With Obama, he just stands out so much more because of the contrast with Bush jr.

Just look at day #1, and the two Executive Orders and three Presidential Memoranda!

I’d love to hear Harper share his thought about transparency in gov’t!
Talk about the polar opposite!

Think Bill C-61, and how open they were with the public about what they were scheming to do….

Sometimes people just need good managers (now — with all the financial upheaval might be such a time). High principles and good judgment are as important as charisma. Other times — e.g. times of War, they may need figures who are more inspiring, but sometimes it is the times themselves that make leaders seem inspiring. (I don’t think Churchill was all that well liked before the War.)

Just emailed you and a gentleman who kindly wrote to me this morning. Looks like I’m fine as long as I use a pseudonym, but “J@ck M!tchell” is being filtered as spam — the phrase itself and not my IP. Story of my life! : ) Thanks for your concern!

“this we can”

“this we will”

chant ad infinitum..

One posted that she “thinks that this inauguration feels like the first date with a really great guy after an eight year dysfunctional relationship with a loser who spent all my money.”

Other posts were very emotional, and all I could think of was good for them…

Myself – When noon hit, and the Bush jr. era came to an end, all I could think of was the Munchkins…

“”Ding Dong, The Witch is dead. Which old Witch? The Wicked Witch! Ding Dong! The Wicked Witch is dead!”

Canadian politics must find its own Obama – we need to restore confidence amongst the populace, and make government work for the people. We need new ideas, and new approaches to resolving our problems. But who can perform such a feat?

Maybe Justin Trudeau?

-What groups was the politician trying to pander to? Will the pandering succeed? How does this fit in with their overall strategy?

-Given that speech itself is meaningless, because politicians seldom mean what they say, how can we get into the politician’s pyche to determine his “true” intentions? How should these presumed intentions be criticized?

-Given that politicians are assumed to be hypocrites, what contradictions (real or symbolic) can be exposed? Did he say something different six years ago?

-How will it play in Quebec?

So true and so sad. Other than a rare gem like Mr. Wells, Canadian political “journalism” has been mostly pathetic (even if I am of the same slant as the writer) for the reason you have so cleverly outlined.

Speaking of right wing critics, I note Mark Steyn has heralded the day in a column in which he places much of the blame for American racial strife on black politicians. Oh, please please please return this ‘responsible journalist’ to your pages, post-haste!

(Actually, given how much I groused on the day of the verdict, I should take this opportunity to thank you for exercising your discretion to NOT publish Mr. Steyn. Better part of valour, and all).

Way to lead the charge Mr. McClelland.

I think you just broke my irony detector. And it was one week past the end of its warranty, too.

Do you guys take lessons in exquisite irony or what?

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/01/20/aretha-warren-and-no-greek-columns/

Content wise though it was wonderful. “Lets grow up” seemed to be the theme, and that was a subtle knock on Bush and the gang of Neo-Con fratboys that have led the free world into financial ruin and war after war.

Also, what other president has ever worried about reaching out to the Muslim world in their inaugaration speech. I even hear B.O. has even lined up a major speech in Morocco to outine foreign policy.

That said, there have been so many speeches in the past couple of days I’m glad its all over. B.O. was becoming a parody of himself.

(Slightly OT: wouldn’t it be a real torch passing moment if both Kennedy and Byrd stiff it from over-emotion?)

i do wonder, however, about Obama’s decision not to use Yes We Can in some context. And i’m curious as hell to why there wasn’t really anything close to a signature, defining line in the address. Weird.

Cute.

I think the real naivete is the belief that prosperity is somehow a deliverable of the wealthy when it really has to do with the distribution of opportunity in the form of equitable infrastructure and services like education and healthcare and housing.

The proof is in the pudding, of course. I am very interested to see what his first executive orders are.

North of the border, many political commentators are too cynical and jaded to analyze a politician’s speech based on what was actually said. Instead, their role is to provide a kind of meta-analysis of the speech, by asking the following questions:

-How does the speech affect the politician’s standings in the eternal political horse race?

-What groups was the politician trying to pander to? Will the pandering succeed? How does this fit in with their overall strategy?

-Given that speech itself is meaningless, because politicians seldom mean what they say, how can we get into the politician’s pyche to determine his “true” intentions? How should these presumed intentions be criticized?

-Given that politicians are assumed to be hypocrites, what contradictions (real or symbolic) can be exposed? Did he say something different six years ago?

-How will it play in Quebec?