President Obama just made the best speech of his life

Obama says its 'make or break' time for the middle class as he pledges to restore economic fairness ahead of 2012 race
By Associated Press
Last updated at 8:00 PM on 6th December 2011

President Barack Obama delivered a sweeping indictment of economic inequality in the U.S.today as he summoned the memory of President Theodore Roosevelt and pledged to fight for fairness at a 'make or break moment' for the middle class.

Only a month before Republican voters begin choosing a presidential nominee, Obama traveled to small-town Osawatomie in Kansas, where Roosevelt delivered his 'New Nationalism' address in 1910, to embrace the progressive reformer's calls for a 'square deal' for regular Americans.

Obama warned of the unraveling of the American dream, and called for giving hurting middle-class workers a fair shake and restoring financial security - themes he's certain to return to throughout the 2012 campaign.
Appeal to the nation: President Barack Obama speaks on the economy and an extension of the payroll tax cut at Osawatomie High School in Kansas today

Appeal to the nation: President Barack Obama speaks on the economy and an extension of the payroll tax cut at Osawatomie High School in Kansas today

'This isn't just another political debate. This is the defining issue of our time. This is a make-or-break moment for the middle class, and all those who are fighting to get into the middle class,' Obama told a crowd in the Osawatomie High School gym, where red, white and blue bunting lined the bleachers.

'Because at stake is whether this will be a country where working people can earn enough to raise a family, build a modest savings, own a home, and secure their retirement,' he said.
Touchdown: Obama makes his way to greet wellwishers today upon arrival in Kansas City

Touchdown: Obama makes his way to greet wellwishers today upon arrival in Kansas City

Taking aim at Republicans, Obama said: 'Their philosophy is simple: we are better off when everyone is left to fend for themselves and play by their own rules. Well, I'm here to say they are wrong.'

Obama's speech sounded the theme of inequality of income and opportunity, which the White House sees as a major force in current politics, but it was short on new ideas or specifics for pulling the country out of its economic doldrums.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2070798/Obama-makes-speech-Kansas-ahead-2012-race.html#ixzz1fmrl4IRB

He has had a lot of time to act in accordance with the principles of this speech. What we want are actions, more so than fine words.

He can't exactly force the GOP to pass any legislation.

When he had a Dem majority, he squandered every opportunity.

I missed it but I'll listen to the talking heads tomorrow on the radio to make much a do about the speech's policy possibilities.

When did Obama start caring about income inequality? "Three months ago, in his first speech touting the American Jobs Act, President Obama made zero mention of income inequality." So when did it go from not meriting a mention to becoming the defining issue of our time? Oh, right -- about the same time that Occupy Wall Street started talking about it.

I'll settle for his trying to shame them into passing it.

Maybe speeches like this one will help. It was an excellent speech. As I listened to it, I kept thinking to myself, "Why doesn't he try to sound this good all the time?"

Obama is summoning the spirit of the wrong Roosevelt.

Is HE the right guy to complain that there isn't equal opportunity for all in this country? The first Black president?

He speaks to the wrong issue, IMHO

I loved his speech! President Obama issued a memorandum "directing all agencies engaged abroad to ensure that U.S. diplomacy and foreign assistance promote and protect the human rights of LGBT persons." yeah!

He is perhaps the best guy. The opportunities that allowed him to succeed are vanishing. Would Bush or Kerry or Gore or McCain understand the importance of such opportunities? Only from an intellectual standpoint, not as someone who rose from the ranks.

I don't know if that's fair to say. The 'dem majority' he had in the Senate wasn't enough to reliably overcome the repeated and constant Republican filibuster of every single thing he put forward.

What more, it's important to point out that he's not King Obama. He can't command Dems in the Senate to fall into line, and he can't force the GOP to stop using obstruction tactics. You are blaming Obama for things that were done against him, purposely, for the explicit reason of making him look ineffective; and it's sad to see that it's actually worked on people who would normally support him.

Cycloptichorn

I have bad news for you edgar. Obama is going to use a lot of words about how America needs him to address income inequality in order to get elected but isn't going to make a significant difference in income inequality once he is elected.

True story.

Whatever the excuses are, if he is going to under-deliver he shouldn't over promise. He campaigned on audacity, hope, "change you can believe in". If he is going to govern like a lame duck he should not campaign as a world changer, otherwise he's just the same old lying politicians he decried that promise unrealistic change to get elected then shift the blame for the failed promises on the opposition.



What? He didn't know there would be Republicans after he got elected? I find the support for Democrats in the face of their complete uselessness sad. The people who make endless excuses for the Democrats enable their fatal attraction to political timidity. It's always the Republican's fault, not their faults for not fighting harder for what they purportedly believe in.

I don't buy that for a minute. The Republican party has executed much better for their constituents in the last decade than has the Democrats and it's time to start voting the timid Democrats out instead of making endless excuses for them that start and end with "Republicans!"

The Republicans aren't going away, they are going to be there opposing the Democrat platform for the rest of your life and Democrats need to start electing people who are going to fight back instead of making excuses for why their Democrats are just lite versions of Republicans. The excuses just let the spineless ones keep their jobs instead of having to step up.

This is how the game works, of course the other team is going to try to stop you from scoring. Of course they will try to obstruct your efforts. And the excuses for Democrats are like a boxer blaming his inability to win a match on the fact that his opponents always try to hit him.

This is terrible news.

Woe unto the electorate! Who can be the president to make a difference?

Your analysis is rather shallow, in face of the fact that the GOP resorted to both previously unused tactics in the House, and rarely-used tactics in the Senate, on a constant basis, in order to obstruct. No party has ever faced the level of obstruction that the Dems have in the Senate, and that's a fact - look up the rate of incidence of the filibuster usage since Obama's election vs. all other Presidents before him if you don't believe me.



He didn't know they would filibuster every single bill he put forward, and refuse to confirm ANY of his nominees. And why would he know that? No GOP minority or Dem minority has ever done such a thing in the past. Your insistence that what the GOP is doing is 'business as usual' is ill-informed.



It's not just the Republicans' fault - it's also the fault of the 5-6 Democrats in the Senate who are only 'liberal' on one single issue. I'm talking about Nelson, Lieberman, Webb, people like that. They reliably voted with the GOP to keep Obama from getting things done for a long, long time. The Democrats simply do not have the party unity that the GOP does in the Senate, and they never have.

If anyone should be blamed on the Dem side, it's Harry Reid, for not changing the rules of the filibuster when he had the chance to do so.

Without discussing the specifics of how Republicans stopped Obama's plans so consistently in the Senate, you cannot come up with an accurate picture of how the last few years went. Nevertheless; I should point out that Obama passed a major HC reform bill (that is already showing some successes and, if it's not overturned by the SC, will fundamentally alter the nature of health care in this country in a good way) and managed to get quite a few other good things passed as well. You ought to give him at least some credit for overcoming a determined and united opposition on a few fronts.

Cycloptichorn

Bush was a president who made a difference. Happened to be a horrible difference to people who share my point of view but he's certainly more of a world-changer than Obama will ever be. You need someone like that, someone more stubborn and less of a consensus seeker. Technocrats and deep thinkers are the types I tend to admire more but they aren't usually very effective leaders in the face of opposition.

It is more enlightening looking the other way...Obama's policies have been promoting income inequality which has worsened considerably during his time in the chair, and now because he needs votes he campaigns against income inequality.

I am not sure how we are to read this...does this mean that Obama has industrial sized balls, or does it mean that he thinks that we are stupid??

That's actually less true than most liberals seem to think. Most of what he "got done" actually had support from Democrats at the time. Not because he bullied them or because he was stubborn, but because they were (for example) cowed by 9/11 and wanted to be Tough and Strong in the War on Terror.

(Patriot Act, Iraq war, etc.)

The things that he tried to do that actually required effort -- as opposed to "so we're all on the same page then? awesome" -- didn't go as well. Privatizing Social Security for example.