home

State Of The Union Live Blog

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Obama Administration
Posted on Wed Jan 27, 2010 at 07:49:59 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

I'll live blog it.

I believe the Secretary of State is absent tonight. One Cabinet member is designated to be absent, just in case a Tom Clancy book breaks out.

Maybe it's me, but not quite so rousing a reception for the President as compared to last year.

A special moment with Tim Geithner. Ugh.

Speech stuff on the flip. Barb has the speech. Follow along and see how much Obama changes it. On the health bill - the scheduled lines - "As temperatures cool, I want everyone to take another look at the plan we’ve proposed. [. . .] Here’s what I ask of Congress, though: Do not walk away from reform. Not now. Not when we are so close. Let us find a way to come together and finish the job for the American people."

The State of the Union is . . . . ________?

My answer -- Challenged.

Anyway, Obama doing a little finger pointing before we get to "looking forward."

I am so sick of hearing about Elkhart, Indiana.

Bashing Wall Street.

Struggling but encouraged? Meh.

We're fighters! Really, we are whiners though.

Obama - it begins with our economy. More Wall Street bashing.

Did Geithner REALLY hate the bank bailout?

Defending TARP and all that. I would limit my time on this if I was Obama.

Bragging about cutting taxes. Meh.

You can say what you want about me, but I won't sit here and listen to you bad mouth the United States of America!!! Hmm, hmm hmm hmm . . .

On the Spending ! FREEZE!!!! - "Starting in 2011, we are prepared to freeze government spending for three years. Spending related to our national security, Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security will not be affected. But all other discretionary government programs will. Like any cash-strapped family, we will work within a budget to invest in what we need and sacrifice what we don’t. And if I have to enforce this discipline by veto, I will."

Jared Bernstein was lying to Rachel Maddow apparently.

Must stink to have to sit behind the President and not show any boredom. Poor Pelosi's face looks frozen.

My final words (I just can't stand it anymore) - as far as SOTUs go, this was average in terms of delivery and reaching the heights. etc. I can quibble on some of the substance - but it is a Democratic President's agenda for the most part. If he can do what he says he wants to do - then he will be the best President since FDR. Of course he can't. So we'll have to judge him on what he actually does.

As always, these speeches are a bore. Not Obama's fault really. Anyway - good night for now.

< Pre-SOTU Open Thread | Full Text of President Obama's SOTU Address >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    State Of The Union Live Blog | 173 comments (173 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Why does this always feel like a chore? (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by andgarden on Wed Jan 27, 2010 at 07:58:17 PM EST
    It was so satisfying to watch Bill Clinton give this address. Never since.

    Listening to Bill Clinton (5.00 / 4) (#82)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Jan 27, 2010 at 08:39:58 PM EST
    give a speech, a press conference, whatever, was always exhilarating, and I don't even care what the topic is.  It's always exciting when somebody's talking about something they're genuinely interested in and excited about, and Big Bill was fascinated by just about everything.

    Biggest regret about the Lewinsky/impeachment mess was he stopped giving those virtuoso press conferences.  IMHO.

    Parent

    I think that's the root of it (5.00 / 2) (#89)
    by andgarden on Wed Jan 27, 2010 at 08:43:28 PM EST
    He always seemed interested.

    Parent
    exhilarating? (none / 0) (#150)
    by coigue on Thu Jan 28, 2010 at 12:08:53 PM EST
    informative, yes...but exhilarating?

    Parent
    Always learn something (5.00 / 2) (#122)
    by BackFromOhio on Wed Jan 27, 2010 at 09:19:49 PM EST
    when Bill Clinton speaks.  He has such a fertile mind that brings together disparate information in a way that suggests practical solutions to thorny problems.

    Parent
    And Bill (none / 0) (#138)
    by robert72 on Thu Jan 28, 2010 at 02:01:17 AM EST
    didn't need the teleprompter to give an inspiring speech. HE had it memorized, and if something went wrong he carried on just as if he were reading it - because he understood what he wanted to say. Obama? Not so much.

    Parent
    Dunno about you, but after (none / 0) (#3)
    by observed on Wed Jan 27, 2010 at 07:59:49 PM EST
    about the 5th time that I've seen the "best speech eva", I'm just too awed to be able to keep listening.

    Parent
    Satisfying? (none / 0) (#5)
    by Maryb2004 on Wed Jan 27, 2010 at 08:01:35 PM EST
    To see if you could make it through the marathon?  That man always talked waaaaaay too long.

    Parent
    I was never bored (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by andgarden on Wed Jan 27, 2010 at 08:02:26 PM EST


    Parent
    You must have a low (none / 0) (#10)
    by Maryb2004 on Wed Jan 27, 2010 at 08:03:24 PM EST
    threshold.  I've never been anything BUT bored during any SOTU.  Although I pretty much gave up watching during the Bush presidency.

    Parent
    I dunno, Clinton always kept my attention (none / 0) (#11)
    by andgarden on Wed Jan 27, 2010 at 08:04:21 PM EST
    Bush was just uncomfortable to watch.

    Parent
    Long? Tonight's is goin 75 minutes (none / 0) (#14)
    by Cream City on Wed Jan 27, 2010 at 08:05:04 PM EST
    minimum, per CNN.  David Gergen groaned, audibly.

    Parent
    "overcoming politics" (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by andgarden on Wed Jan 27, 2010 at 08:16:22 PM EST
    I'm tired of that BS.

    Has he said the "B" word yet? (none / 0) (#37)
    by observed on Wed Jan 27, 2010 at 08:17:01 PM EST


    Parent
    Every problem he talks about... (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by Dadler on Wed Jan 27, 2010 at 08:32:13 PM EST
    ...are inherent problems with capitalism that need to be constantly regulated to ensure fairness. But we can't speak truthfully, we must continue to speak about money as if it is the swallows we pray will return to the mission every year.

    those other nations he talks about who are not standing still, these nations are not afraid of the word socialism.  we are, and therefore we will lag behind these countries in these areas.  

    He doesn't want second place (5.00 / 2) (#69)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jan 27, 2010 at 08:33:10 PM EST
    for the United States of America?  I thought we were 20 something in healthcare and nothing he has done has made that one bit better.

    36th (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by Inspector Gadget on Wed Jan 27, 2010 at 08:49:11 PM EST
    Is what I remember

    Parent
    He just said ... (none / 0) (#143)
    by Robot Porter on Thu Jan 28, 2010 at 10:13:59 AM EST
    he wouldn't "accept second place."

    Thirty-sixth place?  He's fine with that.

    Parent

    if this were a town hall meeting (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by Jlvngstn on Wed Jan 27, 2010 at 08:34:08 PM EST
    it would be emptying out now with the talk of nothingness in reform.

    americans are too stupid (none / 0) (#74)
    by Jlvngstn on Wed Jan 27, 2010 at 08:35:20 PM EST
    to make financial decisions?  How many of us bought and sold CDS/CDO's?

    Parent
    I do like his delivery (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by ruffian on Wed Jan 27, 2010 at 08:36:14 PM EST
    Very to the point and energetic. Very refreshing after 8 years of Smirky McChimp.

    that said....offshore oil and gas development? No thank you.

    And he wants to save the financial (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jan 27, 2010 at 08:36:19 PM EST
    market, and says all the same goobley gook that idiots from my generation always say about needing the magic money growing trees in the mystical financial orchards of the Titan Mountains of Wall Street.  Wow....count me is not just falling asleep, but horribly disappointed in that hearing totally obnoxious B.S.

    He's broken throught the stalemate (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jan 27, 2010 at 08:40:48 PM EST
    between left and right?  If this television didn't cost me as much as it did I'd throw something really heavy and deadly at it right now.

    The only left and right (none / 0) (#139)
    by robert72 on Thu Jan 28, 2010 at 02:02:54 AM EST
    is his head swivelling from side to side.

    Parent
    So the so-called jobs bill (5.00 / 2) (#88)
    by Cream City on Wed Jan 27, 2010 at 08:43:27 PM EST
    is really yet another tax-breaks-to-business bill.  And then businesses will get going on hires.  Isn't that what the stimulus was going to do?  And how that did work out?  (See: definition of insanity.)

    Speaking of a stimulus, Reid could use one.  Yawning.

    They'll forgive my college debt in (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jan 27, 2010 at 08:44:21 PM EST
    ten years if I choose a job in public service?  The promises are rolling off of his tongue faster than I can make note, but what promise that he made me a year ago did he keep outside of Afghanistan?

    And he cracks jokes about (none / 0) (#94)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jan 27, 2010 at 08:47:06 PM EST
    our healthcare problems, that really disgusts me from the position I sit in in all of this.  I have about 50 denials on a disabled kid that he put somewhere that would strike ME as funny while he's up there giggling thinking all this current suffering is so damned funny!

    Parent
    Hey, I'm gonna save those jokes (5.00 / 4) (#98)
    by Cream City on Wed Jan 27, 2010 at 08:50:14 PM EST
    for my daughter to tell to the bill collectors who call on Sunday mornings to harass a laid-off kid on crutches.  Those crutches added to her $6,000 bills for medical care.  And yeh, that's after COBRA coverage -- coverage that she had to pay for from her unemployment comp, now about to run out.

    I'm just not in the mood for jokes, either, MT.

    Parent

    Everyone saying Prez did well tonight (none / 0) (#129)
    by BackFromOhio on Wed Jan 27, 2010 at 09:31:12 PM EST
    I thought all the smiles from him & Nancy sitting behind him seemed at odds with the seriousness of the problems we face as a nation.  What's to smile about?  Am I the only one who thinks the smiling was inappropriate?

    Parent
    Agreed. Smiles were jarring (none / 0) (#133)
    by Cream City on Wed Jan 27, 2010 at 09:53:07 PM EST
    and jokes.  So most of the time, Obama stayed serious.  But Biden's fakey teeth, yikes -- against a fake tan almost as orange as Boehner's.  That was blinding.  (And was Pelosi actually chewing?!)

    Parent
    post speech he gets on a motorcycle (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by Jlvngstn on Wed Jan 27, 2010 at 08:44:42 PM EST
    and jumps over a pool of sharks.  

    Charming smile on hcr but really i am gone....

    The "tightening belts" language (5.00 / 4) (#102)
    by andgarden on Wed Jan 27, 2010 at 08:51:51 PM EST
    is where he loses me. Go eff yourself Mr. President.

    What pathetic speechifying (5.00 / 4) (#103)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jan 27, 2010 at 08:53:01 PM EST
    about our healthcare woes.  He challenges someone to bring him better answers and solutions.  Sorry, but what an a-hole, plenty of people have had better solutions that weren't even allowed at the initial starting table.  He cut secret deals with Pharma that ripped us all off before anyone made one single move.  He is looking like a total schmuck now.  He wants to finish the job for the American people.  He wants to force all Americans to be forced to pay for 50 denials whether they want to or not.

    Did they put the 'You lie!!' guy (5.00 / 3) (#105)
    by ruffian on Wed Jan 27, 2010 at 08:58:58 PM EST
    in a straightjacket this year?  that 'no lobbyists in my administration' part was a little much.

    He wants to try something new (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jan 27, 2010 at 09:00:21 PM EST
    in Washington...................zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz, something about common sense.........zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz. Nobody trusts Washington, no chit......zzzzzzz.  New rules for lobbyists full of so many loopholes I feel sleepy and now here comes Citizens United.  And he doesn't think that elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests (the bullcrap detector is blaring now)

    Oh God (5.00 / 3) (#108)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jan 27, 2010 at 09:07:01 PM EST
    He hasn't given up on bipartisanship.  Fecking feck me!  With hands talking in the air, he admits that it is an election year but he's just going to blow that off.  Stay the course you idiot, stay the damned course and totally just feck me.  I give up on you.  Go get yourself some Republican love you fool cuz this loveshack is closed!

    Now he's talking about Al Qaeda (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jan 27, 2010 at 09:10:14 PM EST
    It was one thing I thought I could always agree with him on, but he's been such a total idiot throughout this whole speech I can't even hear him now.  All I hear is blah blah blah blah blah...all our troops are coming home....blah blah blah (like all of our troops have ever been home).  He just sounds rock solid stoopid to me no matter what he says now.  I have no credibility that I can loan him.  I have nothing left to loan anyone.

    And he's talking to me about Iran (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jan 27, 2010 at 09:13:03 PM EST
    leaders facing growing consequences.  Dude, you have absolutely no grasp of leaders and consequences......zero, what in the world can you tell me about the Iran situation at this point that I can hope makes sense in the real world of Iran?  You don't even understand the United States.

    Parent
    What's the record for length? (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Jan 27, 2010 at 09:14:30 PM EST
    Anybody know?  We're at an hour and a quarter and he's still blah-blah-blahing.  Didn't BC get blasted  for going 50-some minutes once?

    Yeah, this is going pretty long (none / 0) (#118)
    by andgarden on Wed Jan 27, 2010 at 09:16:50 PM EST
    Maybe he's trying to make sure that absolutely no one watches Taliban Bob.

    Parent
    It's seems to me like a stump speech rather (5.00 / 2) (#119)
    by DFLer on Wed Jan 27, 2010 at 09:17:10 PM EST
    than proposals for action. I'd bet the lecturing tone is irritating more than one pol.

    Buwhahahahahaha (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jan 27, 2010 at 09:17:54 PM EST
    Okay, he's promising that he's getting rid of DADT.  I can go there.  Finally, a promise I sink my teeth into.  If you fail me on this man, YOU ARE LOWER THAN SNAIL....  Then the camera zooms in on the joint chiefs.  Effing hysterical, did he say he was dumping DADT or that he had naked photos of all their mom's in combat boots.  I can't tell, it's the same face for both situations.

    Well, no, now he didn't promise (5.00 / 4) (#127)
    by Cream City on Wed Jan 27, 2010 at 09:27:30 PM EST
    to get rid of it, really.  Ya gotta parse everything this guy says.

    He said that he will "begin to work with Congress to work toward finally repealing it."

    Begin.

    To get Congress.

    To work toward it.

    Toward repeal.  Finally.  Eventually.  Some day.

    There are so many qualifiers in that sentence, MT.


    Parent

    MT, so how does the military (none / 0) (#124)
    by caseyOR on Wed Jan 27, 2010 at 09:20:33 PM EST
    feel about ending DADT? What does Mr. MT hear around the old military water cooler? Is it just homophobia in the senior ranks? or does it permeate down through the officer corps?

    Parent
    Grunts don't really care that much (5.00 / 2) (#128)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jan 27, 2010 at 09:30:33 PM EST
    Warrant officers don't care (warrant officers don't care about much of anything that commissioned officers take serious :).  It isn't as if they don't know that gay people are already out there serving among the straight.  Officers care because there will wrinkles to iron out.  DADT will have to be converted into teachings about keeping your sexual orientation to yourself when at work....as it should be.  But you will get soldiers running to their superiors complaining about being hit on by the gay soldier, and all the officers know that now among all the other things they have to deal with (married people not married to each other but getting each other pregnant in war zones....huge lists of social situations....they will now deal with a new wave of homophobia and showering togetherness).  I think it is knowing that it is going to take awhile to iron out the wrinkles that really makes officers make the super duper frowny face.  They'll figure it out though.  They've figured out more difficult things.

    Parent
    And a fer instance (none / 0) (#131)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jan 27, 2010 at 09:45:21 PM EST
    Our neighbor is a gay serving soldier.  It is very hard living next door though because if my husband "sees" something he's supposed to turn her in if he follows the officer rule book (and he lives by that book).  So he walks around outside staring at the ground a lot, and they really can't have coffee on the deck or anything where you could eff up unless he's deployed or something.  It really sucks living like this for everyone.  She has as much rank as my husband.  We actually hate each other too.  She gets along with my husband okay, but her personality and my personality only make ugly.  

    Parent
    Just so long as we act straight in public! (none / 0) (#132)
    by Emma on Wed Jan 27, 2010 at 09:46:56 PM EST
    DADT will have to be converted into teachings about keeping your sexual orientation to yourself when at work....as it should be.

    Except for, you know, all those heterosexuals who are married, getting government housing for them, their spouses, and their kids, and generally just, you know, being publicly straight.  Oh, the horror!

    And don't give me any line about the special military atmosphere.  I was in the military.  I know what it's like.

    Parent

    If they overturn DADT (5.00 / 1) (#134)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jan 27, 2010 at 09:58:09 PM EST
    It obviously changes everything socially for the military and that leaks into the greater society.  Look, doesn't matter if you like it or not....military culture and society is probably the most progressive culture and society in the United States right now where diversity is concerned.  Women make equal pay for doing the same job as men.  Soldiers marry people from all over the world.  It doesn't even register if people with skin colors from different ends of the hue spectrum marry and breed, nobody gives a rip....it is about what you can do and how well you can do it.  I don't know when you were part of the military family structure, but they all have to go through tons of "sensitivity training" and of course they make jokes about it all day long too.  The truth of today's reality though is that it doesn't matter who they are or who they fantasize about during their down time, they have to depend on each other to stay alive right now end of discussion.  That is all that matters a whole lot right now with two wars on.  It's the perfect time to expand our social diversity even farther, now that we have what is really important about people stripped down to the bare bones.

    Parent
    of course (none / 0) (#140)
    by Emma on Thu Jan 28, 2010 at 09:01:18 AM EST
    you don't reply to my criticism of you saying that price of repealing DADT is that gays have to stay closeted.

    Parent
    In the real world workplace (none / 0) (#141)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jan 28, 2010 at 09:10:02 AM EST
    People are supposed to keep their sexual lives to themselves outside of the Chicken Ranch employees.  To not do so infringes on the sexual boundaries of others.  To know that someone is gay though is not the end of any military world, my fricken nextdoor neighbor is.  And she is an evil person too but I'm not going to throw a fit and call the command about her.  I think she'd be just as evil if she was straight :)  I'm certain she would hate me just as much if I were gay.  She has been my neighbor though for about three years, and the whole neighborhood knows she is gay....a retired General lives across the street and discusses lawn types with her.  If I have sex with my husband on the front lawn I'll probably get arrested.  I think you should get over yourself.

    Parent
    Being gay (none / 0) (#145)
    by Emma on Thu Jan 28, 2010 at 11:09:58 AM EST
    is not JUST about my "sexual life".  It's about my life -- a life that heterosexuals bring into the workplace without comment, indeed with incredible SUPPORT from their co-workers and bosses, every single day.  You're requiring that the price of repealing DADT is that gay soldiers have to remain in the closet anyway, lest somebody "learn" something about our "sexual lives" by virtue of our spouse being the same sex.

    By me knowing you're straight and you knowing I'm gay, I already know as much about your sexual life as you know about mine.  But somehow, in the workplace, I'm supposed to hide that knowledge from you by staying in the closet.  At least according to you.  Okay, then, I demand that you stop talking about your husband, your kids, your marriage - because all of those topics are inextricably connected to your sexual life and by talking about them you're infringing on my sexual boundaries.

    And, as to your neighbor, your husband is the one who's afraid to be out in the yard lest he see her doing something "gay".  IS your neighbor in the habit of having sex in her driveway?  If not, what's the freaking problem?  Your husband needs to get over himself.

    It's good to know, though, that when you look at gay people all you can think about is us having sex.  Maybe you should get that checked.

    Parent

    What do you have to hide (none / 0) (#147)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jan 28, 2010 at 11:54:25 AM EST
    that I don't have to hide?

    Parent
    You tell me!!!!!!! (none / 0) (#151)
    by Emma on Thu Jan 28, 2010 at 01:10:38 PM EST
    Since you're the one advocating for me to hide!!!!

    DADT will have to be converted into teachings about keeping your sexual orientation to yourself when at work....as it should be.


    Parent
    I'm not advocating for anyone to hide (none / 0) (#156)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jan 28, 2010 at 02:21:16 PM EST
    DADT makes people have to hide.

    Parent
    So (none / 0) (#157)
    by Emma on Thu Jan 28, 2010 at 02:42:01 PM EST
    why do gay soldiers have to have classes about keeping their sexual orientation to themselves when at work?

    Parent
    All soldiers have to already (none / 0) (#160)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jan 28, 2010 at 02:51:45 PM EST
    They already do that anyhow more so than any civilian employment I ever had, but because everything in the military is done by the book they will now include gay sexual orientation as something that we can even talk about in textbook terms and something that we are supposed to keep to ourselves as much as our straight sexual orientation.  I did not think that ending DADT was a good thing but when I read up on all the gay groups, they want it gone.  I asked my husband if it would cause giant chaos and he said that it probably would for awhile but not the kind that I'm thinking of.  He does not believe that at least 10% of an extremely highly trained and skilled military can or will be kicked to the curb at this time.  And once the military society overcomes the initial chaos, they will never ever ever again be likely to make being gay and in the military something against any rule or law.  If you have been in the military though you already know that most displays of public affection are not allowed in uniform by straight soldiers, and gay soldiers would have to follow the same rules.

    Parent
    Really? (none / 0) (#163)
    by Emma on Thu Jan 28, 2010 at 03:00:58 PM EST
    Displays of public affection aren't allowed in uniform?  That's why every time a unit returns there's photos and videos of all the soldiers hugging and kissing their familiies.  Okay.  But, of course, if people are supposed to keep their sexual orientation out of the workplace, I guess those displays really will be outlawed if DADT is overturned?

    It's a huge reach from "no public displays of affection in uniform" (which is clearly not applied 100% of the time) to the assertion that soldiers are already supposed to keep their sexual orientation under wraps at work.

    So, I guess that means the army outlaws wedding rings, soldiers talking about their spouses, soliders discussing their home lives, soldiers putting pictures of their spouses in their helmets, soldiers talking about anything personal, soldiers talking about getting laid, soldiers talking about going on dates, all that stuff.  Yeah, I'm sure soldiers are expected to keep that out of the workplace since, after all, it might infringe on somebody else's sexual boundaries.

    Try to admit this:  no heterosexual has ever been, is now, or will ever be required to keep his/her sexual orientation private.  Ever.  Not once.  Not now, not ever.  In the military anywhere else.  Any other assertion to the contrary is either flailing or deliberately false.

    Parent

    It is true they cut us some slack (none / 0) (#165)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jan 28, 2010 at 03:10:06 PM EST
    when people leave or come home.  That's a pretty new thing though.  Prior to 9/11 we didn't have this constant deploying into combat zones and families without a primary family member so often.  And I remember when my spouse deployed in March of 2002, and none of us that were families did anything outside of a brief hug as they got on the bus. Other than that though the rules are the same.  Soldiers aren't allowed to drink alcohol in uniform either....you are a soldier first.  If you served under DADT though you already know that straight soldiers are not supposed to talk about their sexual orientation whatsoever.  You are free to make whatever you want to out of what you think you notice about their private lives, but sharing sexual orientation  is a violation of the rules and grounds for being reprimanded.  It is that way for everyone.  Now if you want to complain that nobody turns soldiers in for talking about their sexual orientation if they are straight, that is different issue and obviously involves whether or not the one being told is offended and files a complaint.  That is a different issue though and not something I have control over.

    Parent
    I'm only going to get angrier (none / 0) (#167)
    by Emma on Thu Jan 28, 2010 at 03:20:06 PM EST
    and angrier talking to you about this.  And soon I'll say something I really, really will regret.  So, I'll finish what I have to say with this:

    Your assertion that soldiers will need classes on how to keep their sexual orientation out of work is deeply, deeply problematic.  If it's just about sexual orientation, I see no reason for gays to have to hide their sexual orientation at work since hets are hardly under the same proscriptions.  If it's about sexual conduct, I find it highly insulting that you'd posit that overturning DADT would result in gays suddenly engaging in unwanted sexual conduct toward other soldiers such that we need classes to tell us how to behave.

    As to rules and choices and so on, it's only ever people outside the military who mythologize "the rules" to such an extent.  "People live and die by the rules!  You MUST follow them!"  It's unmitigated crap.  Like everybody else, people in the military must choose what rules they will live by or not and live with the consequences of that choice.  Just because there are rules doesn't mean you don't have to choose.  Ask Erin Watada, for one.  

    Just because one is in the military doesn't mean one doesn't have a choice.  Everything everybody does is a choice, from deploying to averting your eyes so you don't have to make a choice.  Personally, I'd rather serve under an officer who actively made a decision, whether that was a decision to turn in your neighbor or ignore DADT and treat both your neighbors like full human beings.  Choosing to avert your eyes to avoid the decision is a poor choice, IMO, for somebody who's expected lead soldiers and make tough decisions as part of doing so.  It makes me wonder what other things that soldier would avert his eyes from so he wouldn't be confronted with having to make a decision.  But that's just my opinion.

    Parent

    You have never been in the military (none / 0) (#168)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jan 28, 2010 at 04:58:01 PM EST
    They have to take such yearly classes now, all of them every year have to take refresher classes on conduct, safety, rules in the workplace.  Anything that anyone could construe as a violation of any sexual boundary is not permitted.  You have never been in the military

    Parent
    Calling someone (none / 0) (#169)
    by Emma on Thu Jan 28, 2010 at 05:37:54 PM EST
    a liar because you're losing an argument is simply beyond the pale.

    What you think of me doesn't matter.  But resorting to calling somebody a liar when you can't defend your craptastic posts is BS.

    Parent

    I'm not losing an argument (none / 0) (#170)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jan 28, 2010 at 05:45:33 PM EST
    Soldiers know one thing first and foremost, the military mission comes before anything else.  Every soldier attends classes every year on how to conduct themselves properly in a fashion that places the mission first as well and because this is an all volunteer force they all do this willingly whether they are gay, or straight, or wearing their mom's underwear in their off hours.  You know nothing outside of self service.  And that's okay, that's your right.  You are no soldier though, not even a past soldier, you have no soldier ethos and your attitudes should not be allowed to disenfranchise any gay person who wants to serve his country as a soldier.

    Parent
    Hey, (none / 0) (#171)
    by Emma on Thu Jan 28, 2010 at 06:09:09 PM EST
    how would you like it if I accused you of lying?  Seriously.  What if I said you were lying about having a disabled child?  That would suck wouldn't it?

    Good thing I don't do sh*t like that, call people liars about their own lives.

    Parent

    If you call me a liar on the internet (none / 0) (#172)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jan 28, 2010 at 06:27:56 PM EST
    I will not combust the next time sunlight hits me.  Go ahead and say I don't really have a kid that is disabled...perhaps I will wake up and it will be true and he won't be.  Probably not though because too many people in my not internet life know he is disabled, that's the real problem to that fantasy not becoming a reality for me.  It's the internet, nobody knows you are a dog.  You have no soldier ethos though man, or woman, or whatever...just sayin.  You don't even know what one is.  And I don't get soldier ethos every single day, only on a good effing day. But some people do and we need those people, even in our liberalness.  And sometimes those people are straight and sometimes they are gay and who the hell knows...the human sexuality isn't easily contained in tupperware.  If you want to hate me because genetically I'm the default setting, go ahead, it isn't the first time for me at that rodeo or anything Emma.  And if you want to think that keeping your damned sexuality to yourself is only about gayness or straightness all I can say is you missed the day the swingers of the unit upset the Christians of the unit.  What an effing mess that was, don't care to see it again either.

    Parent
    I will say this though (none / 0) (#173)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jan 28, 2010 at 07:11:13 PM EST
    DADT keeps "gayness" a dischargeable offense. And DADT helps to keep swingers and Christians arguing about the definition of infidelity because they aren't fecking gay instead of reiterating why we all keep our damned sexuality to ourselves in the workplace.  DADT is all about gayness though and the "wrongness" of gayness that ends even a West Point educated 20 year career.

    Parent
    You're (none / 0) (#174)
    by Emma on Fri Jan 29, 2010 at 09:35:19 AM EST
    right.  I don't have a "soldier ethos", whatever that is.  But neither do you, as you are not and never have been a soldier.

    None of which changes the fact that I'm a veteran.

    But, hey, I'm used to self-important and entitled officers' wives who think b/c the military makes busy work for them they're really part of the "team".  Go team!

    Parent

    Whether you like it or not (none / 0) (#175)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Jan 29, 2010 at 10:23:53 AM EST
    And I don't care if you do or not, the current war situation has drastically changed the real lives and reality of military families. If a spouse or SO doesn't "get" soldier ethos and sign on for that as well, the relationship will not survive what is currently happening to all of us because now the mission comes before our marriages and relationships 24/7.  I look forward to a day when it no longer is that way too because the conversion wasn't pleasant for me and I miss how my life used to be.  And please feel free to KMA.  If you are indeed a veteran, I'll just say I've never met a veteran so completely unschooled in soldier ethos and what function the boundaries of soldier ethos promote, enable, empower, and organize.

    Parent
    What makes you think a gay couple (5.00 / 1) (#142)
    by cawaltz on Thu Jan 28, 2010 at 09:58:08 AM EST
    wouldn't be able to get base housing if DADT is repealed? It generally goes by rank and a waiting list. I feel confident in saying they would be if it is repealed(just as gay families children would be more than welcome in daycare) Or welcome to be discussed in the workplace. MT's point is that when you are in uniform you aren't supposed to be talking about your sexuality. No one, in theory, is supposed to be going into work an discussing how they got laid the night before. Alot of gay people already serve so this really is as simple as dealing with the transition period when some of the men whine about how the military is being "ruined" for like the seventy millionth time as they did when females were integrated into the service.

    MT is also correct that the military in many ways is often quite progressive. Although I do have to call her on the idea that women are accepted and given equality entirely since women just recently managed to fight and win their way into the sub community making the argument that not being allowed to serve in that capacity hurt their advancements(a point which they are totally correct on). They are a work in progress and I imagine if they repealed DADT they'd continue to be a work in progress for the LGBT community.

    Parent

    I think (none / 0) (#144)
    by jbindc on Thu Jan 28, 2010 at 10:15:47 AM EST
    And I can't speak from experience, but it isn't about going into work discussing how you got laid last night, but I think it's more subtle.  Beign able to put a picture of you and your spouse on your desk. Being able to talk about what "we" did over the weekend.  Being able to bring the significant other to formal dinners where attendance is required.  

    We heterosexuals give all kinds of clues every day to our co-workers and people we meet on the street of our heterosexuality.  And since I'm speaking for the gays in the military, even though no one chose me to do so, I think they would like the same opportunity without fear of reprisal.

    Parent

    Thank you (none / 0) (#146)
    by Emma on Thu Jan 28, 2010 at 11:13:50 AM EST
    Yes, exactly.

    And, also, IME in the military it's also about going into work and discussing how you got laid last night.  Meanign:  the military isn't nearly as "progressive" as MT likes to represent.  I know.  I was in the military.  I had 2 brothers, a sister, and a brother-in-law in the military.  So I'm not just making things up here.

    Repealing DADT is the first step.  Challenging the requirement that we stay in the closet at work lest some delicate flower of an infantryman "know" something about our sexual lives is the next step.

    Parent

    When were you in the military? (none / 0) (#149)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jan 28, 2010 at 12:04:34 PM EST
    The timing of when you were is also a factor in this discussion.

    Parent
    When were (none / 0) (#152)
    by Emma on Thu Jan 28, 2010 at 01:11:24 PM EST
    you in the military?  Because that is also a factor in this discussion.

    Parent
    I am currently part of the active duty (none / 0) (#154)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jan 28, 2010 at 02:14:09 PM EST
    serving military community.  I take part in an FRG at this time too while my husband serves and is deployed in Afghanistan.  Normally he teaches flight school classes at Fort Rucker, my next door neighbor is also active duty currently deployed but recently was a Commander on Fort Rucker.  She lives with a partner who is at home alone now while she is gone.  Nobody has cared to raise a stink about her.

    Parent
    Yeah, (none / 0) (#159)
    by Emma on Thu Jan 28, 2010 at 02:51:39 PM EST
    you're not in the military.  You're just a typical officer's wife who thinks she knows how it is because her hubby tells her stories about his unit.

    Parent
    I'm a typical officer's wife :) (none / 0) (#161)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jan 28, 2010 at 02:57:26 PM EST
    In your gayness, how would you know what one of those was?

    Parent
    Hmmm. (none / 0) (#162)
    by oculus on Thu Jan 28, 2010 at 02:59:55 PM EST


    Parent
    Like (none / 0) (#164)
    by Emma on Thu Jan 28, 2010 at 03:02:28 PM EST
    I've never run into officers' wives and their attitudes?  Like I have to be straight to interact with them?  Okay.  Sure.

    Parent
    You obviously don't think much of us (none / 0) (#166)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jan 28, 2010 at 03:13:40 PM EST
    I suppose we are inferior since we are a bunch of breeders.

    Parent
    The flipside of this though (none / 0) (#148)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jan 28, 2010 at 12:02:50 PM EST
    is that many of us have already accepted gay coupleship in the military, but we can't invite these people to any of our get togethers where they would talk about anything very personal at all about their lives.  That's telling, and when officers have been told about "gayness" they are supposed to report the "gayness" or they are culpable in allowing "violations" to take place.  There was a time in the military prior to my arrival when all the interracial marriages and interracial children had the old guard all freaked out.  What happened though is what always tends to happen when people work closely together though day in and day out.  Someone gets beyond it, and then eventually we all go to picnics together and the personal hangups meet a new social health.  Some people never change though, this tiny percentage...that's life.  They don't end up at the huge Christmas parties then with the rest of us, they exile themselves to the outskirts.  Life goes on

    Parent
    Puh-lease (none / 0) (#153)
    by Emma on Thu Jan 28, 2010 at 01:15:49 PM EST
    but we can't invite these people to any of our get togethers where they would talk about anything very personal at all about their lives.

    First, are you in the military?  Is there some proscription on you socializing with gay people?

    Second, I would never want to serve under an officer who avoids making tough moral choices by avoiding situations which require a decision to be made.  "Gay people aren't supposed to be in the military; but I think that's wrong; but instead of making a decision about it, I'll just avoid any gay people I know.  That way I won't have to make the choice.  Dilemma solved!"

    Honestly, I thought officers were supposed to have more integrity than that.

    Parent

    Your ignorance about following (none / 0) (#155)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jan 28, 2010 at 02:18:58 PM EST
    the rules in the military and the consequences for not doing so is astonishing.  Your ignorance about gay serving in the military this very moment is also equally astonishing as well as a complete lack of understanding how we are all surviving all of this.  In the military, people live and die by the rules.  Aren't you the one not long ago who couldn't wait to point out that people in the military die for bad policy all the time and that's there stupid dumb luck?  I realize you don't think much of the military and I don't give a damn if you do or not.  Change the rules in the military though and you change everything that rule touches.

    Parent
    No (none / 0) (#158)
    by Emma on Thu Jan 28, 2010 at 02:49:25 PM EST
    I'm not ignorant.  I was a lesbian in the military.  You think I don't know about consequences for not following rules?  Really?  Should I tell you about the gay witch-hunts in my unit?

    And, how, exactly is your husband "following the rules"?  He isn't.  He's avoiding having to make a choice about following the rules.  Period.  

    You can natter on all you want about people living or dying by rules or whatever.  The fact is, people in the military have a choice to go to war or not, to follow DADT or not.  It's  not a great choice, it's not war on one side and happy unicorns on the other.  There are consequences both for following the rules and not following the rules.  

    IMO, you can't whine about the consequences of following the rules when you have chosen to follow them, even if you've chosen to do so only in order to avoid the consequences of not following them.  Your husband has chosen to go to war.  That's a tough choice for him and for his family.  But he chose it.  So he lives with it, you live with it, stop blaming others -- like us -- for the conditions or conduct of the war he's chosen to go fight in.  

    If he's REALLY that opposed to the war, or how it's being fought, he could have chosen not to go.  Would that have consequences?  Of course it would.  Worse consequences than dying in a stupid war run by stupid people?  I don't know.  But he made that choice.  Not me.

    Parent

    MT does the mission come before human rights? (none / 0) (#176)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Wed Feb 03, 2010 at 10:44:20 PM EST
    i.e. the LGBTQ community's right to all the same rights as heterosexuals?

    Would you, or your husband, be part of a military that didn't allow people of color to serve?

    I wouldn't, no way, no how. I would not voluntarily be part of any organization that mandated that kind of silence and blind allegiance to draconian rules and regs.

    No offense.

    Parent

    Irish betting on cliches we will hear (none / 0) (#1)
    by Cream City on Wed Jan 27, 2010 at 07:54:30 PM EST
    in the SOTU can be found here.  Oh, oh, too bad -- speech is starting, bets are closing. :-)

    I suspect I will last (none / 0) (#4)
    by Maryb2004 on Wed Jan 27, 2010 at 08:00:37 PM EST
    less than 20 minutes.  That's how it usually is.  

    I hope I can make it that long (none / 0) (#7)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jan 27, 2010 at 08:02:29 PM EST


    Parent
    For what you're getting paid (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by observed on Wed Jan 27, 2010 at 08:03:08 PM EST
    we expect a lot.

    Parent
    Indeed (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jan 27, 2010 at 08:06:14 PM EST
    You'll get your money's worth . . .

    Parent
    I already want a refund (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by andgarden on Wed Jan 27, 2010 at 08:06:37 PM EST


    Parent
    I might not make it through the pre-game (none / 0) (#12)
    by Maryb2004 on Wed Jan 27, 2010 at 08:04:53 PM EST
    the NBC team is idiotic.  I have to change the station.

    Parent
    Never watch it (none / 0) (#16)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jan 27, 2010 at 08:05:25 PM EST


    Parent
    Me either (none / 0) (#20)
    by andgarden on Wed Jan 27, 2010 at 08:06:21 PM EST
    But the Prez is running late.

    Parent
    Chip Reid says he'll go after Citizens United (none / 0) (#8)
    by andgarden on Wed Jan 27, 2010 at 08:03:00 PM EST


    Smart (none / 0) (#13)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jan 27, 2010 at 08:05:03 PM EST


    Parent
    Indeed (none / 0) (#18)
    by andgarden on Wed Jan 27, 2010 at 08:05:58 PM EST


    Parent
    Maybe he'll propose (none / 0) (#17)
    by Maryb2004 on Wed Jan 27, 2010 at 08:05:50 PM EST
    a constitutional convention.  That would be exciting.

    Parent
    No support from me (none / 0) (#22)
    by andgarden on Wed Jan 27, 2010 at 08:07:08 PM EST
    OTOH, I've already proposed packing the Court.

    Parent
    Sandy Levinson (none / 0) (#23)
    by Maryb2004 on Wed Jan 27, 2010 at 08:08:01 PM EST
    is winning me over. ;)

    Parent
    Elijah Cummings in the catbird seat (none / 0) (#15)
    by andgarden on Wed Jan 27, 2010 at 08:05:24 PM EST
    next to Kucinich.

    Alito next to Sotomayor (none / 0) (#24)
    by andgarden on Wed Jan 27, 2010 at 08:08:21 PM EST
    Roberts next to Kennedy.

    Biden has an interesting tie (none / 0) (#25)
    by andgarden on Wed Jan 27, 2010 at 08:10:37 PM EST


    I think he color coodinated (none / 0) (#26)
    by Maryb2004 on Wed Jan 27, 2010 at 08:11:19 PM EST
    with Nancy.

    It's so nice not to have to look at Dick.

    Parent

    Indeed (none / 0) (#27)
    by andgarden on Wed Jan 27, 2010 at 08:12:34 PM EST
    I'm remembering some story from 2007 about how Republican women secretly coveted her pearls.

    Parent
    Maybe he and Obama (none / 0) (#29)
    by Maryb2004 on Wed Jan 27, 2010 at 08:13:51 PM EST
    coordinated so that between them their ties would be red, white and blue ...

    Parent
    Biden's tie looks purple on my TV (none / 0) (#32)
    by andgarden on Wed Jan 27, 2010 at 08:14:34 PM EST


    Parent
    Periwinkle? (none / 0) (#35)
    by Maryb2004 on Wed Jan 27, 2010 at 08:15:24 PM EST


    Parent
    I think it's the light and how it reflects (none / 0) (#39)
    by nycstray on Wed Jan 27, 2010 at 08:18:09 PM EST
    off the sheen of the fabric. It's picking up some of the red that the blue has in it

    Parent
    He's taking ownership of TARP (none / 0) (#28)
    by andgarden on Wed Jan 27, 2010 at 08:13:37 PM EST
    Maybe not so smart.

    Not so sure describing the problem AGAIN (none / 0) (#30)
    by andgarden on Wed Jan 27, 2010 at 08:14:08 PM EST
    does much good.

    Pelosi (none / 0) (#31)
    by noholib on Wed Jan 27, 2010 at 08:14:13 PM EST
    looks shell-shocked

    At something Obama said, or (none / 0) (#33)
    by observed on Wed Jan 27, 2010 at 08:14:57 PM EST
    overall? Maybe I'll turn the telly on.

    Parent
    She looks the same as always (none / 0) (#34)
    by andgarden on Wed Jan 27, 2010 at 08:14:58 PM EST


    Parent
    i disagree (none / 0) (#41)
    by noholib on Wed Jan 27, 2010 at 08:19:10 PM EST
    she used to look enraptured when Pres. Obama spoke; now she looks like she could cry --
     that's how I see it

    Parent
    "Strong" (none / 0) (#38)
    by andgarden on Wed Jan 27, 2010 at 08:17:37 PM EST
    How many paragraphs in was that?

    At least a dozen (none / 0) (#40)
    by andgarden on Wed Jan 27, 2010 at 08:18:15 PM EST
    Orange has the remarks as prepared.

    Parent
    Geithner needs some hair die (none / 0) (#42)
    by andgarden on Wed Jan 27, 2010 at 08:19:19 PM EST
    and a fresh razor blade. He doesn't do closeups well.

    *dye (none / 0) (#43)
    by andgarden on Wed Jan 27, 2010 at 08:19:29 PM EST


    Parent
    Mary Landrieu claps (none / 0) (#44)
    by andgarden on Wed Jan 27, 2010 at 08:20:10 PM EST
     for "fee on biggest banks"

    howling (none / 0) (#45)
    by Jlvngstn on Wed Jan 27, 2010 at 08:20:38 PM EST
    what is the howling?

    No stimulus, (none / 0) (#46)
    by andgarden on Wed Jan 27, 2010 at 08:21:53 PM EST
     just "20 different tax cuts".  That's what you have to do when you undershoot.

    BTW, I like his more casual style tonight.

    Spoke too soon (none / 0) (#48)
    by andgarden on Wed Jan 27, 2010 at 08:22:38 PM EST
    The plan that has made all of this possible, from the tax cuts to the jobs, is the Recovery Act.  That's right - the Recovery Act, also known as the Stimulus Bill.  Economists on the left and the right say that this bill has helped saved jobs and avert disaster.  But you don't have to take their word for it.


    Parent
    Susan Collins looks lonely clapping for it. (none / 0) (#49)
    by andgarden on Wed Jan 27, 2010 at 08:23:31 PM EST


    Parent
    Love how the Republicans (none / 0) (#50)
    by Maryb2004 on Wed Jan 27, 2010 at 08:23:33 PM EST
    can't applaud for jobs.   They look like such Scrooges.

    Parent
    why is the right sitting down for tax cuts (none / 0) (#47)
    by Jlvngstn on Wed Jan 27, 2010 at 08:21:55 PM EST
    nice touch on the applause, now he is human

    I'm not watching it, but I'd love a Ron Burgundy (none / 0) (#51)
    by tigercourse on Wed Jan 27, 2010 at 08:24:12 PM EST
    style "Go F yourself America" at the end. That would make the whole last year seem alot better.

    Republicans clap for "new jobs bill" (none / 0) (#52)
    by andgarden on Wed Jan 27, 2010 at 08:24:58 PM EST


    And then (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by Maryb2004 on Wed Jan 27, 2010 at 08:25:32 PM EST
    they'll vote against it.

    Parent
    duh (none / 0) (#55)
    by andgarden on Wed Jan 27, 2010 at 08:25:44 PM EST


    Parent
    is the response tepid or am i just cranky (none / 0) (#53)
    by Jlvngstn on Wed Jan 27, 2010 at 08:25:24 PM EST


    "Talk to the business owner in..." (none / 0) (#56)
    by caseyOR on Wed Jan 27, 2010 at 08:25:55 PM EST
    I've really to come to hate the now mandatory references to "regular" Americans out there who have either benefitted from the President's brilliant work or will benefit of Congress will just go along with the brilliant work.

    Hmm (none / 0) (#57)
    by andgarden on Wed Jan 27, 2010 at 08:26:32 PM EST
    Tomorrow, I'll visit Tampa, Florida, where workers will soon break ground on a new high-speed railroad funded by the Recovery Act.
    Charlie Crist will be there. I expect a party switch pitch.

    I put the full text in a new thread (none / 0) (#58)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Jan 27, 2010 at 08:26:43 PM EST
    Continue to comment here, but if you want the read the whole thing, it's there. It's very, very long.

    Is that capital gains (none / 0) (#59)
    by Maryb2004 on Wed Jan 27, 2010 at 08:27:49 PM EST
    proposal a surprise? I didn't hear it floated.

    Heard it sometime (none / 0) (#87)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Jan 27, 2010 at 08:42:22 PM EST
    this afternoon.

    Parent
    I'm OK with this being long (none / 0) (#60)
    by andgarden on Wed Jan 27, 2010 at 08:28:03 PM EST
    But then, I like Clinton's laundry lists.

    I'm nodding . . . (none / 0) (#61)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jan 27, 2010 at 08:29:05 PM EST
    off.

    me too (none / 0) (#62)
    by Maryb2004 on Wed Jan 27, 2010 at 08:29:33 PM EST


    Parent
    {hands BTD some caffeine} (none / 0) (#64)
    by nycstray on Wed Jan 27, 2010 at 08:31:08 PM EST
    wanna walk the Dot for me? {grin}

    Parent
    Haven't turned it on yet...you guys have me (none / 0) (#63)
    by ruffian on Wed Jan 27, 2010 at 08:30:22 PM EST
    interested though, so here goes.

    Me too now (none / 0) (#65)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jan 27, 2010 at 08:31:33 PM EST


    Parent
    Problem for me is that reading along means (none / 0) (#67)
    by andgarden on Wed Jan 27, 2010 at 08:32:18 PM EST
    reading ahead.

    I liked that part (none / 0) (#68)
    by Maryb2004 on Wed Jan 27, 2010 at 08:32:30 PM EST
    about foreign countries and not accepting second place.

    Nice piece of rhetoric.  Effective.

    Nice words, but (5.00 / 2) (#75)
    by caseyOR on Wed Jan 27, 2010 at 08:35:30 PM EST
    unless we are willing to invest in education and infrastructure and R&D and science and all the rest. And unless we get over this obsession with little to no taxes and this hatred of government, we aren't going to anywhere near the top.

    Parent
    Reminiscent of Otter (none / 0) (#73)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jan 27, 2010 at 08:35:17 PM EST
    I'll be making fun of that line later tonight.

    Parent
    Well, yeah (none / 0) (#83)
    by Maryb2004 on Wed Jan 27, 2010 at 08:40:04 PM EST
    now that you mention it ...

    But I still think it was effective for how he he began to turn the speech towards a competition between the USA and the rest of the world.  

    We've always passed better legislation when we thought we were in competition with the world.  Because football loving yahoos love to win.  

    Parent

    Is it "effective"? (none / 0) (#91)
    by Upstart Crow on Wed Jan 27, 2010 at 08:44:29 PM EST
    There's been all sorts of stuff about the "post-Imperial president" and the "post-American president," etc. -- even on the cover of Time.

    Now he's coming out and saying the opposite? We've gotta be No. #1 again?  

    Parent

    He doesn't want second place (none / 0) (#70)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jan 27, 2010 at 08:33:21 PM EST
    for the United States of America?  I thought we were 20 something in healthcare and nothing he has done has made that one bit better.

    Talking up Specter's NIH funding (none / 0) (#72)
    by andgarden on Wed Jan 27, 2010 at 08:34:40 PM EST


    clean energy (none / 0) (#78)
    by Jlvngstn on Wed Jan 27, 2010 at 08:37:39 PM EST
    right sitting down again, maybe we should get rid of the emission testing for cars and let americans decide how much pollution we want to add to the environment and stop letting the gov't make that decision for us.

    Nice shot at the science deniers (none / 0) (#79)
    by caseyOR on Wed Jan 27, 2010 at 08:37:44 PM EST
    on climate change.

    Hardly serious enough though IMO (none / 0) (#80)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jan 27, 2010 at 08:39:12 PM EST
    There is another very real crisis but you would never know that listening to him.  It's just a difference of opinion.

    Parent
    just because ex is in exports (none / 0) (#81)
    by Jlvngstn on Wed Jan 27, 2010 at 08:39:38 PM EST
    doesn't make it sexy.  Hell even Joe doesn't know when to stand up and clap.

    End of free trade?  (playing by rules) making it fair trade?  boy i would love that

    Seems to me POTUS is doing pretty well.... (none / 0) (#85)
    by DFLer on Wed Jan 27, 2010 at 08:41:25 PM EST
    then again I'm not sure what he is saying.

    Pono (none / 0) (#136)
    by DFLer on Wed Jan 27, 2010 at 10:59:30 PM EST


    Parent
    world class education (none / 0) (#86)
    by Jlvngstn on Wed Jan 27, 2010 at 08:41:57 PM EST
    does that include third world countries because they really drag down the average.  

    Juco gives us world class education?

    I heard: "clean coal energy, off-shore (none / 0) (#93)
    by DFLer on Wed Jan 27, 2010 at 08:46:44 PM EST
    drilling and new nuke plants." Cool!

    Where's the SOS? Doing off-site survivor duty?

    London for Yemen mtg (none / 0) (#96)
    by nycstray on Wed Jan 27, 2010 at 08:49:02 PM EST
    and Thursday she dealing with Afghanistan

    Parent
    I left for a while (none / 0) (#95)
    by Maryb2004 on Wed Jan 27, 2010 at 08:48:54 PM EST
    figuring I could read the list of legislative wishes later.

    I left for awhile too in my mind as I was watching (none / 0) (#101)
    by DFLer on Wed Jan 27, 2010 at 08:51:51 PM EST
    but I still like the style.

    The tanning booth row looks pretty snarky and I don't think viewers would approve of their manners (or lack of them)

    Parent

    what did mccain just say (none / 0) (#99)
    by Jlvngstn on Wed Jan 27, 2010 at 08:50:55 PM EST


    I'm done (none / 0) (#100)
    by Maryb2004 on Wed Jan 27, 2010 at 08:51:09 PM EST
    I lasted longer than expected.

    Now he's starting to lose me with the style. (none / 0) (#104)
    by DFLer on Wed Jan 27, 2010 at 08:56:55 PM EST
    did the comments about the freeze in a year meet with laughter? from which side?
    OK, I've reached my limit (none / 0) (#107)
    by ruffian on Wed Jan 27, 2010 at 09:05:20 PM EST
    carry on

    Elkhart to me is a name and logo etched (none / 0) (#111)
    by DFLer on Wed Jan 27, 2010 at 09:11:25 PM EST
    on the bell of a horn of gold! Glorious!

    wow (none / 0) (#114)
    by Jlvngstn on Wed Jan 27, 2010 at 09:14:03 PM EST
    look at those generals!

    sweet pay increases for women, finally! (none / 0) (#115)
    by Jlvngstn on Wed Jan 27, 2010 at 09:14:26 PM EST


    nice segue to ideals and values (none / 0) (#117)
    by Jlvngstn on Wed Jan 27, 2010 at 09:16:31 PM EST
    too long though, i bet he lost half the audience when he spoke of banks about 20 minutes ago....

    i really like this close.  preachy a bit but i really like it.

    just how it is (none / 0) (#121)
    by Jlvngstn on Wed Jan 27, 2010 at 09:17:54 PM EST
    nicely done.  

    maybe he should just said the close without the rest of the speech.  this is poetic

    Chuck Grassley has a split lip (none / 0) (#123)
    by andgarden on Wed Jan 27, 2010 at 09:20:26 PM EST
    The darker side of HDTV. . .

    wow really (none / 0) (#125)
    by Jlvngstn on Wed Jan 27, 2010 at 09:21:04 PM EST
    glad i hung in there.  great close.

    This windup is in the style of what we like to (none / 0) (#126)
    by DFLer on Wed Jan 27, 2010 at 09:22:08 PM EST
    call around here: "and when I looked into their eyes ...." again like a stump speech.

    I think folks would like this, if they were able to stick with it.

    Am I alone? (none / 0) (#130)
    by lilburro on Wed Jan 27, 2010 at 09:43:43 PM EST
    He doesn't do enough number talk for me.  30 billion in small business loan money from TARP.  That's the only number that sticks in my mind.  That and 7 million lost jobs...

    Charts and graphs please.  I agree with andgarden, I was somehow never bored by BC's SOTU.

    YOU LIE!!!!!!!!!!! -J Wilson (none / 0) (#137)
    by DFLer on Wed Jan 27, 2010 at 11:00:58 PM EST


    State Of The Union Live Blog | 173 comments (173 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment