Well, the world swooned, but it seems most Americans didn't.
Although TV viewing figures for Obama's inauguration were better than they have been for some time, at 29.2% of US households they were well down on Ronald Reagan's 1981 performance which drew a 37.4 share.
Obama's coverage ran second to American Idol.
"Obama's coverage ran second to American Idol."
Which partly explains how he won the Presidency--idiots who can't see or think beyond the crap the mainstream media packages for them.
.
Posted by: kg | January 22, 2009 at 03:27 PM
True or not I confess I liked the speech I heard today. Civil servants being both civil and servants? Accountable? Careful with money? Maybe he will be better but I can't see the real power base in the US letting that nonsense go on for long.
Posted by: John B | January 22, 2009 at 04:03 PM
Yes Ian. I well remember how Ronald Reagan seized control in Messianic style!
Ha Ha Ha!
Amd yes KG, their ordinary people are just like you and me. Among the Reagan fans who watched his ascendancy are those who well remembered his mastery of the art of acting in "B" grad movies.
Watching Reagan was a great substitute for watching something like American Idol, given that both involved over-hyped talents.
Ha Ha Ha!!!
Ha Ha Ha!!!
Posted by: peter | January 22, 2009 at 05:39 PM
Dude, has Nandor shared his weed with you or something? You've brough your Ha ha ha's into competition with your actual message.......
Posted by: Shane Ponting | January 23, 2009 at 05:03 AM
Factor in Viewers online and Obama blows Regan out of the water.
Posted by: Terry | January 23, 2009 at 07:12 AM
When the first Bush government left, it left a financial crisis in it's wake. History repeating itself - and Obama now has to deal with that, but on a larger scale. Good luck to him.
Posted by: Diana | January 23, 2009 at 09:44 AM
I suspect, Ian, you're going to project any negative news you can find/hypothesize on Obama in the coming months, regardless of whether those stories have any substance. Am I right?
Btw you really need to improve the quality of this site - it's clumsy, badly designed and irrelevant (for instance, those books about Helen Clark, which you've been trying to hawk for well over a year).
Also, no one is going to subscribe to the briefing room for breaking news, that's not the way people get news online. Good luck though.
Posted by: richierich | January 23, 2009 at 04:50 PM
Richierich
Have you just arrived? You have summed this forum up in a flash. Stay around, it might improve.
Yes the slurring of Obama is premature, and ill judged. He must get his chance in this role.
He cant be popular with everybody but he can try his best for all.
Posted by: peter | January 23, 2009 at 07:56 PM
Yes but Peter you just love this site, your addicted, you can’t get enough.
That sums you up, curious little Peter, seeking guidance.
Posted by: Helene | January 24, 2009 at 09:29 AM
Yes but Peter you just love this site, your addicted, you can’t get enough.
That sums you up, curious little Peter, seeking guidance.
Posted by: Helene | January 24, 2009 at 09:33 AM
On the button, Helene.
richierich, check the best sellers list much? It's based on sales.
Gee, ain't life funny.
Posted by: Rick | January 24, 2009 at 04:43 PM
Helene
I thought you were making progress for a while but seems like you are out in the weeds again for now.
When are we going to get more of your creative god stories?
Posted by: peter | January 24, 2009 at 04:50 PM
Actually Diana, it was the Clinton administration that left a financial mess that is only coming through now. Bush may have done some things wrong but this is Clinton's adminsitration's fault.
Posted by: fletch | January 25, 2009 at 08:46 AM
fletch is right - it's all Clinton's fault. He should have done more to prevent the election of Shrub, the president who had 8 years to see what was coming and do something about it. No, it was nver going to be Shrub's fault - he was too much of a moron to do anything constructive.
EVERY right wing US govet bangs on about small govt, but everyone of them leaves a bigger govt than the one they inherited.
Posted by: fugley | January 25, 2009 at 10:08 AM
"Actually Diana, it was the Clinton administration that left a financial mess that is only coming through now. Bush may have done some things wrong but this is Clinton's adminsitration's fault."
Not only that.
It was Clinton and his cronies who gave America's enemies 'illegally' Hi Tech military equipment & IT Technology!
Everything from Neutron Bomb & Hi tech missile secrets to China. To Hi tech restricted military security & encryption devices to Syria. (No wonder Al Qaeda has been so hard to keep track of their communications!)
If there was ever a President in US history who needed 'impeaching' ten times over it was Billy Boy Clinton.
Posted by: Acidcomments | January 25, 2009 at 10:40 AM
Correct Acid comments you know exactly what you are talking about.
I read one biography on Hillary Clinton written by a female republican voter (can’t remember the name now of the book, I read ages ago) but from what I read I was appalled…..right down to their everyday lives.
Before the Bush administration took over, the Clinton’s ransacked the Whitehouse, robbing treasures and furniture, and all these goods Hillary took all of it home (to set up a new house)….illegally, even door knobs off the Whitehouse doors and beautiful historic China (that actually belonged to the Whitehouse, not her)! How tacky is that?
I don’t why Obama chose Hillary; to keep an eye on her maybe, keep your enemies close, I would to. Because I don’t necessarily believe Obama has the solid immorality as his colleagues do. You can tell a lot by the way some one looks (in the eyes). Obama is just enjoying the limelight, you know how it is? He’s letting it go to his head (he sees the looks on everyone’s faces and he wants them to believe he is the “one”), lets just hope he gets back into the REAL world, as now the party is over.
Also you have to understand the Clinton’s and Bush’s are friends.
No one believes 911 was an inside job but I know it is, from my viewpoint, i can see. Not that anything can be done now, it’s probably best left now, as the truth will never emerge, it will always remain now- just a theory.
The closure of Guantanamo bay is something. Hopefully not a ruse to secretly build another one elsewhere.
Posted by: Helene | January 25, 2009 at 11:13 AM
Here is an interesting article that was no surprise to me at all:
http://chronicle.com/temp/reprint.php?id=gqchf08syrq7qfcxqfzjh9d949ndm2k2
It is hard to disagree with the conclusion:
"It is a great socioreligious irony — for lack of a better term — that when we consider the fundamental values and moral imperatives contained within the world's great religions, such as caring for the sick, the infirm, the elderly, the poor, the orphaned, the vulnerable; practicing mercy, charity, and goodwill toward one's fellow human beings; and fostering generosity, humility, honesty, and communal concern over individual egotism — those traditionally religious values are most successfully established, institutionalized, and put into practice at the societal level in the most irreligious nations in the world today."
Posted by: peter | February 01, 2009 at 03:08 AM
Peter. You do burn the midnight oil!
IMO Most religions are a blight on mankind.
Jesus did not bring religion, but a relationship (as son or daughter) to the One who created the universe!
Are Denmark and Sweden living on the 'memory' of religious morality? This is not considered in the reference.
Also Sweden is not a utopia they still have a child abuse problem: http://faculty.biola.edu/paulp/sweden2.html
Also a parent abuse problem: http://www.nkmr.org/english/spectre_of_childrens_gulag_haunts_sweden.htm
Your reference sets up many 'straw man' arguments such as: "...and that when Darwinian/evolutionary theory is widely accepted in a given society, all morality is abandoned." Of course Darwinism does not necessarily result in all morality being abandoned.
One of the least religious governments in recent times would have been Pol Pot in Cambodia / Kampuchea. Are you saying it was the religious people's fault that they forced their non religious government to slaughter them?
Posted by: robk | February 01, 2009 at 08:42 AM
Rob K
I've not looked in detail at the Cambodian thing but yes, I would not be surprised to hear that religious people had co-opted the non-religious. Or that religion had been used as a weapon to beat unfavoured people over the head!
It could well be that principles of Christianity are among those feeding into a society like Denmark, and that they sensed the right time to be moving on and evolving as a society.
We all need to do the same!
Posted by: peter | February 02, 2009 at 02:55 PM
Interesting link:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10553333
In spite of all campaigns including yours Ian, Helen Clark wins Greatest Living New Zealander award, by a comfortable margin.
Was looking for your name Ian, after all the times your name came up over the last year or two. Did you feature?
Posted by: peter | February 03, 2009 at 10:13 PM