Monday afternoon, some time after President Obama's speech, I was flipping through some articles on The Washington Post's site. I came across a post by Jennifer Rubin titled Obama's horrifyingly bad speech. It turned out to be one of the shortest and most badly written pieces of commentary on the president's speech that I saw all day.
The critique was full of cheap shots - "He was a half hour late" started off the post - and typos - "[h]e did trot our proposals". It consisted of six paragraphs, the longest of which is (barely) six sentences long, and the rest are mush shorter than that. It does not consist of any real commentary about the contents of the speech, other than the fact that Rubin felt it was boring and didn't contain any new information.
Of course the speech didn't contain any new information. There wasn't any new information to give anyone, because nothing had happened since the downgrade by Standard & Poor's. The purpose of the speech was to inform the five people that maybe didn't know about the downgrade yet, and broadcast his condolences about the 30 soldiers who died in the helicopter crash over the weekend.
And, since we does the President Obama need to answer to Jennifer Rubin as to why he was running late? Maybe he had a meeting he needed to finish up, comments to put the final touches on, or take an important phone call. You know, because he's, um, the president?
--Statler, moderator
No comments:
Post a Comment