UHND.com - Notre Dame Football, Basketball, & Recruiting

(no message)

Number of presidents prior to FDR who had weekly radio addresses: ZERO

The Fireside Chat was a unique and purposeful invention of FDR to ease public distress during an economic crisis by using what at the time was considered non-traditional media for politicians. If Obama does talk about moving into the White House, his Blackberry and his kids, then you can bitch, but right now you're claiming A) the Fireside Chats were something less than they were and that B) the Obama appearance on Leno is something that has yet to be. I believe that's what baseball umps call an 0 and 2 count.

FDR actually set a standard for every other president to follow, which is weekly public addresses. I am not saying that FDR didn't invent the fireside chats, I am saying that previous post were comparing the chats with the tonight show apprearence. Which I really don't see the similarity...yet. It could very well be a good political move, but that will be decided after the apprearence.

Just as Fredyo said, many other presidents have made apprearences too, but it seems that this one has been made out to be one of a political move by BO to push his agenda. I just don't think this is the right stage to do so. Personally, I hope it is more of a blackberry, moving into the white house type of chat. A prime time speech is a much better tool to push political agendas.

WE make decisions based upon principles; THEY make decisions based upon political calculations.

WE mean what we say; THEY never explain their real motivations.

just look at Chris Dodd, Barney Frank, Eric Holder, Frank Raines, John Edwards, Tim Geithner, Rod Blago, Roland Burris, Bill Richardson, Tom Daschle, Harry Reid, John Murtha, and George Sorros. Gives you that tingly Chris Mathews feeling of principles.

Took you long enough...

I honestly am not sure what the hell you are saying in your post, but I was hoping to get your side of things...

(no message)

Your defense of the President's decision in this matter is embarrassing.

(no message)

FDR's Fireside Chats were scheduled at 10 PM precisely to attract a maximum radio audience, plus his speechwriters purposely made sure his speeches were dumbed down lingually and laced with anecdotes to appeal to the common man. Uh, sounds like a talk show to me.

A podcast? Really? You're trying to equate an FDR radio address during the Golden Age of radio that could hypothetically reach 90% of America with a nebulous Internet promotional tool utilized by maybe--MAYBE--1% of American consumers. That analogy sucks, badly.

Don't most presidential speech writers do the same thing that FDR's writers did, i.e. dumb it down and add a few anecdotes? I know Bush's dumb'ed his down, but I think that was for his benefit more than the American public's. (I have no proof of this, just a hunch...)

But continue to defend your hero as he embarrasses the Presidency at every turn.

Not defending my hero. Just making fun of people who invent reasons to hate him.

FYI, anybody will tell you podcasts are a joke--the Internet Age's version of smoke and mirrors. They're used by young marketing execs to create the impression that they're doing something besides Twittering all day at their cubicles. Podcasts have not been shown to generate revenue, exposure or buzz in any meaningful way, and I say that as someone who is literally plugged into the online publishing world. To compare a podcast subscriber to a television viewer or radio listener is almost insanely ludicrous.

What on Earth are you talking about? The fact is that tens of millions of people use podcasts and subscribe to them and listen to them at their leisure. My freaking two-year old knows what a podcast is, though she may not pronounce is correctly.

The President's appearance on a late night show is kitschy and lowers the office. End of story.

Forget revenue and concerntrate on the other two words for all I care: exposure and buzz. If an author wanted to sell copies of his book, which would he pick: a 30-second spot on The Tonight Show or a 30-second podcast? If a studio wanted to promote a new movie, what would it pick: a 30-second spot on The Tonight Show or a 30-second podcast?

If you think the answer is "B", you really know absolutely nothing about marketing. Podcasts are the same thing they've been for the last ten years: Internet fluff.

That's your rationale? That's your defense of lowering the office? That kind of marketing concept may be appropriate for, oh, a presidential candidate. Not a president in his first hundred days dealing (not so well) with the worst economic crisis in history.

He's running away from his job and the media and the people who are finally taking notice of his incompetence to sit on a couch with his Hollywood buddies and read jokes. Hooray for America!

(no message)

...top this. (and don't start with, but he's not the President 'cause that's not the point)

Well, except in your world, that is.

Don't be a dumbshit, again. Lady is perfectly capable of standing on her own two feet. And you're perfectly capable of acknowledging hate, even when it doesn't happen to suit your argument.

Don't get me wrong, Mac, if I were you and lost as often as you do on here I'd want me to stay out of the discussion, too.

So, getting back to your man-love and defensive posture regarding all things Bam-Bam, you continue to be under the impression that if a person doesn't like what the POTUS is doing, said person hates the POTUS. Do you understand how irrational this is?

BTW, is it true that Bams has a little plaque in the Oval Office which states, "The Suckle Starts Here?"

Preety sure I've won as many arguments as I've lost. Either way, I can at least say I haven't hid behind an anonymous Internet persona and a sliding-scale political idealogy for the last 10 years. Anytime you're ready to stop being a pussy and have that drink, drop me a line.

(no message)

it's just cheesy.

(no message)

from which came the timbers that were used to make "The Resolute Desk".

(no message)

(no message)

who would have thought it. First Lincoln now FDR all rolled into one leader. Must see TV.

Since when is the Oval Office so sacrosanct?

The President is a figure-head...a PR act, to begin with. The men who paid for his seat, pull the strings on the important issues.

This last 3 months have made that patently obvious.

(no message)

(no message)

Obama is a PR man with a populist image to uphold. Presidents no longer "govern".

The men that pull the strings are merely positioning him as a "Presentation Manager", if you will.

This is all a distraction to keep us harping on the insipid...meanwhile...

(no message)

(no message)

Me...I am proud of my girth.

(no message)

(no message)

(no message)

As opposed to hung like a tuna can.

But weren't the apprearences of the other presidents during not so stressful times? In BO defense, it will boost his popularity if he does well on the show...

Believe me...that was some scary shit.

Thank God!

(no message)

(no message)

This is a perfect example of how easily the populace can be duped and distracted.

Meanwhile, "The Fed", a privately-owned entity, dictates what you will pay and when.

I haven't heard any outrage about our lives being dictated by a private banking consortium that just so happens to have the authority to print money and devalue our financial strength as a nation.

Where is the moral outrage over that?

(no message)

Ya' know...keep your friends close and all that...

The President is going on the Tonight Show. Who cares? There are bigger issues to worry about right now.

Far too reasonable of an assessment.
How many babies does Obama kill while going on Leno? Eh? Think about it.

I'm bitter LSU beat Butler.

by the way he owes NBC a few favors.

(no message)

(no message)

and they're on the presidential detail anyway, so I don't see it as a waste of money. I do see this AIG bonus thing as a huge waste of money.

(no message)

(no message)

(no message)

(no message)