Obama - "It's not about me"

[Anonymous]

Check this out.

www.breitbart.tv/132-the-number-of-times-obama-refers-to-himself-in-one-speech/

Obama should try to focus a little more on the people he represents and less on himself.

[Anonymous]

I think I must be a terrible egotist myself, since I refer to myself five times in this one sentence. BTW, did Breitbart use James O'Keefe to get that film?

[Anonymous]

It's good to see Obama back on message. He only used the "I" word 96 times in tonight's SoU Address.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's good to see Obama back on message. He only used the "I" word 96 times in tonight's SoU Address.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's good to see Obama back on message. He only used the "I" word 96 times in tonight's SoU Address.

Yeah, he'd probably do better to refer to himself in the third person.

[Anonymous]

The Republicans seem to think it's about him.

[Anonymous]

How does this compare to the number of times past presidents use "I" or "me" etc.?

[Anonymous]

Who gives a shit? If you are focusing on things as stupid as how many times he refers to himself, there is likely nothing he could do or say to satisfy you.

And, frankly, it is about him on some level. The number of articles by the so-called "liberal media" attacking him for being off message, dipping polls, etc. in recent weeks have been ALL about him. Have been laying blame for not remedying all of society's ills in a single year almost exclusively at his feet. So, yeah, to the extent he did defend himself, it was appropriate. But, by focusing only on that, you neglect many of the other issues he raised. You don't have to agree with him -and I seriously doubt you would- but how about discussing those things instead of something like this?

[Anonymous]

It's only about Obama to the extent he is at the tip of the Democratic agenda, and the Republicans know this. It is really about how partisan it all is, and last night's speech didn't help. He basically said the Republicans have to cooperate, but I'd like to see both parties cooperate. Without the supermajority, Dems might have to now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Who gives a shit? If you are focusing on things as stupid as how many times he refers to himself, there is likely nothing he could do or say to satisfy you.

And, frankly, it is about him on some level. The number of articles by the so-called "liberal media" attacking him for being off message, dipping polls, etc. in recent weeks have been ALL about him. Have been laying blame for not remedying all of society's ills in a single year almost exclusively at his feet. So, yeah, to the extent he did defend himself, it was appropriate. But, by focusing only on that, you neglect many of the other issues he raised. You don't have to agree with him -and I seriously doubt you would- but how about discussing those things instead of something like this?

Obviously the OP gives a shit which is why I ask, if you are going to bring this up, how does it compare to other Pres.?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's only about Obama to the extent he is at the tip of the Democratic agenda, and the Republicans know this. It is really about how partisan it all is, and last night's speech didn't help. He basically said the Republicans have to cooperate, but I'd like to see both parties cooperate. Without the supermajority, Dems might have to now.

Wow, I guess you forgot how not a single republican came to the table during the bailout, because they thought it was better to oppose an unpopular spending bill. The president met with them and they offered nothing except no votes and a tax cut as a total ruse. And Obama even made a tax cut a major part of that bill, just to attract some Republicans. I think it was 30 to 33% of the total package. And how many Republicans signed on in return for this compromise? Zero, if I remember correctly.

Then, when the health care debate started, the Republicans didn't even get together an alternative plan until about two days before the house vote. Eventually these went on a nearly straight party line vote. But the President had no choice because no one on the other side of the aisle was interested in discussing compromise alternatives.

The Republicans want the Democrats to pass something because it needs to be done. But they want to be able to say they opposed it because these bills are tough medicine. Totally cynical and provable.

I'd like to see bipartisanship, but you have to have total amnesia to make this about Democratic reluctance to work together.

[Anonymous]

OP, you're wack.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who gives a shit? If you are focusing on things as stupid as how many times he refers to himself, there is likely nothing he could do or say to satisfy you.

And, frankly, it is about him on some level. The number of articles by the so-called "liberal media" attacking him for being off message, dipping polls, etc. in recent weeks have been ALL about him. Have been laying blame for not remedying all of society's ills in a single year almost exclusively at his feet. So, yeah, to the extent he did defend himself, it was appropriate. But, by focusing only on that, you neglect many of the other issues he raised. You don't have to agree with him -and I seriously doubt you would- but how about discussing those things instead of something like this?

Obviously the OP gives a shit which is why I ask, if you are going to bring this up, how does it compare to other Pres.?

I actually didn't bring it up. OP did. So ask him/her to do so. I was merely point out how ridiculous the post was.