As a Democrat, I’ve often been frustrated by Barack Obama’s failure to sell or defend his programs, but last night he nailed it. He laid out his accomplishments, defended his legacy, and described the challenges facing the country over the next decade. Even my uncle, who has rarely said a good thing about the president, called it a hell of a speech.
Obama articulated what is wrong with the rhetoric of the GOP presidential candidates. He slammed the country-in-decline hyperbole and contrasted it with vision of hope. He pointed out that we are more popular with our allies than when he took office, that we have the most powerful and effective military in the world, and our economy is second to none.
He noted that we are now in the longest period of private sector job growth in history but also recognized that most of the wealth created has gone to the wealthiest Americans. He said “anyone claiming that America’s economy is in decline is peddling fiction,” a direct slap at the GOP field. He asked for patience on the world stage and said that we are not under threat of attack from any country but from terrorists from failed states. They may sow fear and anxiety, but they don’t threaten to destroy our country. He also called on people to reject tribalism and to come together to accept differences and diversity.
He admitted failure in his quest to unify the country and bemoaned the fact that we are more divided today than before he took office. He called on lawmakers to fix our political system by ending gerrymandering and finding a way to reduce the influence of big money in campaigns.
In the end, he articulated a Democratic vision for the country without pointing fingers at Republicans for our current problems. He asked the country to step up and take on the hard task of being more involved and accepting our differences as our strengths. He returned to his campaign slogan of “Hope and Change” by explaining the change and asking Americans to embrace hope over despair.
Thomas Mills is the founder and publisher of PoliticsNC.com. Before beginning PoliticsNC, Thomas spent twenty years as a political and public affairs consultant. Learn more >
I’m with you, Thomas…I’ve even used the South in metaphor/example for how to frame our 21st century challenges…but, like you, I thought this speech was magnificent…and I especially liked his direct refutation of the notion that defeating ISIS is the equivalent of WWIII….but best of all was the rousing crescendo of an end to the speech…well worth watching, referencing and remembering!
Too bad Mills started his comments on a negative note, but I agree the president articulated his hopes and concerns for our country, shared by many, quite eloquently. It was a beautiful speech and I can’t believe even republicans couldn’t admire those humanitarian and common sense values. The only area with which I disagree is TTP. Still, I am proud of President Obama.
I like Obama, and his speech last night was outstanding. However, we Democrats must admit that his accomplishments as President do not match his speaking ability. It is true that our economy has recovered under his leadership, that our auto industry is back on track, that Osama bin Laden is dead, and that other significant achievements have occurred. The ACA has helped a number of people, but it was written by health insurance lobbyists and is not what was promised nor what is needed for out-of-control healthcare costs. The Mid-East conflicts continue, and it is clear that our promised exit from the area was not achieved nor will our supposed allies prevail if we depart the area. Our infrastructure is still crumbling, none of the gamblers who caused the economy to crash in 2008 have gone to jail, and corporations are still not paying their taxes. The distribution of wealth in our country remains a joke, and military spending drives the budget deficit. Obama can blame the Republican-controlled Congress for some of the failures, but he is solely responsible for setting foreign policy and all executive actions. In sum, Obama must bear responsibility for his own failed actions and inability to lead the Congress as FDR and LBJ did. Congressional opposition to programs passed by these two Democratic Presidents was at least as great as that which Obama has faced.
Tom Hill:
Neither FDR nor LBJ faced a Congressional opposition that made a solemn pledge, on the night of his inauguration, to oppose each and every policy proposal that the new president might make, no matter what it was, even if it was originated by members of their own party. In fact, the opposition to LBJ’s Civil Rights and Voting Rights act came almost entirely from members of his own party, while opposition to Medicare was generated by the medical profession, insurance companies (before “Big PharmA” was a lobbying player), and Republicans calling it Socialism. Yet those opponents were in a minority both times, and no leaders of those Congresses instituted hundreds of filibusters over not just questions of policy enactment, but even over bringing legislation to the floor. Neither FDR nor LBJ faced Congresses that would not even allow, sometimes for the full two-year session, legislation to be discussed in committees. And neither LBJ nor FDR faced the daily, constant, unbridled and barely disguised racism of the opposition to Mr. Obama.
Presenting BHO as a “weak” president with no real accomplishments is not only false, it’s fatuous. There would be no General Motors if not for him; there would be no Lily Ledbetter act; no ACA (as flawed as it is); no new relationship with Iran and Cuba; no Elizabeth Warren in the Senate, for that matter.
The fact that America’s first black president was unable to overcome the entrenched racism of the opposition, or the entrenched power of corporate America to eviscerate the middle class, or the refusal of Reaganite budget-slashers to invest in American infrastructure in the midst of the Great Recession that they had caused, does not indicate a “weak” president but a dysfunctional politics, a corrupt right-wing Supreme Court, and a financial balance of power that creates an overwhelming obstacle for progressives to overcome.
And it makes me wonder: what exactly have YOU been doing the past seven years to pull the country together and institute the policies that progressive and liberal Democrats support? Other than bad-mouthing a successful, moderate, middle-of-the-road and trail-blazing president?
Preach it, A.D.!
AMEN! Mr. Reed!
The policies that have have contributed and exacerbated wealth and income inequality are not only domestic issues in America, but also a real public policy issue for most to all countries on the planet.
The First Great Depression was ultimately caused by the fact that mechanization on the farm led to mass unemployment, and thus the economy could no longer provide for a significant percentage of the population. Capitalism failed as the dislocations in the economy were first papered over in the market, and the players used leverage to an ever-increasing extent to get the gains they were used to. The problem wasn’t actually solved until all of those unemployed farm workers started working in the factories of the “Arsenal of Democracy” making weapons for WWII, and profits started flowing again. Only war profiteering made capitalism “work” again.
The Second Great Depression is ultimately about the fact that computerization in the office has led to mass unemployment, and thus the economy can no longer provide for a significant percentage of the population. This problem is not even being acknowledged, let alone being dealt with by specific policy proposals. If we use the statistical methodology of the 1970’s, our unemployment rate is currently over 20%.
It is unclear what the future holds, but it is of significant note that no alternative has yet been found to restart a moribund capitalist economic system other than large-scale war. Equally significant is the fact that the American political/media system puts Socialism in the same boat with Satanism, pedophilia, and ringworm – thus leaving Capitalism unchallenged, and therefore the only system under which we can implement reform.
A real public policy issue for most to all countries on the planet, indeed.
Thanks for the reminder. We too often see only that which is in our face and forget the context, which means our solutions may not work or be as good as they might be.
Amen.
Regardless of what the Grand Opposition Party says, Obama will be seen as a transformational President. Just think what he could have accomplished if he had had some cooperation.
Amen David.
Really?
Obama’s only tangible policy accomplishment was the Affordable Care Act. That was passed utilizing traditional transactional politics to protect the economic interests of the already dominant market players (the insurance companies) – he did not redefine the debate. In fact, he ran blocker against all pressure to install a single-payer system, like they have in civilized countries, referring to those who advocated a transformational approach as “retards” (OK, his Chief of Staff said that, not him).
Now I certainly understand that politics is the Art of the Possible, but referring to someone as “transformational” means they did something to transform the existing structure.
Obama has been a care-taker President, and willfully opposed the one possibility he had to transform the heath care system, instead choosing to tinker around the edges and preserve Wall Street’s profiteering in the health care sector (albeit at reduced rates).
I realize that he did what he could, considering what he had to work with – but he was not transformational by any stretch of the imagination.
If not “transformational,” I believe Obama’s run will likely be viewed as a highly effective, “Big F(reak)in’ Deal” of a presidency (as the following piece points out):
“…….this has been a BFD of a presidency, a profound course correction engineered by relentless government activism. As a candidate, Obama was often dismissed as a talker, a silver-tongued political savant with no real record of achievement. But ever since he took office during a raging economic crisis, he’s turned out to be much more of a doer, an action-oriented policy grind who has often failed to communicate what he’s done.
What he’s done is changing the way we produce and consume energy, the way doctors and hospitals treat us, the academic standards in our schools and the long-term fiscal trajectory of the nation. Gays can now serve openly in the military, insurers can no longer deny coverage because of pre-existing conditions, credit card companies can no longer impose hidden fees and markets no longer believe the biggest banks are too big to fail. Solar energy installations are up nearly 2,000 percent, and carbon emissions have dropped even though the economy is growing. Even Republicans like Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio, who hope to succeed Obama and undo his achievements, have been complaining on the campaign trail that he’s accomplished most of his agenda.”
Source: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/01/obama-biggest-achievements-213487
Many people above have points I can agree with, and I dislike the TPP.twas interesting to hear his points in supporting it, but I wish he had addressed people’s objections to it. I disagree with his stance on Snowden. And I totally agree that he never supported his progress all along as well as he did last night. Nonetheless, he did last night, very well, and his speech plus the graphs and charts and the 4 questions were excellent. I love Obama. I do not think any president in a Long time has faced the planned opposition he has. I likeObama very much, In fact, I love his. He is a class act and a very cool president. I will sorely miss him even if the Dems win, which they must. Even if Bernis won, whoI am for and whose opinions and intentions most closely parallel mine, I think may have real trouble with his ideas and intentions unless we have a new congress. Probably Hillary too,