home

Good Speech, Wrong Venue

President Obama's speech in Oslo is justly winning some good reviews. The problem of course is that the speech is not one that should be delivered by the winner of the Nobel Peace Prize at the awards ceremony. Jon Chait wrote:

Iím not a big fan of political speeches in general, but I thought President Obamaís Nobel acceptance speech today was unusually good. [. . .] After again acknowledging that he doesnít really deserve the award-- [. . .] Obama set out his foreign policy worldview.

As someone who agrees with President Obama's foreign policy worldview (including his Afghanistan policy), it just is jarring to me to see the Nobel Peace Prize cheapened in this way. The Peace Prize is supposed to be for great accomplishments in advancing peace or great advocates for peace. It is rare that a President of the United states, due to the nature of the job, can even be considered for the award. It is obvious that President Obama is not worthy of the award (and I say that largely with a sigh of relief -- at this time, I do not want a President worthy of the Nobel Peace Prize.)

I again want to be clear - I think the President made the best of a bad situation. My criticism is solely directed at the Nobel Prize Committee.

speaking for me only

< Thurday Morning Open Thread | Records the Government Keeps On You >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Making the best... (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by Dadler on Thu Dec 10, 2009 at 10:53:28 AM EST
    ...of this particular bad situation would've meant turning the award down. This was a joke from every angle. And a bad one. And a good speech from Obama? Please. A man who is ONLY speeches doesn't get credit for staying firmly in his comfortable box of soothing words that lack any associate action. For those innocents we have murdered in cold blood, the tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, in these wars, this is spitting on their grave. It is spitting in the faces of their loved ones.

    A disgrace on all fronts.

    Why not turn it down? (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by DancingOpossum on Thu Dec 10, 2009 at 11:19:33 AM EST
    Really? It's not that unusual for people to turn down awards, of all kinds, for all sorts of reasons. Yes, even the Nobel. It's not unheard of. Nor is it THAT big a deal.

    He wanted to keep it because Obama's entire life history is about getting accolades and rewards unrelated to actual accomplishments. This is just more of the same.

    I STILL think it was someone in his admin. who nominated him. That's wholly speculative but it's my wild-eyed conspiracy theory and I'm sticking to it.

    Hard to say who nominated him (none / 0) (#20)
    by Inspector Gadget on Thu Dec 10, 2009 at 12:23:41 PM EST
    after reading the Nobel committee comment:

    Praised by the Nobel Committee for his "extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples," President Barack Obama accepted the Nobel Peace Prize under the shadow of war.

    For their obvious adoration of him, this was the only accolade they had to give.

    Seems to me, though, since he wasn't aware enough to gracefully decline with a promise to make himself worthy in the years to come, he could have at least said what he planned to do toward peace. Instead, he attempted to justify the opposite.

    That's the most fascinating part of the Obama's. They have managed to find a way to have everything both ways.


    Parent

    One of the other nominees (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by Inspector Gadget on Thu Dec 10, 2009 at 12:13:12 PM EST
    declined the nomination:

    Mordechai Vanunu, an 80s-era Israeli nuclear whistle-blower. He "asked to be removed from a list of nominees for the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize" ... "My main reason for this is that I cannot be part of a list of laureates that includes Simon Peres." Vanunu says Peres is responsible for his kidnapping and jailing in Israel for treason.

    And, he declined on principle.

    I want to know how much it is costing the American people to fund this trip he and his supporting family and friends took to Oslo. I heard on the morning news that it is not so unusual for winners to not actually travel to Oslo to pick up the prize. Then, can anyone think of anything more pressing the Obama's had to do? Other than their interview with Oprah to air on Sunday night, that is.

    Anyone watching the agenda and schedule of this POTUS would think America is whistling the happy tune of prosperity and problem-free living.
     

    So did (none / 0) (#18)
    by jbindc on Thu Dec 10, 2009 at 12:19:05 PM EST
    Lê Ðức Thọ, who won the prize jointly with Henry Kissinger in 1973. He refused because he said there was no peace yet in his country.

    Parent
    Kissinger won it (none / 0) (#69)
    by coigue on Fri Dec 11, 2009 at 11:10:56 AM EST
    hmmmmm.

    Parent
    Isn't he (none / 0) (#19)
    by jbindc on Thu Dec 10, 2009 at 12:19:41 PM EST
    going to Copnhagen for the climate summit?

    Parent
    ?? What are you asking? (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by Inspector Gadget on Thu Dec 10, 2009 at 12:27:23 PM EST
    Not sure what the relationship is. You mean wasn't he already traveling to Europe? Maybe. But, did Michelle and family and friends need to go to Copenhagen, too? Are we paying for them?

    The news said that he was the 3rd sitting President to win, but the first to travel to Oslo to pick it up.


    Parent

    Ahhhh.... (none / 0) (#26)
    by jbindc on Thu Dec 10, 2009 at 12:49:09 PM EST
    Got it.

    Parent
    He'd be in Scandanavia anyway for Copahagen (none / 0) (#38)
    by Socraticsilence on Thu Dec 10, 2009 at 03:18:58 PM EST
    wouldn't he?

    Parent
    Not sure what Copahagen is, but (none / 0) (#44)
    by Inspector Gadget on Thu Dec 10, 2009 at 03:42:40 PM EST
    were his friends and family expected to be in Copenhagen with him?

    Parent
    Copenhagen (none / 0) (#52)
    by CST on Thu Dec 10, 2009 at 04:04:58 PM EST
    is a city in Denmark :)

    Where they are having a global conference on climate change.

    Not sure about the family, but I believe the bulk of the expense of the travel comes from the president himself.  If you are already taking air force one, adding a passenger or two doesn't really seem like that big of a deal.

    Parent

    Really.... (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by Inspector Gadget on Thu Dec 10, 2009 at 08:47:33 PM EST
    you don't think they need special ground transport, take in the best of the sites, eat like kings and queens, get put up in the best of hotels?

    Parent
    I really don't care (none / 0) (#67)
    by CST on Fri Dec 11, 2009 at 09:00:44 AM EST
    If the president's family joins him in Europe on the taxpayers dime - whether for a nobel prize acceptance or a climate change conference.  I didn't care when it was Bushe.  I sure didn't care when it was Clinton.  Did you?  Somehow I doubt it.

    In the grand scheme of "federal expenses" this is pennies.  And I bet his wife is staying with him.

    Parent

    Contrary to his assertions, it was (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by robotalk on Thu Dec 10, 2009 at 02:16:05 PM EST
    a cynical speech.  He argues there has always been war.  It is in human nature. So history merely repeats itself.  If anything, it only seems human nature to rationalize war.

    And he failed on that, too.  He invokes the concept of just war.  In the course of human history, how many just wars do you think there really have been?  Turning to cases, how is this war, in a country no invader has ever won, whose mission is to deter terrorism, but in which there are only a handful of terrorists identified, justified?  What is the goal, stabilizing or civilizing Afghanistan?  Is that realistically possible?  What alternatives were explored?  What burden was reached in deciding escalation was correct?  All this unanswered, yet we are told the war is justified.  Simply unpersuasive and, at bottom I think, cynical.

    Ah, The Audacity of War (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by Cream City on Thu Dec 10, 2009 at 10:48:26 PM EST
    to be in your bookstores soon.

    Yes, it would have been more suited to the occasion to give teh greatest speech evah on The Audacity of Peace.

    Maybe that's the sequel.  Much awaited.

    Parent

    Saber rattling and (none / 0) (#60)
    by KeysDan on Thu Dec 10, 2009 at 06:12:12 PM EST
    dismissive of the quaint tactics of Ghandi and King. Then on to Sparta once again, then a drum roll to the Geneva Conventions that was as as hollow as that drum he was beating, given his defense of John Yoo's advise and counsel.  Why give peace a chance or even give diplomacy a nod? War it is.  No olive branches extended, no doves in sight just defensive postures on war.   The award was a travesty, but the acceptance lecture for a Peace Prize was every bit its equal.  Everything but the release of hawks at the ending.

    Parent
    And in another news about (none / 0) (#64)
    by Cream City on Thu Dec 10, 2009 at 10:41:45 PM EST
    the Geneva Conventions, today was the anniversary of the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, by the United Nations.  The great document authored by Eleanor Roosevelt.

    And in another news about other awards, guess what?  Our Secretary of State got an award today, too -- and I quote: "the Eleanor Roosevelt Lifetime Achievement Award in Human Rights for her commitment to ensuring that women's rights are recognized as human rights."

    You all may now return to your regularly scheduled programming, all Obama, all the time.

    Parent

    IMO Kosovo, Bosnia (none / 0) (#71)
    by coigue on Fri Dec 11, 2009 at 11:15:34 AM EST
    Rwanda would have been. WW2 would have been if we had actually gone in to liberate camps...which we did not.

    Funny thing...the GOP lauds the speech, but were claiming "wag the dog" with Clinton's just wars.

    Parent

    A valid point to bring up... (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by Raskolnikov on Thu Dec 10, 2009 at 02:58:41 PM EST
    Marwan Bishara, Al Jazeera's senior political analyst, said Obama had offered a "selective reading of [US] history" and had negelected to mention "the thirteen overthrows of government by [the US] of other governments over the last 50 years".

    But might makes right, eh?

    Yeah and I do feel bad about some of those (none / 0) (#49)
    by Socraticsilence on Thu Dec 10, 2009 at 03:47:53 PM EST
    but you have to remember he's also counting the Taliban and Milosevic among the governments the US tossed.

    Parent
    Hat size - 12 1/2 (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by lentinel on Thu Dec 10, 2009 at 05:29:51 PM EST
    The part of the speech that revealed the giant ego that is Obama was when, after acknowledging Ghandi and King, he went ahead and belittled their method of using nonviolent means to defeat tyranny.

    He needs to be reminded that Ghandi defeated the British Empire and Martin Luther King mobilized millions and turned the American government on its' head.

    And what has Obama accomplished lately with his predator drones?

    Predator drone supposedly took (none / 0) (#62)
    by Inspector Gadget on Thu Dec 10, 2009 at 08:46:09 PM EST
    out a TOP AL QAIDA official today in Pakistan. But, but, but Pakistan says it's a lie.

    Parent
    Boom (none / 0) (#66)
    by lentinel on Fri Dec 11, 2009 at 03:26:33 AM EST
    I'm sure we'll be "taking out" "top" Al Q people along with whoever else happens to be in the vicinity for decades to come.

    This does not quite compare with the accomplishments of Ghandi or Martin Luther King in my opinion.

    Parent

    Obama speech summary: (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by BobTinKY on Thu Dec 10, 2009 at 05:30:33 PM EST
    War is Peace

    I think (none / 0) (#2)
    by jbindc on Thu Dec 10, 2009 at 11:03:41 AM EST
    The speech (as I read it - didn't get to hear it) was generally good.  But I agree this was the wrong forum and kind of surreal - him standing the accepting Peace Prize talking about how he is the commander-in-chief of the armed forces engaged in two wars, and then in the next breath accepting the prize.

    I like that he did not pretend (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by coigue on Thu Dec 10, 2009 at 11:25:56 AM EST
    to be other than what he is, just because he was in Oslo.

    Parent
    Form the excerpts on NPR (none / 0) (#59)
    by BobTinKY on Thu Dec 10, 2009 at 06:09:29 PM EST
    he seemed to me too in your face about the wars he is leading, too dismissive of King and Ghandi as idealists when they in fact changed the world.  

    Parent
    If your criticism is solely directed at the (none / 0) (#3)
    by Maryb2004 on Thu Dec 10, 2009 at 11:08:40 AM EST
    Nobel committee then your title is misleading and so is this sentence:

    "The problem of course is that the speech is not one that should be delivered by the winner of the Nobel Peace Prize at the awards ceremony."  

    We can't change reality.  Assuming the facts that exist in our present reality  - he was awarded the prize and he intended to accept the prize -- what are you saying when you entitle this "wrong venue"?  

    Are you saying he should have given a different speech?  Are you saying he shouldn't have delivered any speech?  Are you saying he shouldn't have accepted the award.  If any of those are true then your criticism isn't solely with the Nobel committee and you shouldn't pretend it is.  If none of those are true - then I think your title is misleading.

    I completely disagree (none / 0) (#4)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Dec 10, 2009 at 11:11:55 AM EST
    The venue is due to the actions of the Committee.

    the fact that Obama was the Nobel winner was a result of the action of the Committee, not Obama.

    I stand by my title and the sentence you criticize.

    I think what I am asaying is perfectly clear - he should not have been award the Nobel Peace Prize.

    It was the Nobel Committee that did that.

    One of your weaker critiques Mary.

    Parent

    It isn't clear to me (none / 0) (#7)
    by Maryb2004 on Thu Dec 10, 2009 at 11:27:05 AM EST
    that your criticism of the Nobel committee is your sole message in this post.  I stand by that first impression.

    It sounds to me like a passive aggressive criticism of Obama - which isn't like you (the passive part).

    Let me put it another way - "Good speech" is obviously about Obama.   Any reader would understand that.  "Wrong Venue" immediately following implies a criticism of the subject of the first part of the statement - Obama.  NOT a criticism of some unnamed third party.  I think it is misleading if you are ONLY criticizing the Nobel committee.   And the later sentence doesn't make me change my mind but reinforces that idea.

    One of your weaker posts Armando.  

    Parent

    Hmm (none / 0) (#8)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Dec 10, 2009 at 11:29:56 AM EST
    "I again want to be clear - I think the President made the best of a bad situation. My criticism is solely directed at the Nobel Prize Committee."

    Parent
    See? That's the problem. (none / 0) (#10)
    by Maryb2004 on Thu Dec 10, 2009 at 11:45:22 AM EST
    What I'm saying is - despite your "I again want to be clear" you weren't clear in the first place.   Much less "again".

    Parent
    Assuming arguendo counselor (none / 0) (#11)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Dec 10, 2009 at 11:51:46 AM EST
    That I was not clear, the post is 3 grafs long.

    The third graf is the one I quoted. Surely any confusion the previous two grafs caused would have been totally dispelled by the third no?

    Parent

    Mary seemed to be directing the criticism (none / 0) (#12)
    by coigue on Thu Dec 10, 2009 at 11:55:40 AM EST
    at the title, which I agree is misleading.

    Parent
    Misleading how? (none / 0) (#30)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Dec 10, 2009 at 01:30:10 PM EST
    Wrong venue suggests (none / 0) (#41)
    by coigue on Thu Dec 10, 2009 at 03:34:18 PM EST
    he should have given the speech somewhere else. That's all.

    Parent
    That's exactly what I meant (none / 0) (#42)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Dec 10, 2009 at 03:36:53 PM EST
    That speech should not have been given at that venue.

    The reason it was given at the venue is because, stop me if you have read this from me before - the IDIOTIC Nobel Committee gave him the Peace Prize.

    Parent

    Yes. I hear you, and I heard you. (none / 0) (#43)
    by coigue on Thu Dec 10, 2009 at 03:40:30 PM EST
    This is a picky picky thing, which is probably why you are calling Mary "counselor"

    But did not Obama choose the speech that would be given at Oslo?

    (I think you would agree that to ignore the elephant in the room would have been worse, but it's not evident from the title)

    Parent

    I called Mary counselor (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Dec 10, 2009 at 04:09:47 PM EST
    because she is one of those transactional lawyers who writes bad contracts that keep litigators like me in business.

    Parent
    heh (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by Maryb2004 on Thu Dec 10, 2009 at 04:10:59 PM EST
    Heck, he's been unable to participate (none / 0) (#48)
    by Inspector Gadget on Thu Dec 10, 2009 at 03:46:33 PM EST
    fully in the strengthening of the economy, design of a reasonable healthcare reform bill, jobs creation, and a plethora of other badly needed policies to get this country back on its feet because he needed to get that 6 page (I printed it out) speech on the need for war.

    Why is it a good speech, btw?


    Parent

    Cause it addresses (none / 0) (#51)
    by coigue on Thu Dec 10, 2009 at 03:51:53 PM EST
    the irony of giving an American CinC the Peace Prize, and make a case for a just war.

    It's thoughtful and respectful of past winners.

    Parent

    Coigue is exactly right (none / 0) (#54)
    by Maryb2004 on Thu Dec 10, 2009 at 04:10:38 PM EST
    It suggests that HE (Obama) should not have given that speech at that venue.  That HE (Obama) did something you disagreed with.   That your criticism is of HIM (Obama).  

    Re-writing it in passive voice doesn't distract us. :)  

    Parent

    Are you kidding? (none / 0) (#13)
    by Maryb2004 on Thu Dec 10, 2009 at 11:59:49 AM EST
    The third just made the first two - both of which clearly seemed to be a criticism of Obama since you didn't mention ANYONE but Obama (other than a journalist you quote)- more confusing.

    Read it again.  Do you talk about ANYONE but Obama until you get to the very last sentence?  

    Never bury your argument.  

    But of course you know that.  

    Maybe you should stick to writing about Justice Thomas.  

    Parent

    Ouch (none / 0) (#14)
    by andgarden on Thu Dec 10, 2009 at 12:00:52 PM EST
    This is not my opening brief on the issue (none / 0) (#28)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Dec 10, 2009 at 12:58:44 PM EST
    counselor.

    Parent
    He could have refused ... (none / 0) (#16)
    by Robot Porter on Thu Dec 10, 2009 at 12:11:17 PM EST
    the prize for the reasons you give.  He could have refused it for the reasons he gives.

    And his speech, cleverly written as it was, will be remembered for its Orwellian framework, summed up in one headline I saw:

    "Obama Accepts Peace Prize, Defends War"

    Parent

    Three confirmed terrorists (none / 0) (#34)
    by jondee on Thu Dec 10, 2009 at 02:44:52 PM EST
    Kissinger, Begin and Arafat have gotten Nobels.

    The award is obviously more for what we want you to do than for what you've done.

    I do agree though that anyone in the world antithetical to the "Bush Doctrine" should get a mini home version of the Nobel -- to share with the whole family

    Parent

    Why do you have to call Henry a Terrorist (none / 0) (#36)
    by Socraticsilence on Thu Dec 10, 2009 at 03:16:02 PM EST
    that seems like a serious short sell- its like calling Mao a theif- Kissingers so, so much more than a Terrorist- he's War Criminal.

    Parent
    So far he's skated like (none / 0) (#39)
    by jondee on Thu Dec 10, 2009 at 03:21:09 PM EST
    Sonja Heine (hows that for a refernce?)

    Talk about the importance of having the right friends in high places.

    Parent

    You know (none / 0) (#45)
    by Socraticsilence on Thu Dec 10, 2009 at 03:42:53 PM EST
    I'll give him credit for one thing I learned more from his book "Diplomacy" than I'll ever learn from a Cheney or Condee book.

    Parent
    Ghostwriters aint what they (none / 0) (#50)
    by jondee on Thu Dec 10, 2009 at 03:51:44 PM EST
    used to be. And Prof. Moriarty provides a much richer compost for a book than any second story men from the Bush admin.

    Parent
    I have mixed feelings. (none / 0) (#9)
    by coigue on Thu Dec 10, 2009 at 11:30:36 AM EST
    I think the award was for the symbolism of a country that was built by slaves, and grew up in racial violence to have elected a black president.

    In essence, the prize was for the US citizens who elected him.

    In this light, it would have been hubris to turn it down.

    And I like the fact that he did not pretend to be a peace president. Truth speaking means a lot in a politician. At least it does to me.

    The Nobel Committee has said` (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by Inspector Gadget on Thu Dec 10, 2009 at 12:29:01 PM EST
    why they chose him.

    It had ZERO to do with him being half black or this being a country that once had slaves.


    Parent

    yep. you are right. (none / 0) (#24)
    by coigue on Thu Dec 10, 2009 at 12:35:28 PM EST
    but the reason as stated is so bizarre, i guess i got imaginative.

    it's like the nobel committee believed bo's campaign promises.

    Parent

    Heh - trying to imagine what was in (none / 0) (#25)
    by Inspector Gadget on Thu Dec 10, 2009 at 12:43:48 PM EST
    the heads of the Nobel committee hurts the brain. It does seem obvious they were swept up in the hype, though. They certainly weren't paying attention to the great divide he caused in the Democratic party through the strategy that was used...perceived, or otherwise.

    Parent
    I don't think its a race thing (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by Socraticsilence on Thu Dec 10, 2009 at 03:17:40 PM EST
    so much as a "he not a mouthbreathing idiot/ Bush award"

    Parent
    If (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by lentinel on Thu Dec 10, 2009 at 05:33:55 PM EST
    the prize was for the American citizens who elected him, they should have turned it down.

    Parent
    But that's not the point of the award (none / 0) (#15)
    by jbindc on Thu Dec 10, 2009 at 12:03:52 PM EST
    even if your theory is true.

    Parent
    what is the point then? (none / 0) (#21)
    by coigue on Thu Dec 10, 2009 at 12:27:21 PM EST
    The Peace Prize (none / 0) (#27)
    by jbindc on Thu Dec 10, 2009 at 12:51:10 PM EST
    can be given for any reason, I guess, but historically (and what Alfred Nobel wanted it to be given for) was a body of work that um, promoted peace.

    Parent
    yeah...but that has been diverged upon (none / 0) (#40)
    by coigue on Thu Dec 10, 2009 at 03:33:00 PM EST
    a few times.

    Parent
    Dude (none / 0) (#46)
    by Socraticsilence on Thu Dec 10, 2009 at 03:44:29 PM EST
    Gore got it for work promoting Climate Care- basically he won a Nobel Peace Prize for being the Spokesman for one of the professors and my school.

    Parent
    And I say that (none / 0) (#47)
    by Socraticsilence on Thu Dec 10, 2009 at 03:45:52 PM EST
    as a person who views Climate Change as a problem.

    Parent
    You're at Ohio State? (none / 0) (#68)
    by coigue on Fri Dec 11, 2009 at 11:10:07 AM EST
    (btw, not just one Prof or school)

    Parent
    Conservtives liked it (none / 0) (#29)
    by jbindc on Thu Dec 10, 2009 at 01:29:42 PM EST
    Now calling it "The Obama Doctrine" (to be fair - so did Christine Pelosi)

    President Barack Obama's Nobel Peace Prize speech Thursday is drawing praise from some unlikely quarters -- conservative Republicans -- who likened Obama's defense of "just wars" to the worldview of his predecessor, Republican President George W. Bush.

    It's already being called the Obama Doctrine -- a notion that foreign policy is a struggle of good and evil, that American exceptionalism has blunted the force of tyranny in the world, and that U.S. military might can be a force for good and even harnessed to humanitarian ends.

    "There will be times," Obama said, "when nations -- acting individually or in concert -- will find the use of force not only necessary but morally justified."

    The remarks drew immediate praise from a host of conservatives, including former GOP House Speaker Newt Gingrich.

    "He clearly understood that he had been given the prize prematurely, but he used it as an occasion to remind people, first of all, as he said, that there is evil in the world," said Gingrich on "The Takeaway," a national morning drive show from WNYC and Public Radio International.

    "I think having a liberal president who goes to Oslo on behalf of a peace prize and reminds the committee that they would not be free, they wouldn't be able to have a peace prize, without having force," Gingrich said. "I thought in some ways it's a very historic speech."



    Confusing, actually (none / 0) (#31)
    by Inspector Gadget on Thu Dec 10, 2009 at 02:07:48 PM EST
    "There will be times," Obama said, "when nations -- acting individually or in concert -- will find the use of force not only necessary but morally justified."

    [emphasis mine]

    So, there will be times, but they haven't yet occurred?

    Parent

    Just like (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by jbindc on Thu Dec 10, 2009 at 02:09:43 PM EST
    he will grow into his Peace Prize?

    Parent
    The difference is (none / 0) (#70)
    by coigue on Fri Dec 11, 2009 at 11:13:22 AM EST
    what the criterion for a just war is.

    The GOP think you can create one, where it doesn't already exist.

    Parent

    Watching ants when the elephant comes around. (none / 0) (#61)
    by Addison on Thu Dec 10, 2009 at 08:31:52 PM EST
    It was the most consequential speech of his presidency so far and no one was listening, apparently. I'm amazed by the degree to which the contents have been (and thus will be, the news cycle has already moved on from any possible focus on something that happened 12+ hours ago) underreported.