History News Network puts current events into historical perspective. Subscribe to our newsletter for new perspectives on the ways history continues to resonate in the present. Explore our archive of thousands of original op-eds and curated stories from around the web. Join us to learn more about the past, now.
You do not have to register to participate in this poll for the first two weeks; after that, registration is required. We do ask all readers to abide by our civility guidelines whether they register or not.
To participate in our poll simply drop down to the bottom of this page and click on the word"Comments."
Professor of history and public affairs at Princeton University, Julian Zelizer, said voters would appreciate the President being frank about his political setbacks.
"I do think people like that aspect of him. He's very direct, he's honest about the problems he faces and about what he wants to do and his aspirations," he said.
Professor Zelizer said Mr Obama's speech was"solid" but not remarkable.
"It wasn't a stunning speech," he said.
"It went on too long and there were so many things in it. I think people will pick and choose one or two items but I don't think it'll have a long-term effect.
And Professor Zelizer does not believe the speech will allow the President to take back control of the political agenda.
"One of the remarkable things historically is these [State of the Union speeches] have very little effect - at most a few days," he said.
"There are very few speeches that have really been"game changers" as they say, most are unremarkable and most don't have a big effect.
"So, my guess is this will not change the dynamics in Washington. I suspect a week from now we'll be where we were yesterday and two days ago."...
As I wrote at the time, I thought the condemnations of Rep. Joe Wilson's heckling of Barack Obama during his September health care speech were histrionic and excessive. Wilson and Obama are both political actors, it occurred in the middle of a political speech about a highly political dispute, and while the outburst was indecorous and impolite, Obama is not entitled to be treated as royalty. That was all much ado about nothing. By contrast, the behavior of Justice Alito at last night's State of the Union address -- visibly shaking his head and mouthing the words"not true" when Obama warned of the dangers of the Court's Citizens United ruling -- was a serious and substantive breach of protocol that reflects very poorly on Alito and only further undermines the credibility of the Court. It has nothing to do with etiquette and everything to do with the Court's ability to adhere to its intended function....
President Obama says he is"not interested in re-litigating the past." Well, I am -- at least to this extent: Would it have been too much for the president of the United States to have acknowledged and paid tribute to a truly remarkable recent American achievement -- turning around the war in Iraq and putting that war on course to a successful outcome?...
Yet Obama can't bring himself to say that we prevailed in Iraq. He did say that"tonight, all of our men and women in uniform -- in Iraq, Afghanistan, and around the world must know that they have our respect, our gratitude, and our full support." But he won't say that we are grateful for their victory in a war where defeat would have been disastrous.
Many patriotic Americans believe the Iraq war was a very costly mistake, that Pres. Obama correctly voted against. There has been nothing won in Iraq. There has been great loss to our men & women in uniform, to their families, to our relationship with our allies, to our economy, and to the self respect of all introspective and caring individuals.
The outcome of this war has been diastrous, we didn't need defeat to validate this, nor would any self proclaimed victory lessen the losses. Claiming and celebrating victory is absurd, and just another attempt to cover up an egregious mistake that is the fault of the previous administration and their neocon philosophy.
Oh, and, please stop using the "our troops" card to pretend a totally bankrupt moral high ground. You bore me.
Shirley -
2/1/2010
I felt that this was the same old same old. Change that hasn't changed anything. It is the same old you scratch my back you scratch mine. As for openness in the White House and Congress dealings, there is none!
Kevin Eric Kennedy -
1/31/2010
During the Bush years,
the Democrats never exhibited the kind of obstructionism that the Republicans are now practicing toward Obama. Not only did they give Bush all the support he asked for regarding Afghanistan and Iraq (even after learning that he had lied to them and the nation regarding the latter), but Bush's tax breaks also passed Congress without any significant Democratic opposition. The Republicans today, on the other hand, are now even opposing legistlation some of them initiated (budget commission), solely for political purposes.
Out in the working world -
1/31/2010
Bill Kristol's problem is that he doesn't know the outcome in Iraq. He's crying out for a call for success when we've succeeded in establishing a goal that suits U.S. political needs--the need to get our troops out of there. Whether Iraq manages to fulfill the military goal of the surge--finding a way to national reconciliation and ballot box solutions--simply isn't known. Kristol is trying to pretend that it is because he supported the expenditure of so much U.S. treasure and lives in Iraq in the first place. He doesn't strike me as a big enough man to ever be able to say, you know, we were wrong to ask people to sacrifice for that cause because our underlying premise was incorrect. There's no point in listening to Kristol on foreign policy, the poor dude is locked in a box of his own making and can never find a way out.
Out in the working world -
1/31/2010
The problem here as with the Wilson comment is reductionism. These are not matters of fact, they are matters of interpretation. There are people who don’t look at Wilson’s comment as “accurate” nor Obama’s as a “lie,” yet understand why each said what he said and the other looked at it differently. To them, trying to force fit the scenarios into accuracy and inaccuracy doesn’t work. Moreover, it hurts their cause (whether they are arguing for or against Wilson or Obama) because they’re not focusing on how these things work.
The proposed legislation has a lot of moving parts which then still had to be synced. The legislation still was in the process of being worked out and had not yet passed. Proposed legislation did not at that point state “coverage will be extended to illegal immigrants.” But that doesn’t mean there weren’t areas where there were loopholes – unintentional ones -- which might have led to that occurring. That was what Wilson was trying to convey in his perhaps well intended but simplistic and rude way. I took Obama’s comments in his speech to mean that when the work was complete, that is, when scrutiny for loopholes had been completed, components synced and language clarified, it would have that result. He was stating what he believed the final bill--which had NOT yet been written even--would look like. That’s very different than lying.
As to the effectiveness of shouting out, “you lie,” I guess there are people out in the working world who when they sit in a staff meeting and lay out draft proposals, bow their heads in submission and slink away when a colleague shouts out "you lie.” (I’ve never seen that happen in a business meeting but I’m using it as a hypothetical). I'm not one of them. Most of us wouldn’t react that way. We would sit there and think, “you jerk, who’d wanna work with you, work on your people skills, dude.” We’re much more likely to listen to suggestions for change in our work when presented in the spirit of let’s see if we can make revisions that will lead to a better outcome.
James Daniel Beall -
1/31/2010
I agree, Frank. Of course he can, like every American, have his opinion. But to chastise (incorrectly) another branch of the government during the SOTU address is beneath the office he holds.
James Daniel Beall -
1/31/2010
Amen.
James Daniel Beall -
1/31/2010
The Republicans did not bite the President's hand off. The House and Senate shut the Republicans out (and I do not blame this on Obama). Are you going to tell me Democrats wanted Bush to succeed?
Joe -
1/31/2010
The idea that Alito is somehow at fault for silently correcting obama is ridiculous to the extreme. Unlike Wilson's correct vocal outburst, Alito was restrained in the face of either a calculated LIE, or the continuation of a totally unqualified individual in a position of power demonstrating his stupidity to the nation at large. His fawning minions, cannot believe the messiah should be questioned, corrected or otherwise exposed as the unqualified, lying charlatan he is.
frank zaborowski -
1/30/2010
obama was not wrong for having his opinion of the supreme courts decsion. he was wring for voicing it the way he did and disrespecting the
supreme court.he once again has advertised his insecurities to the american public.
frank zaborowski -
1/30/2010
obamas sate of the union was embarassing and condescending to the american. there were a few good comments but I have little faith he was telling the truth and will follow nthrough. He acts as if we are worse than a third world country and he alone has to build a new country in his progressive and radical vision.
James Daniel Beall -
1/30/2010
Mr. Greenwald,
Although I disagree with Mr. Wilson's outburst, it is neither the forum nor the decorum I expect out our Conressmen, the fact is he was RIGHT. The point at which he made his outburst, Obama was saying that he would not sign a bill that allowed illegals to get benefits, or any language allowing for federal dollars to go toward abortions. The Senate version, which Obama has stated he would sign, contains abortion funding. For Wilson to call the President a "liar" was ugly, improper, unseemly, and correct.
Regarding Justice Alito, I disagree that he was "visibly shaking his head," but I do believe he mouthed something close to "that's not true." Here's the problem: what Obama had just uttered was not true. Nor was it proper on his part to scold and intimidate another EQUAL AND SEPARATE branch of the government. Obama said that the recent ruling handed down would open the way for foreign corporations to influence elections. The ruling expressly prohibits that. Alito was right. Obama, once again, was being untruthful.
Danny Beall
Per Fagereng -
1/29/2010
There is one area of bipartisanship in Washington. Almost all agree that the US empire must be maintained. They may disagree on how to do it, and they may plan to use war issues for political gain, but they love the empire.
It's like the Mafia. The families may fight and kill each other, but they all try to preserve the organization.
To Bill Kristol, sure let's look at history. Let's look at how in 1959 the CIA hired a young Saddam Hussein to kill the ruler of Iraq, Abdel Karim Kassem. The US started Saddam on the road to power and supported him for many years of tyranny.
gustav schonfeld -
1/29/2010
I liked the Obama speech. I just hope he follows through on being as determined to carry out his program as his speech implies.
I was offended by ,Crystol's statement that unlike Obama he is interested in "relitigating the past", specifically about Iraq. By saying "well, I am" Crystal seems to imply that his opinion carries the same weight as Obama's. I disagree. His opinion carries near-zero credibility. Another example of his fine judgement is his reported early support of Palin for the Vice-Presidency in 2008.
Dan G Olson -
1/29/2010
The expectations placed upon President Obama were off-the-chart impossible. I give him very high praise for an impassioned and thought provoking address.
Kevin Eric Kennedy -
1/29/2010
He has repeatedly extended his hand to them, only to have it bitten every time. The Republicans don't want to give Obama any input or provide consulatation. They want him to fail. Judging from his disappointing first year in office, however (trying to placate the Republicans and serving the interests of his Wall Street patrons instead of those of ordninary people), he doesn't seem to need any help failing.
Robert Wilensky -
1/29/2010
President seems to believe his message is not getting across, rather than the fact that majority of voters do not seem to like his message. In a very partisan speech, his plea for bi-partisanism from the Republicans while ignoring the fact that the Democrats in the House govern with absolutely no input or consultation with the Repulicans is rather cynical.
R.G. McFadden -
1/29/2010
It's going to be very interesting to see if POTUS' assertions regarding the the Supreme Court ruling are in fact true, as the President asserted, or not, as the Chief Justice apparently taken by surprise indicated.
Kevin Eric Kennedy -
1/29/2010
A spending freeze in the midst of so much unemployment, homelessness, and despair? How many more times are the Obama administration and the Blue Dog Democrats going to capitulate to the conservatives? Why don't we just render the last elections invalid and hand the White House and both houses of Congress back to the Republicans, so they can finish the Reagan Revolution and destroy the American republic once and for all? But why should we be surprised? Long before Obama was elected, Rolling Stone journalist Matt Taibbi exposed him for what he is: an ambitious pragmatist beholden to Wall Street. At least we have something to laugh about when conservatives denounce this Republican-light president as a dangerous left-wing radical.
Anthony Gronowicz -
1/29/2010
Obama, as has his predecessor, has inadvertently ensured that the US join the doomed pack:
Of the twenty or so civilizations known to modern Western historians, all except our own appear to be dead or moribund, and, when we diagnose each case, in extremis or post mortem, we invariably find that the cause of death has been either War or Class or some combination of the two.
Arnold Toynbee, Civilization on Trial (1948)
