I quite enjoyed the “Cover It Live” live-blogging tool. If you’re curious as to how it went, I’ve moved the window to the bottom of the page — you can replay the live-blog there.
What did you think of the speech? The live-blog? What you had for dinner?
Oh, by the way: if you are a true masochist, here is the Governor’s transportation bill. Read it and sleep.
Please share widely!
the first 5-10 minutes, but was already fuming from hearing this story prior. Seems a no-brainer that when the subject is the economy and jobs, protecting ALL workers from losing their jobs to bigotry should be among the items on the docket. Repeal of DADT and ENDA are very topical pieces of legislation. But since they “only” improve the lives of LGBT people or those mistaken for LGBT people, we get crickets. Obama should be ashamed for asking Americans to sacrifice when those willing to make the ultimate sacrifice face discharge if they are honest.
I refer you to the words of Rep. Ellen Tauscher (D-CA), a “staunch supporter” in the article you linked. Not everyone lives and breathes these issues every waking moment, but get these through Congress and he’ll sign them. So yes, using the greatest-good-for-the-greatest-number model, I’m certainly glad the POTUS is prioritizing the financial crisis, though I take your point about these also being jobs issues and would not have complained if he had mentioned them.
was a press report right before the big speech basically saying “remember that big promise we made to you? well, we may not get around to that.” I didn’t ask for the timing of the negative news. Hearing it when I did, I couldn’t help but be upset.
<
p>As for everyone not living and breathing these issues daily, well did you think I hadn’t noticed? The hetero majority is fat and privileged in a way most are unaware of or too lazy to do anything about. So sue me for being annoyed at being forever kicked to the side and having the audacity to speak up. I’ll just go back to being a good, silent hose gay now. Let me know when I’m allowed to speak, mkay?
…I’ll learn to let you vent without response:)
I got an embargoed copy of the speech an hour or so before it aired.
<
p>They’re not very careful with those things! LOL.
<
p>I went out with the North Shore Young Dems to watch it in Lynn, so I didn’t see the email until after. It’s so much better to watch these things live, with others – and even better with a few drinks.
posted at the end of the Health Reform Diary below
(Until one of our editors wakes up and moves it here.)
Good Morning Gentlemen!
After last night, all I want to do is go out and be productive and earn money and spend it or invest it and start a small business and hire people and lend money and buy a new car and maybe a new house and install PV on that house and then go down to SC and help rebuild Ty’Sheoma Bethea’s school.
<
p>In all seriousness, I thought it was vintage Obama. Not his best speech, but that’s a high bar to clear. I think George Lakoff’s description of Obama’s approach is worth a read. The guy is a really, really, really good communicator. I remember thinking mid-way through the speech “I am sooo glad I’m not Bobby Jindal right now”. And then Jindal gets his Mr. Rogers on.
He had a lot of nerve to use FEMA’s response to Katrina under the leadership of Michael “heckuva job Brownie” as evidence the government can’t work. Did anyone else notice he didn’t criticise Obama directly, but rather Democratic Congressional leadership? Guess he can read polls too!
The more cynical commentators predicted some Republican would say this eventually.
Had a funny line about how Republicans always campiagn on the theory that the government doesn’t work, and then get elected and prove it.
That’s the reason there’s no meaningful Libertarian party representation in Government. Libertarians want no part of it.
The consensus is that he was channeling Kenneth the page
My wife and I couldn’t believe it! We thought we were watching an SNL spoof.
… I remarked that he sounded like a Gettysburg Tour Guide.
Chuck Collins’s article in the CSM articulates it better than I ever could.Check it out.
His making a comment about coming to consensus, immediately followed by a comment about the deficit WE INHERITED!
and the speech was good. Here’s hoping Obama can really turn things around and create an atmosphere of striving to
uphold the common good for all of us. It’s time to kiss greed good-bye. I’m all for personal financial growth and
success, but the last 8 years has been ridiculously supportive of just a very small percentage of our country.
Proof positive that “trickle down economics” does not work because greed always wins. It’s time for the rest of us now to have a chance to get ahead.
They are talking about Michelle Obama’s sleeveless dress on
MSNBC right now. Geez, what’s up with that.
sleeveless in February was an odd choice…
but it is just weird to me that people notice and comment on such a thing. When I saw her walk into the chamber it didn’t even occur to me that she was wearing a sleeveless dress, I noticed her smile, and her overall “aura”. I always wonder why I never notice such minute details. I did notice Arlen Specter’s wardrobe. That was a shocking blast of color.
Only Gunther Schuller dresses more brightly than Senator Specter.
my mom-in-law just had hers removed, and remarked on the explosion of garish colors she now saw. apparently cataracts slowly mute color perception over time. so either specter has cataracts and doesn’t realize how brightly lit his clothing is, or he just had them removed and is glorying in an orgy of new-found color. 😀
Come on, KBusch, you’re not even trying. 😀
She’s reaching across the aisle by supporting the right to bare arms.
<
p>But seriously, she’s got some sweet guns/pipes/biceps; why not show ’em off? Nobody messes with Joe? How about no one messes with Michelle!
I read somewhere (don’t remember where) that it was an inaugural gown that she was re-wearing. If that’s the case, bravo to her for her recession mentality.
The response to Jindal has been pretty negative with David Brooks on PBS making an extremely sharp response.
It’s tough to manage to do a good response, much less against somebody with few knocks against him, riding high in popularity, in front of a friendly audience. There’s no way to compete with the theatre of the occasion, and Jindal’s quasi-Rose Garden entrance didn’t help. The gold standard remain James Webb…frank, relaxed, personal.
<
p>It did crack me up that they sent out some new guy to apologize for mistakes that he wasn’t even party to. When Gramm, McConnell, and company say they’re sorry, then I’ll believe it.
Well, he was in Congress for a couple of years. But he probably wasn’t much of a player.
Since those making less than $250K will not pay a dime more in tax, it means that these zipcodes will pay for all the rest*
<
p>This is IRS data of the average taxable income by zipcode in Massachusetts of those zips with average earnings in excess of $250K. FYI.
<
p>Weston, MA 02493 $604,240
Prides Crossing, MA 01965 $517,610
Boston, MA 02108 $483,140
Boston, MA 02110 $424,640
Dover, MA 02030 $401,470
Wellesley Hills, MA 02481 $376,550
Boston, MA 02199 $344,930
Boston, MA 02196 $317,470
Lincoln, MA 01773 $313,600
Boston, MA 02109 $309,030
Boston, MA 02116 $291,840
Weston, MA 02193 $281,660
Waban, MA 02468 $271,790
Wellesley, MA 02181 $263,940
<
p>*Statistic mavens save your breath; I recognize the literal error of the statement, but you go to post with the data you got, not with the data you wish you had.
What is the point of this? What conclusions should we draw? Is this data meaningful?
<
p>If I already know that neither me nor my friends will pay more because none of us make more than $250K, in what way is this data supposed to make me better understand that?
I just thought it was interesting to note the zips that had average income over $250K
… very interesting because of how meaningless the ‘average’ can be depending on distribution within the population. Krugman makes a joke about the average income of everyone in a pub changing by orders of magnitude as soon as one Bill Gates comes in for a drink.
It might be above average, though.
Note “Democrat leaders”
it went something like this:
“…as long as we get to un-write all the rules, make all the decisions and assign all the no-bid contracts.”
I’d not expect him to talk grammatical-like.
I cannot understand why encouraging individuals to become more leveraged through consumer debt is smart policy in the long run. Obama wants to free up credit so we can buy houses, cars, and take on more student loans. Why can’t we focus on increasing wages instead of buying overpriced things that we don’t have the income to pay for?
<
p>Housing prices are still inflated when compared with inflation and construction costs over the past 20 years, public transportation should be favored over car loans, and tuition needs to come down so that student loans are not the only way to pay for college.
<
p>I know that we need to spend our way out of the recession, but I think the way to do this is through better jobs and increased wages as opposed to taking on more debt. I would really like to see Obama focus on this.
<
p>I was also disappointed that he didn’t make a clear call for universal, single payer health care like every other industrialized nation has.
<
p>The rest of his speech was mostly impressive and I like that he is taking a stronger stance on some of the issues discussed.