Obama Seizes The Moment?

[ Posted Tuesday, June 15th, 2010 – 21:38 UTC ]

President Obama, in his first-ever primetime address from the Oval Office, did not mince words. He didn't have time to -- the speech was one of the shortest I think I've ever seen from Barack Obama, clocking in at 17 or 18 minutes. But although he didn't take a lot of time, he covered a lot. Of particular note was the directness of his language, which at times could even be described as "forceful."

Since I'm writing this almost immediately after Obama's speech, I am not going to address much in the way of substance in what Obama said. I personally think that today is merely the first part of this substance, which will be bookended tomorrow by filling in some details after the president meets with BP executives. I think the president specifically left those details to be addressed tomorrow on purpose, so I'm going to wait until then to address the White House's plan for the cleanup and beyond after the results of the meeting are announced tomorrow.

Because today's speech was more thematic in nature, I'm going to limit myself tonight to mostly addressing the style of Obama's speech tonight. These comments are rather disconnected and disjointed, due to their immediate nature, so I ask you to bear with me if this reads a little choppy today. Quotes are from PBS' transcript, which was "remarks as prepared" from the White House (Obama's actual speech may have slight differences when it is accurately transcribed, in other words).

My first impression from Obama's opening remarks was he should have shown a little more compassion in his remarks about the dead and wounded from the accident itself. He did later return to this further on in the speech, but a simple "our hearts go out to their families" would have been nice up front.

While one of the most specific things Obama said tonight was: "In the coming days and weeks, these efforts should capture up to 90% of the oil leaking out of the well," when you actually parse the sentence, it leaves a lot of wiggle room. This isn't really Obama's fault, as (1) he certainly doesn't want to over-promise at this point, and (2) because this is largely dependent upon BP, and upon their measures to collect the oil which can only be described as "ad hoc" at this point. Again, I expect to hear more in the way of detailed information about this tomorrow.

You know, normally while acting in a journalistic fashion, I like to keep my ego locked in a small cage deep within the recesses of my mind, to strive for objectivity. However, at times it rattles the bars of this cage and screams: "someone in the White House is reading your stuff!" This is rather farfetched, my superego admits, but in re-reading my Friday and Monday columns, and watching the White House's actions in the past few days, it does give one pause, as it were. Yesterday, I wrote: "But the biggest factor in this disaster, and in the response, is that it is happening very slowly. It's not like a tornado or earthquake or flash flood, in other words." Tonight, Obama said: "And unlike an earthquake or a hurricane, it is not a single event that does its damage in a matter of minutes or days. The millions of gallons of oil that have spilled into the Gulf of Mexico are more like an epidemic, one that we will be fighting for months and even years." Now, it's a pretty easy metaphor to jump to, so I will now lock my ego back up and get on with further speech impressions.

The most noticeable thing about the speech, especially in contrast to other speeches the president has given, is what grammar mavens call "the active voice." The difference between the active voice and its counterpart "the passive voice" is the stark difference between "I blew it" and "mistakes were made." From early in the speech, here is the first of many examples of how Obama stayed within this very pointed active voice for almost the entire speech:

But make no mistake: we will fight this spill with everything we've got for as long it takes. We will make BP pay for the damage their company has caused. And we will do whatever's necessary to help the Gulf Coast and its people recover from this tragedy.

His next paragraph even slipped into war imagery:

Tonight I'd like to lay out for you what our battle plan is going forward: what we're doing to clean up the oil, what we're doing to help our neighbors in the Gulf, and what we're doing to make sure that a catastrophe like this never happens again.

Obama then started his bullet-point list of what he's going to do to fix the mess. This started with a reminder (one that simply has not been pointed out enough for the media to pick up on) of how many personnel and ships and equipment is already out there fighting the oil. Obama's not real big on photo ops, and he has yet to (when traveling to the Gulf region) stand next to a bunch of guys who wouldn't be there except for the federal government. Some Coast Guard sailors (off duty, so he isn't accused of impeding the cleanup), some National Guardsmen, even some non-governmental boat crews who have been out there fighting the spill. About the closest he's come (that I've seen, at any rate) was the photo op he did yesterday with some folks cleaning and repairing floating booms.

In any case, this section of the speech was a good reminder that both the government and BP haven't just been sitting around doing nothing. And it ended on a humble note: "If there are problems in the operation, we will fix them." Once again, Obama is being careful not to over-promise, while at the same time appearing responsive to whatever problems happen along the way.

Obama spent a paragraph empathizing with the people affected in the region, and then returned to his active voice: "I will meet with the chairman of BP and inform him that he is to set aside whatever resources are required to compensate the workers and business owners who have been harmed as a result of his company’s recklessness." That "I will... inform him," in particular, shows Obama has realized that the American people do not trust BP at this point to do the right thing, and that the company needs a little (as Obama put it earlier) ass-kicking.

All the talk of a third party to administer the escrow account Obama has proposed leaves me wondering something that I haven't even heard mentioned yet: why isn't there already a third party involved? Is BP self-insured? Or do they buy liability insurance from an insurance company? I ask this because from every first-person account of making claims against BP, I've always heard the people making claims talking about dealing with BP, and not some insurance company or another. Which, like I say, leaves me wondering whether BP is self-insured or not. But then, I fully admit, I do not understand liability law nuances, especially in such overwhelming disasters such as this.

The real news of the speech, as far as I'm concerned, is what Obama said next, about coming up with a long-term Gulf Coast Restoration Plan. This is truly a good idea, truly a new idea for Obama to tout, and I think (if reasonably successful) this sort of thing could go a long way towards not just cleaning up the immediate aftereffects of this tragedy, but towards (as Obama put it earlier this week) leaving the Gulf Coast in better condition than it was when the well blew up. It's a big goal, but one worthy of attempting, especially now. Again, it'll take a while to happen, but if it works it will certainly go a long way among the people who live in the region towards erasing the feelings of frustration they've been feeling since Katrina. If it works, that is. If Obama has over-promised here, especially within the span of the next few years, then it could easily lead to bitter disappointment as well, I have to admit. And while Obama didn't say BP was going to foot this entire bill, he did end with: "BP will pay for the impact this spill has had on the region," which is a hopeful sign.

Obama then promised a national commission to examine what went wrong, being careful to warn that such a commission wouldn't be able to fully report on the disaster until they had had enough time to examine the evidence. While "blue ribbon" commissions are a favorite of politicians, this could also go a long way towards gaining the confidence of the people in the region that nobody's going to walk away from figuring out what went wrong.

Obama then went into "the big picture" for almost the rest of his speech, which I have to say was refreshing, if only because Democrats in general almost never try to make their basic case of how they view governance. I would urge the president not to stop at just the problems of the MMS agency, but to apply this sort of thing as a general principle towards a lot of agencies -- the cozy relationship between regulators and the regulated simply must be addressed.

Obama then moved on to a call to pass some sort of energy policy, very politely pointing the finger at the Senate for dragging its feet. He even also, again very politely, suggested that this might necessitate some sacrifice on the part of every American, which is always tough for any politician to do. Obama once again played the "bipartisan" card, and asked for ideas from both parties.

He did not, it is true, specify exactly what should be in this legislation, which I would warrant he will reap some criticism for. But while he did make the larger case for passing some sort of energy policy, if he had gotten into the weeds of exactly what this entailed, it would have been a much longer speech -- and I don't believe that's what he intended to accomplish with this speech anyway.

Although I'm probably in a minority with this opinion, I felt his closing imagery (the blessing of the fleet story) fell a little flat. Perhaps it was his delivery, perhaps it was just clunky prose, but somehow it just didn't flow as well as the rest of his speech. Perhaps I'd feel differently if I lived in a fishing town on the Gulf, I don't know.

The line in the entire speech which resonated the most with me was towards the end, when Obama was speaking of America's efforts in World War II and the race to the moon: "...time and again, we have refused to settle for the paltry limits of conventional wisdom."

All in all, I found Obama's speech to be a balancing act which largely succeeded. Obama needed to be positive and hopeful for the future, while at the same time being realistic about the challenges we face right now in getting there. He needed to be forceful, without over-promising what America should expect in the next few months. He needed to beat BP soundly about the ears, while at the same time being focused on solutions to the problems at hand and not just venting our anger. He needed to capture America's attention without getting bogged down in the weeds of details (which are likely going to take shape later in any case). He needed to, as he himself put it, "seize the moment."

This speech will indeed be remembered in the future. I think he met the goals the speech needed to hit, in terms of communicating to the American people a sense of leadership. But the speech, while historians will quote it later, is not what people are really going to remember in years to come. What people are going to remember is what happens next.

Obama needs to come out of tomorrow's meeting with BP with some concrete promises from the company, and some tangible progress towards ameliorating the situation better than they have yet done. If Obama follows through on the major goals he has outlined tonight -- cleaning up the Gulf as best as possible, and figuring out exactly what went wrong -- people will point to this speech as when things began to get better for them. The longer-term goals -- of ending industry's self-regulation (a tenet of conservatism which is so unbelievably idiotic), creating a better regulatory structure to improve both safety rules and how they are enforced -- are going to require legislation from Congress, which will be a tougher fight. The "big picture" goals, though, won't likely be visible for a while to come -- passing a truly forward-looking comprehensive energy policy, and restoring the Gulf's wetlands and ecosystem -- but momentum towards these goals may build among the public over the same time period.

Of course, if most of this stuff doesn't happen, then this speech will go down in history next to Jimmy Carter's energy speech from 1979 -- as a wonderful speech that failed utterly to change America's outlook in almost any measurable way. As I said before the speech -- and no matter what you yourself thought of it -- this time, it's going to be the results that count. Good results need to start happening soon, or else Obama's speech will be remembered not for his "seize the moment," but for promising things he couldn't deliver. Only time will tell.


-- Chris Weigant

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant


31 Comments on “Obama Seizes The Moment?”

  1. [1] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I have been quite sure, for a very long while now, that someone in the White House is reading your columns, if not the President himself.

    Or, when it comes to you and the president, great minds think alike!

    I really liked the idea of "leaving the Gulf coast in a better condition than it was when the well blew up." While he didn't specifically speak to the restoration of the wetlands and barrier islands of coastal Louisiana, Louisiana's off-shore drilling royalties (or paucity thereof) and the responsibility of the oil companies to assist in this grand effort, or of the federal government's ironclad commitment to save a great American city, I was somewhat heartened by the commitment he did give. And, being ever the cockeyed optimist and despite my prevailing mood of late, I am hopeful that he didn't over-promise on this critical point.

    However, I did think that he sounded a bit too optimistic about the outcome of this unprecedented environmental and economic catastrophe in that he gave no hint that the worst case scenario may be that the damage to this deep water well - below and above the seabed - is so severe that it cannot be repaired and that oil will still be gushing after he finishes up his second term, some six and a half years from now.

  2. [2] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    General comment -

    Wow, did I watch the same speech others did? I write these "snap judgement" columns while intentionally NOT reading others' reactions to the same speech, to keep my perspective pure as it were, and now I'm reading some other critiques of the speech, and am dumbfounded. I mean, I've been saying all along that Obama will be judged on the situation on the ground rather than what he says about it, but I'm pretty stunned at the negative reaction from the punditocracy (left and right) so far. C'mon, guys, it wasn't THAT bad a speech! As a speech, I thought it was rather good. Let's see what details emerge tomorrow before jumping to any conclusions...



  3. [3] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:


    I don't know if you've been following the common commentariat or not, but the reaction to everything this president and his team says and does - almost since the beginning - has been negative, to say the least.

    To me, this has become neither stunning nor surprising but, par for the course for the life of this presidency, so far. I expect it will continue.

    Between the punditocracy and the other chatting class, it's what accounts for my rather foul mood of late.

    It does my heart good, though, that you are recognizing it here. However, you might consider making this general comment over at the Huffington Post where it is much more needed!

  4. [4] 
    Michale wrote:

    C'mon, guys, it wasn't THAT bad a speech!

    According to all the guys ya'all follow (Colbert, Matthews, etc etc) it was "THAT" bad... :D

    However, you might consider making this general comment over at the Huffington Post where it is much more needed!

    Oh sure, take it where *I* can't go play! :D

    OH well, I'll just play over at Cesca's! hehehehehe


  5. [5] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:


    You can be very happy that you are not allowed to play at the Huffington Post because that has become some foul playground.

    I think I might do something soon to get myself permanently banned. It would do my psyche more that a bit of good.

    Oh, well ... when I get too depressed about all the negativity, I can always come here to get happy! :)

  6. [6] 
    Michale wrote:

    You can be very happy that you are not allowed to play at the Huffington Post because that has become some foul playground.

    mmmmmmmmm The best kind of playground! :D hhehehehehe

    Seriously, though.. I see your point. HP used to be a real fun place when they were just talking about the various agendas....

    Once they set their own and didn't broke any dissension, it just became another ditto-head site where people could go to hear, "yep, yer right.. yer right" over and over and over and over again...

    Oh, well ... when I get too depressed about all the negativity, I can always come here to get happy! :)

    "I'mm soooo happy... I'mmmm sooo happpppyyyyy..."
    "Ohh, thanx very much."
    "Right.. See ya on Thursday."

    Anyone?? :D I know ONE of ya'all have just got to recognize the reference..


  7. [7] 
    Michale wrote:

    Oh Liz.... :D

    I got a blog now.. :D


  8. [8] 
    Michale wrote:

    Looks like the polls are going down down down...

    RASMUSSEN Reports at 9:30AM ET:
    Obama Approval Falls to New Low: 42%
    Obama Approval Index: -20
    Strongly Approve 24%
    Strongly Disapprove 44%
    Total Approval 42%

    Not that I put stock in polls.. :D


  9. [9] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Michale -

    I don't put much stock in Rasmussen, personally. Here's why - all the other polls show slight improvement this week:

    6/13 - Ipsos - Approve 50 / Disap. 45
    6/14 - AP - 50 / 49
    6/15 - Rasumussen - 42 / 57
    6/15 - Gallup - 49 / 43

    This is why many people don't even average in Rasumussen, because they're so consistently off the mark. But in the OPW I use RealClearPolitics, which does include Rasmussen, just FYI...


  10. [10] 
    Michale wrote:

    Oh you know me and Polls...

    I just like to bring them out and tweak the noses when they say something I know ya'all won't like..

    Just gentle ribbing amongst friends.. :D


  11. [11] 
    Michale wrote:


    You didn't get the reference I posted to Liz??? :D


  12. [12] 
    Michale wrote:

    An interesting point that has been made on other blogs should be addressed here...

    Everyone is all cheering and celebrating that Obama got a 20 billion dollar escrow account out of BP...

    There is no 20 billion dollars...

    There is 4 billion in 2010..

    Then, assuming that BP hasn't litigated it's way out of it, there will be another 4 billion in 2011.. And so on until the 20 billion is achieved...

    So, there isn't any 20 billion... There is just 4 billion.. 4 billion that probably has ALREADY been spent just in the past 55+ days..

    So, that 4 billion that has been promised for 2010 is already gone..

    So, this begs the question...

    What did Obama really get???

    A kick in the balls of America...

    THAT's what he got...

    Whoooppeee Deeee Dooooo....


  13. [13] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:


    You didn't get the reference I posted to Liz??? :D

    I think I may be in the doghouse, so to speak. So, if you want CW to notice something you post, then don't reference it to me ... or, something like that. :)

    Oh, by the way ... nice blog and pics! You might see me around some time ...

  14. [14] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Sorry guys, this week has been so busy I've barely been able to get posts out. Liz, never think I'm ignoring you, I read every word you post here and at HuffPost! Michale, it sounds kind of Monty-Python-ish, but I don't recall you ever quoting Python before, so I have to wonder.

    Anyway, just a warning, there may be no post Thursday -- the wife's car needs emergency work so I'll be crawling underneath it with tools for most of tomorrow. If I'm lucky, and get the job done fairly quickly, then I may post (late-ish), but these things always seem to take more time than you expect, so I can't promise anything.

    Sorry for the busy week, folks! Even when I don't have time to respond, I always read EVERY comment (although sometimes it takes a few days).


    I guess me and Al Gore are the only two people who liked Obama's speech, though...


  15. [15] 
    Michale wrote:

    Michale, it sounds kind of Monty-Python-ish, but I don't recall you ever quoting Python before, so I have to wonder.

    Au Contraire' I do believe I have quoted Monty Python a few times before..

    And you are correct.. It's the BRING OUT YER DEAD sequence from Monty Python And The Holy Grail.. :D It loses something without the full audio..


  16. [16] 
    Michale wrote:

    Now, forgive me while I engage RANT mode..

    If I hear "Climate Change Policy" one more time, I am going to go positively bat-shit!!

    The utter arrogance of humans to think that they can actually effect the planet's climate is mind-boggling..

    Now, a policy that addresses how we can respond or react to Climate Change makes sense.. THAT is logic-driven policy.

    But the Climate Change Policy that the Democrats are pushing is an attempt to control the planet's climate.

    Why don't we have a Solar Storm policy to change solar storms?? Why don't we have a Planetary Rotation policy?? Hell, let's go all out and have a The Sun Rises In The East And Sets In The West policy..

    There is absolutely NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER that mere mortals can affect the climate of planet Earth.

    So why are the Democrats intent on bankrupting this country to try and accomplish just that??

    "Climate Change Policy"... Jeeesh....

    Thank you. We now return you to the kinder gentler Michale... :D


  17. [17] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:


    Oh, I didn’t mean to imply you were ignoring me!

    I just thought you may not be exactly enamoured with the fact that my foul mood of late has spilled over onto the pages of your HP columns. It’s just that I’ve had about enough of all the negativity coming from people all over HP and I haven’t been missing too many opportunities to let at least some of those responsible for all of the nonsense over there know it. It makes me feel better, sort of ... in future, I’m going to try to be more selective and reserve my wrath for only the most egregious nonsense. :)

    I am glad, though, to know that the little “message from webpage” that pops up on my screen to tell me that there is a “stack overflow at line: 11" every time I come here to your site or click on anything here which I have to close by clicking 'OK' before I can do anything else is not some sort of sign that I should just go away! :)

  18. [18] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    There is absolutely NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER that mere mortals can affect the climate of planet Earth.


    Nuclear winter is not climate change?

  19. [19] 
    Michale wrote:

    Nuclear winter is not climate change?

    No, it is not...

    Nuclear winter is a predicted climatic effect of nuclear war. It has been theorized that severely cold weather and reduced sunlight for a period of months or years could be caused by detonating large numbers of nuclear weapons, especially over flammable targets such as cities, where large amounts of smoke and soot would be ejected into the Earth's stratosphere.

    We're not talking "weather" that changes from day to day, week to week, year to year or even decade to decade...

    Climate is something that happens over centuries or millennia....

    The simple fact is, we don't even have a firm grasp of the totality of the planet's climate to begin with...

    How the hell are we supposed to CHANGE what we can barely understand???

    It's a fool's errand to even try..

    We might as well try and change the orbit of the earth for all the capability we have to change the climate..


  20. [20] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    Nuclear winter is a predicted climatic effect of nuclear war.

  21. [21] 
    Michale wrote:

    Yes. "climactic effect" not Climate Change.

    But the relevant part of it is for a period of months or years..

    Climate Change is much longer term than that...

    Put another way..

    You can take a hose, put your finger over the end and spray it up in the air to make it "rain"...

    Is that Climate Change?? No, it's a climactic effect.. :D


  22. [22] 
    akadjian wrote:

    What did Obama really get?

    Idunno, Michale. When I look at the 2 sides, I see Obama getting BP to take responsibility for the spill.

    Then I compare this to the GOP - with folks like Joe Barton - apologizing to BP or trying to get the government to pay. WTF?!

    I thought you of all people would want someone who could be tough on the oil industry and not someone bending over backwards trying to apologize to them.

    Where's FOX news coming down on these corporate shills? Remember how hard they came down on Obama just for observing the custom of bowing?

    You'd think they'd go after people like Barton for sucking on a big BP nozzle :).


  23. [23] 
    Michale wrote:

    Idunno, Michale. When I look at the 2 sides, I see Obama getting BP to take responsibility for the spill.

    Yea, but nothing in writing. No legally binding document NOT to try and weasel out of the verbal pledge.

    You know the initial settlement for the EXXON VALDEZ?? $5 Billion..

    You know what they actually have to pay?? A little over 500 million...

    Nothing but American public opinion is holding BP to anything..

    Consider what's ahead. The seabed floor around the Blowout Preventer is collapsing. There are hundreds of pipes in this sub-seabed floor. They are on the verge of collapsing. When they go, there won't be any more pipe between the Gulf Of Mexico and the largest oil deposit in the hemisphere.

    Get that?? There will be a DIRECT breach between the ocean and the oil deposit. It will make the current catastrophe look like CW's car problem by comparison. (Sorry, CW... Don't mean to mitigate your problem.) And no relief wells in the world will stop it then..

    Second... Hurricane season is here. It's projected to be an extremely above average season. Not as bad as 2005, but close... Now you get a few hurricanes going thru this area, A-All work stops.. B- All of that oils is swirled around and drudged up and thrown up in to the atmosphere and then comes down over the entire Southeast US in the form of oily rain.. So, forget a problem with the Gulf COAST.. Now we have oil-related catastrophes stretching hundreds if not thousands of miles inland from Texas on over thru Florida and up the eastern coast past Virgina...

    Now, I axe you.... Do you think that BP is **NOT** going to run for bankruptcy cover??

    If you do, then I would want what yer smokin'.... :D If I was a smoker, that is...

    Americans are going to get shafted...

    But, hay.. At least Obama got us $5 Billion, right??

    Whooopppeeee Deeeeee Dooo Dooo


  24. [24] 
    akadjian wrote:

    You know what they actually have to pay?? A little over 500 million.

    Trivia question: Do you know who reduced the settlement to $500 million?

    Hint: Your favorite appointed conservatives.

    And yeah, most signs look like the Gulf Spill is gonna get a lot worse.

    So why are Republicans not helping? Why are they instead apologizing to the oil industry and doing little but criticize President Obama?

    How is that "putting country first" as you'd say?


  25. [25] 
    Michale wrote:

    This isn't a Democrat Vs Republican issue.

    This is an American Vs BP issue..

    And Obama seems to be taking his cues from BP.

    Nationalize the fuckers.

    That's my solution...


  26. [26] 
    akadjian wrote:

    This is an American Vs BP issue.

    It'd be nice if that were true. And that's part of what I'm arguing for. But you've got the Republican party issuing notes on how to politicize the issue.

    And Obama seems to be taking his cues from BP.


    Really. It's easy to see how Joe Barton is taking his cues from BP. But I've seen nothing that would indicate Obama is.

  27. [27] 
    Michale wrote:

    Really. It's easy to see how Joe Barton is taking his cues from BP. But I've seen nothing that would indicate Obama is.

    Sure would have been nice if Obama got something legally binding saying that BP wouldn't try to evade paying by litigational methods...

    Sure would have been nice if Obama got $20 Billion UP FRONT instead of over 4 years...

    Sure would have been nice if Obama told BP, "Frak you. You aren't going to do right by Americans and everyone knows it. Your American operations are now OUR American operations. You're fired. Have a nice day and get the frak outta my sight."

    THAT is leadership...

    "Gee Whiz, BP.. Sorry to be so brutal on you.. But if we can get $5 Billion up front and if you can SAY you'll give us another $15 billion in a few years, we promise to make sure you can still exist and make $207 BILLION a year... Gee whiz, thanks guys.."

    THAT is what Obama did...


  28. [28] 
    Michale wrote:

    Don't believe me??

    Read some of the reports coming from the Left??

    Look at some of the Left Media reports out of Europe..

    Der Spiegel, who literally FAWNED over Obama in the past, says he is on track to becoming the 21st Century Jimmy Carter...

    Look over at the Banter Site SUBURBAN GUERRILLA and see how the like Obama. Just don't tell them I sent ya.. :D hehehehehehe

    Seriously, it's not just me saying what I am saying... All up and down the Left spectrum, people are saying what a wuss Obama turned out to be...

    So, if you plan on riding the Obama bandwagon, it will likely be a very lonely ride...


  29. [29] 
    akadjian wrote:

    These folks are all saying that Obama should have been more pro-active and/or specific in his recommendations.

    (FTR - I'd agree w/ pro-active.)

    That's a far cry from And Obama seems to be taking his cues from BP.

    Forgot about your tendency to exaggerate. But I'm glad you're reading some German!


  30. [30] 
    Michale wrote:

    My step-mother is German. I spent many a childhood summer in Stuttgart. Not much choice in the matter.. :D

    Time will tell if what I am saying is exaggeration or prescient... :D


  31. [31] 
    dsws wrote:

    I didn't think it was one of his best speeches, but I didn't think it was "THAT bad". I don't see it providing the political impetus for a 14-trillion-dollar infrastructure project to get us off of fossil fuel, though, and that's about what we need.

Comments for this article are closed.