency” speech.  It just ended, I think.

    Will the BBC tell you about the Tea Party gathering there?

       0 likes

  3. Martin says:

    What the BBC also won’t report is that opposition to the terrorist trials in New York is growing and that many Democrats (who are bricking themselves for what might happen at the election sin November) are also joining in.

    Could Barry be forced to make yet another climb down? Will the BBC report it? We know the answer.

       0 likes

    • David Preiser (USA) says:

      Surprise!  He is forced to make yet another climb down:

      White House asks Justice Department to look for other places to hold 9/11 terror trial

      The decision to hold KSM’s trial in NYC was made without any thought whatsoever to the legal consequences, never mind the cost.  The White House was just desperate to find a way out of the military tribunals the Leftoids bitch about, so they jumped at the first thing that popped into their heads.

      Turns out that, aside from the complaints He’s gotten from every corner, this could cost at least $200 million per year.  That’s the main reason, more than anything else, that they’re going to move the trial elsewhere.

      Yet more evidence of incompetence, and that the people in charge are both too inexperienced and too driven by ideology and showmanship.

      The BBC has actually reported it.  But of course they left out the astronomical cost potential and played down and even slightly misrepresented the amount of outcry against this.  The Beeboids made sure not to make Him look bad on this one.  As usual.

         0 likes

  4. John Anderson says:

    I watched the speech.

    It was pathetic.  Whiny,  self-centred,  lots of lies (eg on the economy and unemployment,  the cause of the huge deficit, the recent Supreme Court judgment, ,  evasion of anything substantial about national security and foreign affairs,  and plain nonsense on ObamaCare and global warming.

    Even the liberal Associated Press has listed 10 separate untruths.

    It was like one long lecture – or tirade.  Far too long,  whine whine whine.

    But to beeboids it will just have been another example of The One’s brilliance.

       0 likes

  5. JohnW says:

    “Could Barry be forced to make yet another climb down? Will the BBC report it?”

    Glaciers will melt before that happens.

       0 likes

  6. JohnW says:

    Obama seems stuck in campaign mode. Just as Labour mistakes the spending of other peoples’s money as the end in itself, so Obama’s currency is just words. As we can see elserwhere in the media, the BBC is mesmerised by words and image. They are the end in itself. They don’t give a fig for the substance and effectiveness of policy – just as long as it’s eloquently addressed.

       0 likes

  7. Barking Spider says:

    What I could stomach watching of that speech was pure tosh and twaddle! More teleprompted insincerities from a ham actor out of the same mould as Tony B. Liar whose performance tomorrow is likely to be, at the very least, excruciating in its duplicity. >:o

       0 likes

    • hippiepooter says:

      Tony Blair liberated Sierre Leone and Iraq.  He may be in the same mould as Obama but there hearts are in entirely different places.

         0 likes

  8. David Preiser (USA) says:

    Obama SOTU 2010 First Person Singular Pronoun Count
    I – 96 times
    me – 8 times
    Bush SOTU 2008 First Person Singular Pronoun Count
    I – 39 times
    me – 2 times

       0 likes

  9. David Preiser (USA) says:

    I thought I’d be over this, but seeing the video again just brought it back.  The man whom all these Beeboids keep telling us is brilliant and cool, a first class and inspiring speaker, and a smart customer, personally tried to humiliate the Supreme Court of the US on national television in front of the entire Congress and the country.

    Here’s the video of that moment.  Pretty uncool, and it has gained a lot of attention in the US media.  The BBC will keep that from you, of course.

    Here’s what the BBC said about it:

    President Obama also tackled lobbying. He had openly criticised last week’s ruling by the Supreme Court rejecting long-standing limits on how much companies can spend on political campaigns.

    “I don’t think American elections should be bankrolled by America’s most powerful interests, and worse, by foreign entities,” he said.

    His words brought a reaction from Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito, who shook his head and appeared to mouth the words, “No, it’s not true”.

    Wrong.  He was talking about the ruling allowing corporations to make tv ads and such about candidates or political issues during elecion cycles.  Nothing to do with lobbying.  Mardell got a couple of the White House talking points confused there.

    Mardell’s segment on Today was useless, basically an outlining of those White House talking points. The excerpts of the speech he chose and his comments were quite faithful, and Mardell saw only good in the speech.

    And why does James Naughtie care so much about health care legislation in the US?

       0 likes

  10. Grant says:

    David P 22:22
    Thanks for that video link. I know very little about the US consitution, but the Supreme Court should not have to take that in public from some here today gone tomorrow politician. I hope they boycott it next year.
    What would Thomas Jerrerson have made of Obama, I wonder ?

       0 likes

    • John Anderson says:

      That’s not fair.  We know that The One has compared himself to Lincoln and Roosevelt

         0 likes

    • David Preiser (USA) says:

      Only Justice Kennedy attended last year, as far as I’m aware.  Mostly Justices prefer not to go, as they are expected to sit there like statues for exactly the “separation of powers” reasons over which the President sneeringly trampled.  Presidents in the past have occasionally said things which might have made them uncomfortable, and most Justices don’t attend the SOTU for just this reason.

      The Justices showed the President a huge display of respect by turning up en masse for this, and He kicked them in the teeth instead.  A charming bit of demagoguery and pettiness, in my opinion.

         0 likes

  11. Grant says:

    Jefferson  !!!

       0 likes