Stunning Break with Last Eight Years

In the first two weeks since the election, President-elect Barack Obama has broken with a tradition established over the past eight years through his controversial use of complete sentences, political observers say.

Millions of Americans who watched Mr. Obama's appearance on CBS' "Sixty Minutes" on Sunday witnessed the president-elect's unorthodox verbal tick, which had Mr. Obama employing grammatically correct sentences virtually every time he opened his mouth.

But Mr. Obama's decision to use complete sentences in his public pronouncements carries with it certain risks, since after the last eight years many Americans may find his odd speaking style jarring.

According to presidential historian Davis Logsdon of the University of Minnesota, some Americans might find it "alienating" to have a President who speaks English as if it were his first language.

"Every time Obama opens his mouth, his subjects and verbs are in agreement," says Mr. Logsdon. "If he keeps it up, he is running the risk of sounding like an elitist."

The historian said that if Mr. Obama insists on using complete sentences in his speeches, the public may find itself saying, "Okay, subject, predicate, subject predicate - we get it, stop showing off."

http://www.borowitzreport.com/article.aspx?ID=6961

You missed the best part!

That is so funny - - it's like The Onion without the wit...

I have never understood the fixation America has had "have a beer" style leaders.


Intellectuals may act a bit elitist, but that is because they know why more then the people, and that my friends is a good thing.

That sentence would've carried a lot more weight if it made any fucking sense.

I was just going to make that point

Well, there are a lot of smooth talking people who speak in complete sentences who have fucked this country over so I don't think that part matters a lot. If Bush was nicer and had better judgment he could talk in all the fractured sentences he wants as far as I'm concerned.

I'm a bit confused over this break with the last 8 years.

We know he's not going to end the war in Iraq.
We know he wants to expand the war in Afghanistan.
We know he isn't going to change current warrentless spying.
And he's filling his cabinet with a bunch of Clintonistas.

So I guess we get the best of both worlds. Bush policies and Clinton cronies.

YAY

Since you only listed 4 issues out of a possible thousand, it's no wonder you're confused.

He IS going to end torture. He does plan on implementing an overhaul of the health care system. He is going to turn the government around on the issue of scientific research, including issues like global warming and stem cell research. He is looking at reversing about 200 of Bush's executive orders.

And if the Iraq war weren't already going to end by their own government, he said he would have ended it.

Is he going to change 100% of everything just to change it? No. And I can't imagine anyone expected as much.

And I'm not sure what you mean by Clintonistas in the cabinet. Other than Hillary herself, he's named Arizona's governor Napolitano as his Sec of HS and Daschle for Sec of HHS. Both of them endorsed Obama for president in the Dem primaries.

Funny part is Obama will be more "hawkish" on Afghanistan then any of the republicans, saying he would go into parts of Pakistan.


He has changed his view and that showed his inexperience, however he has Robert Gates around him, so he will be fine.

So your constant flip-flopping on issues and candidates is simply a product of your inexperience? Is that what you're saying?

what?? I meant he is inexperienced for having that view towards Pakistan, not for flip flooping on issues. I actually think there is nothing wrong with flip flooping if your realize your own viewpoint is wrong.
I have held a lot of viewpoints, which you guys have "reeducated" me on.

I meant Obama reckless attitude towards Pakistan before showed he has much to learn, but of course everyday he becomes a much more experienced man.

He will be around good people, so he will be fine and they will teach him well.

If he was surrounded by inexperienced anti-war far left wing liberals, Obama's administration would have been a disaster. Thank the gods, this will not be so!!!

Then your wording was very poor.

Many democrats were against the Iraq war from the beginning and as time has gone on many more democrats and people in general were against it.

However Afghanistan is and was always different. Of course some people are aganst the war in general there but the majority of the vocal opposition is to how Afghanistan was handled(very very poorly).

Agreed. The idea that one need be an "inexperienced far-left anti-war liberal" to oppose the Iraq war is ludicrous.

Obama is not anti-war, as he's said in the past. He was against the Iraq war, and now the country has come around. So the idea that Obama would necessarily put a Michael Moore in at SecDef over Gates, as if the choice were between Gates and some anti-war hippy, is simply ignorant. Someone like Chuck Hagel comes to mind as a viable alternative.

well it looks like meaning was not clear either, sorry.


I meant I like how Obama is not giving into pressure by the far left and that he will elect some far left pacfist liberal as Defence Secratry.

Sure its easy to say "no war", but lets not forget you are the world's superpower. America is slipping economically worldwide, but it has overwhelming military dominance.

So who is pressuring Obama to appoint a far left liberal anti-war pacifist as SecDef? Seriously, can you name anyone on the national stage who's said anything like this?